How stupid are these people? You can't believe who I tricked next!

There is a certain group among us that's far more easily fooled than other groups. You can trick them into just about anything, and they won't even notice. Even as they charge ahead over the nearest cliffside, they will continue to think they're approaching truth and reason.

I am, of course, speaking of antifeminists.

You might think I'm exaggerating, but this is actually far less complicated than you think, and far easier than it should be. Just say that a feminist has done or said something stupid, and they will believe it. It doesn't matter what you say (or even how you say it) - they will be all abuzz. And whatever you say after that, they will be abuzz to such a degree that they will accept it out of sheer momentum.

It is super effective.

It becomes even more effective is these people think themselves rational critical thinkers. All that energy that could go into critical analysis of what you say is channeled into being critical of that feminist you've mentioned. With happy enthusiasm they'll go ahead being critical, and once they've spent all their energy they are more than happy to accept whatever you have to say.

But this is amazing! you might be thinking. Followed shortly thereafter by the thought that the utility of this is slightly limited by your lack of knowledge of feminism and feminist thinkers. Which is a rational thought. Thing is, though, that the antifeminists don't know much about these things either, and that you have a large degree of freedom to just make up stupid feminists as you go along. It doesn't matter if these feminists actually said anything stupid or not (or even if they even exist) - the response is the same. And once their critical thinking is exhausted -

Ah, you see where this is going. Good.

I can see that you're eager to test this rhetorical superpower, so I won't keep you. I just want to end this by carefully selected quote from a famous feminist:

With great power comes great responsibility, and that is why men lose their faculties of reason real fast whenever they are confronted with a woman.

Good luck!

Originally published November 23, 2014

Remember unthank

It is nice to be thanked. It is even nicer to be thanked. Especially when it is deserved, and even more so when it is unexpected.

Therefore, it would be nice of you to make it a point to thank those in your vicinity. To thank those who do the emotional lifting. Those who picks up the slack when you don't. Whose default mode is to do everything everyone else don't. Who, in ordinary and crisis situations alike, are the ones to keep tempers and group cohesion both from crashing into the dust-free floor.

It takes a lot of effort and energy to keep a situation where nothing happens going. And most of it happens in the dark, unthanked underbelly of the everyday bore- and choredom.

So. Do make it a point to seek out those who effort, and thank them.

It's the little things.

Stupidity by association

There are people out there who argue against feminism.

This, in and of itself, is not a strange thing. Make any kind of speech act at all, and someone will inevitably find a way to argue against it. Even if you are God almighty accompanied by all the angels singing the Hymn of Truth, there will inevitably be someone. It's going to happen, so don't fret it.

The strange thing about people arguing against feminism is that they, for whatever reason, don't just settle for arguing. They could say "hey, I've read your argument, and there are some points I happen to disagree with, and here's why". They could say that. That would be a reasonable thing to say. And, to be sure, the polite thing to say.

Instead, it goes something like this:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GENDER! PEOPLE ARE BORN THAT WAY, BE IT MALE OR FEMALE! THERE ARE NO SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS, AND THEREFORE NORMS AND DISCOURSE CANNOT INFLUENCE THE WAY SEXED BEINGS ACT AND THINK!

Which, allcaps aside, is the strangest thing to say. It goes way beyond the needs of the argument - it in effect takes us right back to the nineteenth century when it comes to social sciences. Which, all in all, is slightly overkill.

You may or may not be familiar with Occams razor. In this case, it's not so much a razor as a full blown ultradeluxe electrorazor 5000, with all the extra trimming features added. The result is not only the removal of those things that are deemed superfluous to the argument, but of all the things useful in understanding this society we live in. Sociology, political science, psychology - all thrown overboard in the effort to show that Feminism Is Wrong. Feminists use it, and therefore it is Wrong too.

I can't help but be constantly flabbergasted by the enthusiasm behind this reduction to absurdity. Feminism is wrong - and therefore we can't know anything about how large scale societal systems works. Feminism is wrong - and therefore there is no such thing as critique of power dynamics within institutions. Feminism is wrong - and therefore writers like Proust can't tell us anything about how humans work.

Go go antifeminists. Stay strong.

The evil feminists are attacking! ...somehow!

It is very fashionable to argue using feminism as a garbage heap. That is, one offloads all the evils of the world onto it and forgets all about it whenever it's not directly mentioned. No matter where, how or when - feminism always wants the most evil of all things, and there's no end to the evilness once the offloading gets going. Whatever evil it is - feminism wants it.

There's a lot of evil in the world that needs forgetting, it would seem.

The strangest thing about this is that it is always Feminism as an abstract entity that's invoked. It's very seldom a specific happening or person that's put to blame - as if the feminist terror is more existential than material.

One might, at this point, expect someone to burst forth, dramatically waving a copy of the SCUM manifesto, triumphantly proclaiming instant victory. Which is interesting, since it was published in 1967, and you'd think the all-encompassing threat of feminism would have produced more than one provocative piece of literature during the last forty years.

Really? Only the one text in forty years? Wow. Much scare.

