Over on Diotima, Shonda writes:
Once again, an anti-feminist criticizes feminists for not being sexist. To do as Shonda suggests – to be more interested in gender than ideology – would be sexist. NOW is absolutely right to oppose Owen based on Owen’s ideology, rather than support her based on her sex.
Second, there’s no hypocrisy in NOW simultaneously wanting Bush to generally appoint more women, while opposing particular Bush appointments (male and female) that NOW thinks will be more-than-usually harmful. It’s called “pursing multiple goals,” and all political actors do it; but strangely enough, only feminists are criticized for it.
Meanwhile, at the Insolvent Republic of Blogistan, Justin writes:
This is a good example of how totally clueless conservatives are about feminism. “Equity feminism” and “gender feminism” are terms made up by Christina Hoff Sommers; an “equity feminist” is a right-wing feminist, a “gender feminist” is any other kind of feminist.
The problem is, using those terms leads to people spouting absolute nonsense. Countless feminists who are “gender feminists” in Christina Hoff Sommers’ terms have defended sex work and sex workers; indeed, the 1980s split in feminism over this issue (called the “sex wars” by many feminists) is the most significant intra-feminist debate of the last twenty years.
It takes a stunning level of ignorance to claim that no feminists other than “equity” (aka conservative) feminists advocate for the right of “hookers and strippers” to work. But that level of ignorance is pretty much the norm among conservative critics of feminism.
