If Websites Were People: Jezebel

Posted: June 4, 2012 in Feminism, internet
Tags: , ,

I find these comments on Jezebel, white middle class feminist online magazine funny and astute.

But I think some ‘feminist critics’ like to differentiate between ‘bad’ feminism and ‘good’ feminism. Whether the ‘bad’ feminism is the #radfem2012 conference or the privileged girls at Jezebel, there is still an inference that this contrasts with good feminist struggle.

As you probably know by now I make no such distinctions. I am against feminismS…

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/against-feminisms/

h/t @allyfogg @furrygirl

Comments
  1. elissa says:

    That video is quite funny and on the mark.

    Some feminist critics like to believe that radfem can be easily disentangled from fun-fem, third wave fem, or even sex positive fem – but the mentality is borne out of one petri dish: the personal is the political and anything that gives me discomfort is engineered by the patriarchy to oppress me.

    There is a cute joke on the Internet that goes something like this:

    “Asteroid hits earth causing wide spread death and destruction. Women hit hardest!”

    The above pretty much summarizes the nature of feminist discourse. The funny-tragic part is that men’s right groups seem to be heading in the same direction…

    • Danny says:

      Some feminist critics like to believe that radfem can be easily disentangled from fun-fem, third wave fem, or even sex positive fem – but the mentality is borne out of one petri dish: the personal is the political and anything that gives me discomfort is engineered by the patriarchy to oppress me.
      As one is is critical of feminism I think its very possible to disentangle the good from the bad.

      The first step is to not get caught up labels.

      Labels are what allow feminists to hide behind the “but all feminists aren’t like that”.

      To which I respond, “You’re right they aren’t. They are good ones and you are bad ones.”

      That whole thing about fun-fem, whatever number waver, sex positive, radfem, etc…. No at the end of the day the only way you can tell if they are in good faith is to check out what they have to say. The labels are just a layer obscurity that let’s them hide their negativity.

  2. 8ball says:

    God, I’ve hated Jezebel ever since I read their “We beat up our boyfriends ISN’T THAT HILARIOUS??” article (which, fortunately for me, was the first article I ever read on there) That whole site is nothing but a bunch of pretentious upper and middle class white women looking for things to be outraged about so they can feel like one of the cool “victim” kids.

    I mean, Hugo Schwyzer writes for them. That pretty much tells me everything I need to know.

  3. redpesto says:

    There is a cute joke on the Internet that goes something like this:

    “Asteroid hits earth causing wide spread death and destruction. Women hit hardest!”

    The ‘Comment Is Free’ version was even more succinct:

    “World ends: women disproportionately affected”

    Sure, it’s snarky – but it reflects the logic of almost every single feminist article on the economy since 2008…well, that and the ‘Lehman Sisters’ argument that says we wouldn’t be in a depression if women ran the banking system/economy/planet. (See also this gem that ends up arguing that female unelected hereditary heads of state are good for feminism…arrrggh! the smugness, it burnses us).

    PS: Thrifted wedding dresses are feminist? Is that because the boyfriend gets to wear them? Or because “Jezebel says so” even though the next article denounces weddings as a tool of the patriarchy (well, just the straight weddings anyway)?

  4. redpesto says:

    QRG:

    But I think some ‘feminist critics’ like to differentiate between ‘bad’ feminism and ‘good’ feminism. Whether the ‘bad’ feminism is the #radfem2012 conference or the privileged girls at Jezebel, there is still an inference that this contrasts with good feminist struggle

    Ah yes, you can never find a true Scotsman when you want one (and they always get invoked when you don’t). Part of me thinks the fallout over #radfem2012 is a whole bunch of women backing away from what is in fact ‘vulgar feminism with a BA (Hons)’ – especially if it turns out that the conference was hoping to pull in a younger generation of zealots rather than being a nostalgic get-together for the 80s throwbacks.

    I’m sure you disagree, QRG, but if I make distinctions between feminisms, one of them is between the bits that work and are useful, and the bits that don’t and aren’t.

    • good comments, all.

      as far as I am concerned, the bits of feminism that work only do so outside of feminist dogma.so for example Butler’s theories of performativity work, but not as part of a doctrine that suggests pressures on women to ‘perform’ gender are greater than pressures on men.

      and, as people always say to me what about the sufraggettes? well again their campaigning only worked for me, because it coincided with/inflluenced campaigns for universal suffrage, not just ‘votes for (Middle class) women’.

  5. [...] I found this humorous vid at Quiet Riot Girl’s [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s