Feminism (like liberalism) is a word often redefined by people who despise it, or think they do, and so in a lot of conversations it means pretty much whatever someone doesn't like about feminism, or women, or themselves. 

Anyway, I'm one of the many people who have never read The Feminine Mystique, but I am rereading Anna Karenina, the latter being one I'd recommend to people who think they despise feminism, and I bet you my favorite Bryn Mawr t-shirt you probably are more of a feminist than you might think.

Comments

[formerly gt]

"Feminism (like liberalism) is a word often redefined by people who despise it"

yanking our chains Ed?

Glad that conservatism, Christianity, gun rights, Tea Party, etc are never redefined or misrepresented by their opponents.

And, i'm sure you lament the fact that too many times your fellow liberals/progressives attack the person who holds the belief as way to discredit the belief system.

[Ed Cone]

One of the strangest (to me, at least) responses to a given post is "you didn't cover every other possibly related topic in your post."

Which is true. Boiling the ocean takes a lot of wood and a really big pot.

But I did cover this aspect of the topic, about which we can talk, and that talk can include the inarguable fact that there are other examples of the same or similar phenomenon.

[justcorbly]

I've never really understood why failure to be perfect, or associating with similarly flawed humans, invalidates criticism of others who are less-than-perfect.

[formerly gt]

sorry I wasn't clear Ed. My point wasn't to state that "you didn't cover every other possibly related topic in your post."

my point was that when you consistently use examples that paint conservatives in a bad light, it detracts from your arguments and makes you seem like just another partisan hack pandering to the less thoughtful liberals/progressives who read you blog.

if you're interested in thoughtful discussion, don't always frame your posts in partisan terms.

is that clearer?

[Andrew Brod]

Perhaps I'm one of the less thoughtful people who read this blog, but it's quite clear that there was nothing partisan about this post. There was a slight ideological bent to it (though only slight), but that's different.

[Ed Cone]

I'll try to frame my next post about the way people view feminism and the half-century mark for a famous feminist book in a way that, wait, what?

[David Wharton]

"Feminism" is a word with no clear definition, and even those who claim it for themselves can't agree on what it means. I haven't read Anna K, so I don't know what portion of some brand of feminism you would predicate of self-confessed non feminists. Do you have something specific in mind?

[michele]

I'll re-read it. Thanks, Ed.

[polifrog]

If Sarah Palin taught us anything it is that a feminist is only a feminist if she accepts the communal effort that put her there; after all, we all know that no woman can succeed on her own merit.

[Ed Cone]

DW, I envy you for not having read Anna Karenina -- it gives you something truly enjoyable and significant to experience for the first time. It's no spoiler to say that the famous heroine lives in a world where women face social constraints that several subsequent generations of feminism have helped lessen.

As often happens, not sure what Frog is trying to say. Palin surely exemplifies some of feminism's accomplishments.

[polifrog]

No. Palin was rejected by feminists. Therefore, whatever Palin was it wasn't feminist.

[Andrew Brod]

As always, Frog is hung up on labels. And as usual, his logic is off.

Ed's statement (that Palin "exemplifies some of feminism's accomplishments") doesn't rely on Palin being an avowed feminist.

[Ed Cone]

See original post, re assigning definitions.

Whoever may constitute this group Frog deems "Feminists," they don't own feminism, nor would I expect anyone to argue that Palin does not represent the result of feminist accomplishments.