It's enough to give one pause. Who's the scary feminist that wants all these evil things? Is it Judith Butler? bell hooks? Angela Davis? Susan Faludi? Helene Cixous? Luce Irigaray? Julia Kristeva? Catharine MacKinnon? Susan Bordo? Simone de Beauvoir? Betty Friedan? Virginia Woolf? Mary Wollstonecraft? Sojourner Truth? -

I imagine there being avid antifeminists reading this, and wondering who all these people are. If you're one such person, then this is a sign. A sign that you really have no clue as to what you're anti about, and base your opinions more on uncritical momentum than on actual knowledge.

Which is very much like criticizing Lord of the Rings without knowing who Gandalf is. No matter how good your poker face might be, you still look like a fool.

It does not suit you as well as you think.

Originally published January 19, 2014

The equally selective utopia

There are people who maintain that the quest for gender equality is completed.

Fulfilled. One hundred percent done. Finished. Executed according to plan, summarized in the postmortem, and yet another milestone on the path of modernity towards perfection.

Mission accomplished. Fait accompli. Let's move on.

Seen from the eyes of these people, any additional efforts to increase gender equality is by definition a wasted effort. Since we've already achieved it. Instead, such efforts are seen as threats, errors in judgement or outright attacks - especially by those who are expected to take part in these efforts.

Especially by men.

They maintain that when something is done, it's done. And it's done for a reason: everything that needed to be done has been done. If everything that needed to be done hadn't been done, the doing wouldn't have stopped, and the work would still be in progress. But it has been done, so nothing more needs to be done. Therefore, stop doing!

It is a strange way of thinking. One can almost understand it if one tries hard enough, but this does not diminish the strangeness.

It would appear that the message that perfection was achieved was broadcasted during a major disturbance in the communications networks. Some got the message, others didn't. Which is, indeed, a strange order of things.

Some got the message that Utopia had arrived. Others got the message that the dishes had to be done today too. And tomorrow. And the day after that. And all days after that.

It is indeed a strange order of things.

Originally published October 24, 2013

Why all liberals are feminists by default

Let's jump right in to it. No introduction, just premises.

Premise 1: The state exist in order to and is legitimized by securing the rights of its citizens.

There's nothing controversial about this. You can go back to any of the big names of liberal theory, and they will expound at length about how the rights of the individual are of the utmost importance.

Premise 2: Among these rights we find the right to not be exposed to acts of violence.

Again, nothing strange or controversial about this. It might be argued that criminals in the act of being criminal are exempt from this, which they are. In general, though, an honest, law-abiding citizen has the right to not be violenced upon when not doing anything out of the ordinary.

Premise 3: If and when the rights of citizens are violated, it is imperative that the state provide institutions that serve to address the situation.

Most notable among these institutions are the courts and the police. These two institutions are by far the most important in this case, but they are by no means the only ones of this kind.

Premise 4: If and when these institutions fail to prevent or address violations of an individual's rights, this delegitimizes the state as it stands.

This goes back to premise 1 - the state exists in order to guarantee the rights of its citizens. If it fails to do so, it fails to accomplish its main mission. This is a call for change - in minor cases a reform in how the affected institutions go about their business, in major cases revolution.

It is from these four premises that I draw the conclusion that also serve as the title of this post. If you are a liberal, you are also, by default, a feminist. By virtue of the following statement:

Women are citizens too.

This means that, should you be serious about being a liberal, the symbolic, physical and sexual violence against women are a concern that seriously concerns you. Every time a citizen's rights are violated is also, as it were, a failure of the actually existing liberal state to accomplish its mission, and this does not change by virtue of these citizens being women. All citizens are equal before the law, and are thus guaranteed the same right to not be violated.

This is a call for change. Feminist change.

I sense that there are those who would like to argue at this point. Especially liberals. I encourage you to do so. I also, as a friendly reminder, encourage you to argue in a way that does not portray women as something akin to second class citizens, or, worse, not citizens at all. It would rather defeat the point, after all. -

Feminism made easy

It has been brought to my attention that it is hard to grasp what a feminist analysis is. That it is unclear what one is supposed to do. That there is no immediately available starting point, and that one has to work through layers of layers of academia to get anything done.

Fun fact: it's a lot easier than it looks.

Let's, for instance, look at a workplace. Let's look at how people behave in the break room. Let's look at how the men are gathered around the pinball machine that HR brought in to boost morale and creativity. Let's look at how the women are gathered in the kitchen, busily planning the next office party.

BOOM! Feminist analysis complete. Achievement unlocked.

It's that easy.

You can, of course, make things harder on yourself and add any numbers of  extra bells and whistles to your analysis. You don't really need to, but you can. If you really want to.

It would be nice if it was a hard thing to do a feminist analysis. If you had to dig through layers and layers of obscure and complicated theories in order to get anywhere. That would mean that patriarchy is just about gone, and that you'd have to work your genderbending arse in to shape in order to find the last vestiges of it. But, alas, you more often than not just have to look at a given situation to note how things are structured around gendered lines.

Feminist analysis is easy. Punching patriarchy where it hurts is not as easy. But worth it nevertheless.