flexibeast

In following discussions around critiques or criticisms of feminisms - e.g. for whorephobia, 'saviourism', transphobia etc. - i've noticed a number of techniques being used to downplay or dismiss these critiques and/or criticisms. Here are some of them:

• "Anyone criticising feminism is obviously ignorant of what feminism is about."

It's pretty arrogant to assume that criticism of feminism can only come from a place of ignorance, rather than through e.g. extensive lived experiences of feminism and feminists.


• "Anyone who is sexworker-hostile or trans-hostile isn't a real feminist."

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.


• "Critical of feminism? You must be an MRA."

This assumes a dichotomy in which one is either (pro-) feminist/feminism or an MRA. Feminism doesn't own all opposition to patriarchy / sexism / misogyny.


• "You're damaging the cause by promoting such infighting!" (Thanks to @r_x_nn_ for reminding me of this one.)

Which cause? One might say "Well, liberating women from patriarchy and oppression." Okay, but does that then translate into, for example, the specific cause of utilising the state to 'save' and 'protect' certain women, regardless of how those women themselves feel? Who gets to decide what constitutes The Cause? And who decides which concerns - dismissed as "mere infighting" - are inherently less important than The Cause?

2013-04-03, ETA:


• "You've internalised patriarchy and its hatred of feminists and feminism."

Right. You're an Independent Thinker who has managed to struggle free of all patriarchal/kyriarchal influences; I am merely a robot carrying out patriarchal/kyriarchal programming.

i'll probably come back to this and add more examples as i encounter them.

[ Flattr this post ]