If only feminism were on a white horse
Trump sure has brought them out of the woodwork. Great job, President Pussygrabber!
The latest wisdom from Michael Shermer:
When I think of feminists I think of Inez Milholland, led 1913 march on DC, not today's fainting couchers @CHSommers https://t.co/FXwYh90SJj pic.twitter.com/tPjJgM1yYg
— Michael Shermer (@michaelshermer) December 5, 2016
When I think of feminists I think of Inez Milholland, led 1913 march on DC, not today’s fainting couchers
Well of course he does. She’s pretty, she’s young, she’s on a gleaming white horse, and above all she’s safely in the past. Of course men who hate feminism are down with pretty women on white horses in 1913; what’s not to like?
What a shitty, gratuitous, ignorant thing to say. It implies that all contemporary feminists are “fainting couchers” who are an insult to the memory of Inez Milholland who rode a white horse. That’s not the case.
Also, oddly enough, it’s not really Michael Shermer’s job or duty or role to decide who is the right kind of feminist, any more than it’s his role to decide who is the right kind of LGB rights activist or ant-racism activist. Nobody asked him, and his opinion isn’t needed. He’s a shallow, smug libertarian who thinks he’s much cleverer than he is – another Thomas Friedman or David Brooks except not as famous.
I invite him to return to the woodwork.
And Shermer, as of 28m ago according to Twitter, was going all ga-ga over Ben Shapiro. Huh.
How fondly I recall those days of yore, when my hesitation to call myself an atheist was born of fear of theistic backlash. Kudos to the Dawkins’s, the Shermers, and all the “friendly atheists” out there who have given me altogether different reasons to shun the label.
“Fainting couchers?” So man calls women he disagrees with “hysterical.”
Gee, how original of Mr. Shermer. /s
For heaven’s sake, she was a campaigning lawyer and war correspondent at a time when neither of those things were easy for a woman to be, don’t you think those things might be more salient than her looks? Whether or not you think she was notably young at 27 will depend on where you are in life, I suppose, and whether you think her pretty comes down to personal taste, but I don’t think it is the first thing many people would notice about her. Shermer made no reference to the looks or age of this extraordinary woman, it is pretty low to use those things as a way to attack him and not a little insulting of the woman herself.
Well… B&W includes almost daily reports on the self-erasing, no-platforming, woman-hating pseudo feminists. ‘Fainting couch’ is off the mark, but not too strong language.
Maybe, just maybe, Shermer is showing some parallel concern? Nah. He probably chose Milholland because she looked cute on horseback. Did he acknowledge anything she actually did?
Shermer is probably just concerned that women are allowed to own things…property, their own body…and feminists are all in favor of that.
To be sure, he is probably only concerned about the second. As a libertarian, he probably has no problem with someone (even women) being allowed to own property. But only men should own women’s bodies, right?
Right there in the quoted tweet he mentions how she led the march on DC that was an important event in winning the vote for women (along with the other marches she led and took part in). He doesn’t say anything about how cute or otherwise she looks. You have to go to the blogpost and the comments for that.
No he doesn’t mention that. He mentions “1913 march on DC.” Period. “that was an important event in winning the vote for women (along with the other marches she led and took part in)” is your addition. You said that, he did not.
And no, of course he didn’t say anything about her looks. He didn’t have to, did he.
Pinkeen @ 4 – you must be joking. Why the fuck did he post that photo then? What’s it got to do with anything? It certainly doesn’t inform us about her CV. Of course I personally think those things are more salient than her looks, but I see no reason to think Shermer does, since he didn’t mention them. Are you actually claiming that her looks are not “the first thing many people would notice about her” via this tweet? How can her looks possibly help being the first many people would notice about her when it’s all there is?
John @ 5
No, it’s far from almost daily, especially since the election. But more to the point, I never present those people as “feminists” tout court the way Shermer did in that tweet.
Feminists who express any kind of vulnerability, hurt feelings, or other emotional response to discrimination are dismissed as “fainting couch” feminists.
Feminists who complain about discrimination without those pesky “feminine emotions” are mocked as ball-busting humorless harridans.
The only way to “win” is to not complain at all. Why, it’s almost like the game is being rigged against them.
There goes Pinkeen, consciously and knowingly missing the point to troll, once again.
I’m a bit more interested in your take on the article to be honest.
Reading it, it looks like a load of crap to me. I mean it kind of comes off as pushing a “real America” narrative in order to dismiss feminist issues and gloss over real problems with a patina of false working class consciousness. A bit like the tired old idea of the right’s “silent majority”.
Yeah feminism is only about the 1% who are CEOs, because pay inequality has no consequences for the other 99% right?/sarcasm.
Anyway it looks like her idea of what feminists are writing about, and what I’m seeing feminists write about, well they don’t seem to be the same feminists.
But then I’m an idiot, so I may be looking at it peculiarly.
