Honestly? Fuck anti feminist Caitllin Flanagan and the traditional gender role promoting house wife lifestyle that she thinks is best for all of society. Fuck her.
Honestly, I think it's because there's this feminist idea that a woman should bear no responsibility for anything labeled bad that happens to her, especially if it involves anything sexual.
Like most things, that idea began as one legitimately applied to certain, limited circumstances; but that complexity was forgotten in its popularization. Now we're left with an over-simplified (and wrong) remnant that's still treated as gospel.
I believe the parent comment (it is flagged now so I can't be sure) used the term anti-feminist because the author has previously described herself as an anti-feminist.
To the question, it is anti-feminist by its acceptance of the unequal social status of men and women today. Both the feminist and the anti-feminist agree that there is social inequality between men and women, but to the feminist the best action is to create social equality while to the anti-feminist the best action is for men and women to act appropriately to their differing circumstances. The thought that "a woman ought to say no" to unwanted experiences is focused on adjusting the behavior of the woman to her current unequal circumstances and is thus anti-feminist. A feminist would agree that women should say no to unwanted experiences, but will also say that women should not be exposed to so many unwanted experiences to begin with.
It's useful to read about the author of this article because she is using this incident to push her larger worldview. To be clear: I believe this isn't an article concerned about Aziz or "Grace" as people, nor about people who wind up in similar situations, it's about taking a high profile example and contorting it to a pre-established narrative.
1) To embarrass and humiliate Aziz
2) To suggest that men even those who are standing up for #metoo are culpable.
3) To suggest even further that in the man vs woman debate, men are more responsible due to the fact that woman do not have choices when dealing with aggressive men.
My reading of these events is that it is fairly polarizing for many, some suggesting (on twitter) that men should learn to read "signals" and this is common issue. While others suggesting that her own actions like the oral sex are the signals.
But overall in my mind this was feminist revenge porn, which has been triggered by the growing influence of the #metoo movement. It was definitely not representative of the movement, help to the movement, or anything other than just a vexatious attempt to get some revenge.
The author repeatedly writes attacks against feminists, but dresses them up as other topics of interest. This article is framed as a defense of Aziz Ansari from the perspective of an aging female baby-boomer detatched from the younger generation. But its core is a laudation of the sexist environment responsible for creating strong women familiar with saying "No" to sexual pressure, and a jumble of insults vilifying various feminists. As another example, she did the same thing in 2004 with a piece ostensibly about nannies. Ms. Magazine has a thorough criticism of the piece and of the author,
"A little reporting would have gone a long way to help Flanagan’s argument that nannies are suffering at the hands of feminists. But there wasn’t much there. ... Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in an email discussion with Flanagan and the writer Sara Mosle in Slate magazine, 'if [Flanagan’s] piece was about how employers should pay their nannies' Social Security taxes, then my reading skills are in serious decline.'"
Two months ago Flannigan wrote, "In the America of earlier generations, one thing that silenced women who wanted to report unwanted sexual acts was how important it was not to damage a man’s career, his reputation, his family. Was one unpleasant event really enough to cause so much trouble to a respected member of the community, to a breadwinner?" but that was in order to take a jab at feminist Al Franken. Today she presents the other side, "Aziz Ansari was a man whom many people admired and whose work, although very well paid, also performed a social good. ... a man who didn’t deserve it." That kind of selective logic is confusing until it's understood that the only consistency in her writing are the attacks against feminism.
9 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] threadLike most things, that idea began as one legitimately applied to certain, limited circumstances; but that complexity was forgotten in its popularization. Now we're left with an over-simplified (and wrong) remnant that's still treated as gospel.
To the question, it is anti-feminist by its acceptance of the unequal social status of men and women today. Both the feminist and the anti-feminist agree that there is social inequality between men and women, but to the feminist the best action is to create social equality while to the anti-feminist the best action is for men and women to act appropriately to their differing circumstances. The thought that "a woman ought to say no" to unwanted experiences is focused on adjusting the behavior of the woman to her current unequal circumstances and is thus anti-feminist. A feminist would agree that women should say no to unwanted experiences, but will also say that women should not be exposed to so many unwanted experiences to begin with.
This case in particular is difficult because "Grace", according to her account, was sending mixed non-verbal signals.
1) To embarrass and humiliate Aziz 2) To suggest that men even those who are standing up for #metoo are culpable. 3) To suggest even further that in the man vs woman debate, men are more responsible due to the fact that woman do not have choices when dealing with aggressive men.
My reading of these events is that it is fairly polarizing for many, some suggesting (on twitter) that men should learn to read "signals" and this is common issue. While others suggesting that her own actions like the oral sex are the signals.
But overall in my mind this was feminist revenge porn, which has been triggered by the growing influence of the #metoo movement. It was definitely not representative of the movement, help to the movement, or anything other than just a vexatious attempt to get some revenge.
"A little reporting would have gone a long way to help Flanagan’s argument that nannies are suffering at the hands of feminists. But there wasn’t much there. ... Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in an email discussion with Flanagan and the writer Sara Mosle in Slate magazine, 'if [Flanagan’s] piece was about how employers should pay their nannies' Social Security taxes, then my reading skills are in serious decline.'"
http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
Two months ago Flannigan wrote, "In the America of earlier generations, one thing that silenced women who wanted to report unwanted sexual acts was how important it was not to damage a man’s career, his reputation, his family. Was one unpleasant event really enough to cause so much trouble to a respected member of the community, to a breadwinner?" but that was in order to take a jab at feminist Al Franken. Today she presents the other side, "Aziz Ansari was a man whom many people admired and whose work, although very well paid, also performed a social good. ... a man who didn’t deserve it." That kind of selective logic is confusing until it's understood that the only consistency in her writing are the attacks against feminism.