feminist-friendly, UK-based online publication called The Scavenger
has recently posted the following article:http://tinyurl.com/25udkuv
The article, titled "Don't rebrand feminsim, reclaim it",
is a drawn-out exercise in feminist subjectivism, composed in the intellectual boilerplate style to which we we have grown accustomed over the course of many years. As with nearly all feminist journalism, it has a whiff of the propaganda ministry about it. It is clear that the author presumes to be addressing a feminist audience, given the almost complete reliance on feminist jargon, plug-and-play feminist argumention, and feminist self-referentiality in various forms.
Clearly, a very large sector of the broader public would not feel part of the in-group whose worldview the author merely takes for granted. For example I, the present writer, do not feel part of that in-group. Therefore, I am addressing my own
in-group. I am also talking to a peripheral group whom I would encourage to sign on with my in-group in a more dedicated capacity and, by the in-draft of their motion toward the center, draw people from the further
periphery into the recently vacated closer periphery. And so forth.
The graphic image here displayed is found marching at the head of the column in the article we are discussing. The image is classic, iconic, archetypal, and meant to communicate -- in visual-conceptual terms -- the theme which the article takes up. But the original "Rosie the Riveter" character has been transformed into a contemporary young urban female -- a very different sort of person.
Kristin Aune, the author of the article, states clearly that feminism should be "reclaimed" and not rebranded.
Still, rebranding of a superficial sort
does occur here. However, the picture of the young woman is clearly intended to project the image of a feminism which it is proposed to reclaim.
That is why Kristin Aune has featured the picture so prominently at the top of the page.
What the image conveys, is a very radical
brand of feminism. Study it for a moment and I think you will agree. That the image does not
depict a smiling, apple-cheeked girl-next-door in dirndl and pigtails, may be reasonably concluded. Don't you agree?
Now, I would almost say that the image depicts a little fascista --
such would be my impression, anyway. But I know that can't be right, since the feminists tell us they are opposed to fascism and all that sort of thing . . . right? Still, this young woman surely does looks empowered; she is flexing her muscles and clenching her fist, and since feminism is the project to increase the power of women, well, I guess that makes her a feminist . . . right? I mean, since she is not a fascist,
what else could she be? Yes, the great thing about being not-a-fascist
is, that you can pass the fascist "duck test" in fourteen different ways, yet you can never be a fascist!
Now, somebody will surely take me to task here, informing me that the model for this picture is actually an upper-middleclass kid from the London Art School who is merely posing, and is, in real life, very sweet, smart, and funny. All right, fair enough, so she is merely posing -- that hardly surprises me!
But. . . posing as what?
I guess you would need to take into account what the average person on the outside of Kristin Aune's in-group would likely generalize at the sight of this. I say so, because I have absolutely no idea what the hell Kristin Aune and her in-group think this picture is supposed to look like. So I reckon I must fall back on my own little feelings
. . . eh?
Attuning to the vibe, then: what I think I see here is a sociopathic little vixen, a chavette or yobette from the social dregs of the British Isles, who (with mum's approval) got shagged by her older brother, whose interests have included getting "piss drunk" and dropping her knickers to urinate publicly on the pavement, and carving up your face with a broken bottle if you have an upperclass accent, who got kicked out of the girl's reformatory and subsequently fell in with a coven of radical feminists (the kind Erin Pizzey knows so well) who indoctrinated her with a hip new political analysis
which turbo-boosted her underlying psychic dysfunctionality.
Yes. Such is the impression I glean from the study of this image. Such is the Feminism which in facial terms I see depicted, or rather feel,
at the head of Kristin Aune's Scavenger
column -- and which Kristin Aune proposes to "reclaim". Am I being a tad melodramatic? Admittedly, yes. But if the actual nature of things is even one tenth as melodramatic
as what I am painting here, it ought to give us pause.
I left a reader comment on the Scavenger
article; one of only two at present. I share the text herewith:
"I would like to call attention to the picture at the top of the column, which shows a young woman clenching her fist and flexing her bicep, with a look of sneering bravado on her face.
"I would then call attention to what is generally stated in the first few paragraphs of the article, which sits immediately next to the picture.
"Briefly, these paragraphs inform us that feminism has a nasty reputation.