Oh, I think the article is garbage, but I didn’t bother to say so because it’s so recycled. It’s what Sommers has been saying to earn her paycheck from the American Enterprise Institute for years. She’s become a total hack.
As to the tweet – I don’t think he really meant to focus on her looks. I think he is using her the way the right uses MLK Jnr, or Christians like to use figures like Carl Sagan.
Here is a proper feminist who never would have done all the things these uncouth modern feminists do, look at how awesome she is, now that she is safely in the grave and thus unlikely to complain about modern feminist issues.
Why look at how unconcerned she is about sexual assault, see she’s not saying one word about it. Okay that’s because she’s dead, but still, not a word. Why couldn’t you be more like her?
And equal pay for equal work – she doesn’t even get paid for hers. Okay that’s because she died in 1916, and thus her work is out of copyright but still, her work is free – and you don’t hear her complaining about only getting 75%.
So what if in life she had the same objections to objectification that are common in feminist circles today – bemoaning the fact that people were quicker to speak of her beauty than her brains, she ain’t complaining now.
What a good feminist. No “fainting coucher” her, she’s dead.
I don’t think I really have to belabour the point on how the more I think about that tweet, the more it irritates me.
I didn’t say he meant to focus on her looks [to the exclusion of all else]. I said “She’s pretty, she’s young, she’s on a gleaming white horse, and above all she’s safely in the past. Of course men who hate feminism are down with pretty women on white horses in 1913.” The horse is part of it, the safely in the past is part of it, and the pretty & young are part of it. If they weren’t part of it, why would he include the photo?
Ophelia Benson
If it had been me, I’d have used the photo just to show her leading the march. Also tweets with pics tend to get more traction for some reason.
That said, I’m not Shermer, and given what we all know about Shermer, I wouldn’t necessarily put it past him. I just don’t think he’s bright enough for that degree of subtlety.
> If they weren’t part of it, why would he include the photo?
One possible reason for including that photo is that it is one of the two of her on the wiki page about her, and that photo is more of an “action” and “leadership” photo than the other one (a posed portrait). There may be little more to the choice of photo than that.
It seems like everyone might be missing the point. It really isn’t so much about whether Shermer is commenting on her looks or not; it’s that he is telling modern feminists how to be a “proper” feminist. This is really much like Dawkins and his dismissing the grabs around the water cooler…we are calling attention to things he doesn’t consider important, and he wants to chastise us for that.
When we get hung up in railing at Ophelia for being snarky about something he didn’t actually say, we are doing exactly the sort of thing that we should not do…letting him get us squabbling at each other over nothing. We need to pay more attention to what he is doing…mansplaining…and forget about whether Ophelia’s snark is a perfect target or not. This doesn’t help, it doesn’t move the conversation along, it just stirs up a lot of mud and keeps the sunlight from reaching the issue.
Shermer doesn’t like modern feminism. He wants us to do it differently. He feels that women fighting the things we’re fighting now are on the “fainting couch” while women like her were fighting for something important – the vote. That’s the way I read the tweet. I don’t claim to be able to read his mind (or anyone else’s), but come on, cut Ophelia some slack and quit thinking snark has to be perfectly true. Are we really quibbling about purely philosophical points when we should be banding together and pointing out that these issues are important? After all, women won the vote, so fighting that particular battle…which I suspect is where he’d like us to go…is merely maintenance. He wants us to sit down and shut up, but he isn’t willing to say it in those exact words. And I for one am not prepared to let him, or any other privileged male who hasn’t had to deal with constant grabbing, leering, or contempt, tell me what is and isn’t important.
Why include a photo of her at all? It’s got nothing to do with his implicit claim, which is that she is the right kind of feminist as opposed to the fainters of today.
Of course it’s possible that he had some other reason for including the photo. Maybe he promised his grandmother that he would always include a photo of Inez Milholland whenever he tweeted about her. Who knows.
But we’re allowed to look at images attached to messages and draw conclusions about what the messenger is hoping to tell us. I don’t think my conclusion about Shermer’s message here is so far-fetched that it needs all these “wull maybe it was the first one he saw when he looked for a photo of her” claims.
I was typing when iknklast posted. Yes, that too.
But I know from experience that Coel gets very angry when I disrespect Shermer.
iknklast @ 19 – I wasn’t being wholly snarky, though. I mean it. I really do think it makes a difference to Shermer that Inez Millholland looks pretty in that photo. I really do think he chose it for that reason. I know anti-feminists have attacked feminists with the “feminists are just ugly women who can’t get a man” since forever. I really do think Shermer was playing that card…much as Trump would and did.
Might not hurt Shermer’s view of Inez that she was into polyamory and described women’s role in society as doing for society what they did at home either.
One notices, as much as Shermer protests and protests “I am SO a feminist!” he is unable/unwilling to name one feminist beyond the year 1913…
…besides Michael Shermer, of course.
It’s a little like how many white conservatives today love their imaginary version of MLK Jr. — you know, the one who totally would have opposed affirmative action and Black Lives Matter….