I have felt (?! I mean thought!) for some time now that feminism owes gender-cobblers a debt of gratitude. It has forced us long-term feminists to confront a central truth -- that on the whole, and taking into account pie chart overlaps and bell curves etc -- men and women are very deeply not the same.
I have felt (?! I mean thought!) for some time now that feminism owes gender-cobblers a debt of gratitude. It has forced us long-term feminists to confront a central truth -- that on the whole, and taking into account pie chart overlaps and bell curves etc -- men and women are very deeply not the same.
The feminist first wave, women like Mary Wollstonecraft and then the Pankhursts, were fighting against the law's refusal to treat women as adult human beings. The law had 1,000 years of chivalrous feudalism at its back -- no-one knew how much of femininity was socially constructed and how much innate. I can see why the first and second waves went all-in on pretending there are no differences and emphasizing the commonality.
But it's time to move on. It turns out men have a deeply programmed need for status and that home-making has a profound social value.
I get intersectionality insofar as it applies to things like racial discrimination and disability. But anything contaminated by Judith Butler's foul gobbledigook isn't meaningful feminism. So I'm dubious about whether that thing that started in the 1990s can be counted as a Third Wave. Instead, it's the regression that a Third Wave needs to confront, based on an understanding that any women's rights movement that continues to underplay biology will look irrelevant and foolish.
I have felt (?! I mean thought!) for some time now that feminism owes gender-cobblers a debt of gratitude. It has forced us long-term feminists to confront a central truth -- that on the whole, and taking into account pie chart overlaps and bell curves etc -- men and women are very deeply not the same.
The feminist first wave, women like Mary Wollstonecraft and then the Pankhursts, were fighting against the law's refusal to treat women as adult human beings. The law had 1,000 years of chivalrous feudalism at its back -- no-one knew how much of femininity was socially constructed and how much innate. I can see why the first and second waves went all-in on pretending there are no differences and emphasizing the commonality.
But it's time to move on. It turns out men have a deeply programmed need for status and that home-making has a profound social value.
It's time to build the Third Wave.
We're actually on our fourth wave of feminism.
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/16955588/feminism-waves-explained-first-second-third-fourth
I get intersectionality insofar as it applies to things like racial discrimination and disability. But anything contaminated by Judith Butler's foul gobbledigook isn't meaningful feminism. So I'm dubious about whether that thing that started in the 1990s can be counted as a Third Wave. Instead, it's the regression that a Third Wave needs to confront, based on an understanding that any women's rights movement that continues to underplay biology will look irrelevant and foolish.
looks like many haven't even encountered the first rung.