"I would ask the reader to reflect upon this, and to take a second look at the picture of the young woman while doing so, and to ponder the contextualization which the picture gives to the words in the article.
"I would then ask the reader if the irony and hypocrisy are not immediately evident . . and how anybody could possibly miss it?
"Finally, I would ask the reader to consider the celebrated Hans Christian Andersen fable about the little boy and the naked emperor."
Oh no, this is not your mother's radical feminist from thirty or forty years ago! This is not the exhumed corpse of Andrea Dworkin. Just look at that fresh face, in the very bloom of youth. Not more than twenty years old, I would guess. And how peculiar it is to read the first several paragraphs of Kristin Aune's article, where she laments the "pretty awful" negative stereotypes which feminism has attracted, while at the very same moment considering the icy gaze of this mean little feral feminist mama
with the sneering visage and "machismo"! Is it really possible that a big shit university lecturer like Kristen Aune can't put this puzzle together?
Does she not even remotely
comprehend the mixed message that her very own published work is transmitting to the non-feminist world? And does she seriously believe that other people are too jolly thick
to see this contradiction??
But such is the typical fate of those who are so seduced by the music of their own voices, or so taken in by the stories which they tell themselves about
themselves, that they cannot hear what other voices are telling them. Ahhh. . . feminist subjectivism!
Also, I reckon that if Kristen Aune wants to reclaim
feminism as opposed to merely rebranding it, then her choice of WHAT to reclaim is very, very limited. The whole point of rebranding
feminism, is to make it look respectable.
Thus, whatever "looks respectable" is ipso facto ruled out of consideration when the time comes for reclaiming
feminism. I would call that a dilemma! But this only lends more weight to what I have always known, namely, that the soul
of feminism is not respectable in the first place.
Kristen Aune is fighting the battle for feminism's soul, even if that expression is still unknown to her.
The nasty, ugly part of feminism is like a whale that can dive deep and stay out of sight for long spells, but must periodically surface for air. Otherwise, it will die. So yes, in order to "reclaim" this primordially potent
element of feminism -- the thing that actually makes feminism vital
-- it is necessary for the whale to surface, and to blow its spout, quite visibly and openly, for all the world to see. That is what reclaiming feminism means, and can only
So maybe Kristin isn't as dumb as she looks. Maybe she is taking a calculated risk, crossing her fingers as it were, hoping that you won't notice what is happening. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what to think. I could, if so inclined, give the entire article a line-by-line fisking
in the grand old tradition, to lay bare the workings of feminist subjectivism
all through the length of it. But I am not so inclined, and I am looking for ways to render that grand old tradition obsolete -- for it is like mowing the lawn with scissors when you ought to be riding a power mower. I am looking to take things to the next level, and I believe this can be done.
Our little feminista, depicted earlier, wants only the tools of her trade. Consider now, the
famous -- all right, infamous!
-- picture to the right. We've all seen it, or at least all who have been around the activated non-feminist community for any considerable time. Call this a whale-spouting, a true face manifestation,
an unveiling of feminism's soul in stark-naked graphic allegory. And what do we behold? A person who wants very badly to smash
something! And we are not much enlightened touching the identity of that "something", for it is a mysterious
something with a mysterious name: patriarchy.
But whatever this "patriarchy" is, we see a person who wants very, very badly to SMASH it. And we see this person skulking around with a deadly instrument, peering keenly this way and that, questing for the tiniest glimmer of this, this . . . "patriarchy". Whatever it is!
This person's bearing and demeanour connotes the zealotry of a rabid ferret, and the ferret is on a mission -- to smash "patriarchy"! Whatever the hell "patriarchy" is -- and you'd better hope to hell it won't turn out to be you,
buddy! It is all in vain, to protest that you have never seen "the patriarchy"; she sees it everywhere,
and if you know what is good for you, you'll take her word for it! So whatever you do, don't you ever, ever, ever give this fanatical, ferret-like woman a reason, or she might just decide that YOU are "patriarchy", and when she does, she might just swing (figuratively speaking) a ten-pound hammer called "feminism" straight down upon your ill-fated patriarchal noggin! And when that happens, it will serve you right because you have oppressed women for 4,267 years.
Hey, what the hell are YOU laughing about, asshole?? You don't think patriarchy is real????
Yes. Such is the true face of feminism. It is what they wish to "reclaim". Let none inform you otherwise!