Felicity Sharpe Rebutting “Why I'm Not A Feminist”
Felicity Sharpe (Communism)
Katherine Revello (Classical Liberalism)
I would like to first to agree with Katherine that modern feminism is quite different to the feminism of the 1905-1950’s and even longer in some countries. But it’s interesting that a lot of Second Wave feminists are actually more pro-individual than the current type who have lost the true meaning of feminism. I also agree that modern feminism goes against its original mandate, but again, this is subjective, one could say that conditions for women now, and conditions when women were fighting for the vote, are very different. So the type of feminism needs to change too, but what “mandate’ are you taking about? Is this not subjective, and totally up to the individual?
In the article it states that feminists offer “contradictory evidence of their own eyes” but then states “this is why I’m an individualist, not a feminist”. This is the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” that Katherin's claims is feminism today. Women like Christina Hoff Sommers are individualists AND feminists so you can’t claim you can’t care about the individual (as many of the fighters for things like birth control or rights to work in the 1960’s-1970’s fought for the right for individual women to own their own bodies and to be able to buy land/property without a collective approval from family or a man) while being feminist. It was feminism afterall that fought for the right of women to sign their own work contracts and get their own education, how is this against the individual?
Ms. Revello then talks about experiences with feminists on a collage campus and the ensuing outrage when the writer published an article against Emma Watson. The funny thing about this is that she says she's a classical liberal, and normally a classical liberal understands freedom of speech. No one stopped them from publishing the article, but it seems that they expect everyone to agree with the article the fact of the article being published. Also, completely disparaging a movement because someone was acting irrationally and sending harassing emails is a bit of a stretch (also applicable is the logical fallacy of appeal of emotions).
Katherine speaks about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for a page and yet only talks in this way. How is individualism anti-feminism? How is judging a whole movement due to the actions of some individualistic? I agree, as I’ve stated, that feminism has changed in vast ways, and as a Second Waver I totally get the hate for the often anti-woman and anti-speech modern feminism, but the writer does not answer the question of exactly why feminism is anti-individual. There has even been anarchist and free market feminists like Emma Goldman, but I believe the writer is wrong to suggest that one can’t be an individualist and feminist simultaneously.
Being a women is a part of a person's identity and to act on that identity is very much a classically liberal application.
Read More Articles on Third Wave Feminism