It occurs to me that there would be far fewer obnoxious thread derails on feminist blogs (and this concept applies to all social justice spheres and intersectionalities, with the appropriate adjustments in language) If there weren't so many people who misconstrue:
"If you don't [like/respect/admire/spend time with/consider your equal/appreciate/enjoy talking to/otherwise positively engage with] any women, then you've got a misogyny problem."
to mean:
"If you don't [like/respect/admire/spend time with/consider your equal/appreciate/enjoy talking to/otherwise positively engage with] every woman, then you've got a misogyny problem."
Sometimes, that is a mistake made out of defensiveness by people steeped in unexamined privilege, the sort of reactionary deflection that's the hallmark of careless listening caused by existential panic.
But sometimes—more times, I think—it's a deliberate misconstrual used by fauxgressives who always have an exceptional hatred to offer, in order that they may be assured it's still okay to hate that lady.
All of which is a long way of saying, I estimate we're going to be playing the "Just because I hate Sarah Palin/Michele Bachmann, doesn't mean I hate ALL WOMEN" Mad-Lib around here a lot in the coming months, with people whose engagement of anti-feminist narratives to demean "individual women" suggests otherwise.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus