Why I Don't Read Rebecca Solnit | The Walrus

submitted by [deleted] from thewalrus.ca

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]meranii 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Good article. I've felt more and more in the last 10 years or so (possibly it was going on long before then and I wasn't paying attention) how feminism online has devolved into this "feel good" hobby for women, where we complain about a couple of "simple" injustices, everyone agrees, it's very black and white, and on top of that we can buy "feminist" merch with cute "girl power!" slogans from all sorts of companies. I felt mildly uncomfortable about it before the TRA wave hit, but now the dark side of this pop feminism has really reared its lazy, shallow, male-pandering head.

It's not allowed to actually ask uncomfortable questions or express conflicts that go against the pop feminism trend. It's why people were so shocked when JK Rowling suddenly went against the approved flavor of discussion and actually in depth against one of the biggest current "trends" (which is to mindlessly post "transwomen are women <3" to a chorus of the same), because until then JK Rowling was seen as sort of a pop feminism icon: not at all radical, popular without question, she gave us nerdy-but-cool hermione (a girl being the sidekick is good enough, right?) and her rags-to-riches story seemed to signal the soothing message "women can do it all!".

Radical feminism has been turned into this dirty word, like it's now hateful in online feminist circles to not always seek male (clothed as women) approval for your "activism". If it can even still be called activism when mainstream feminism has been so neutered and commodified.

[–]meranii 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To add to that, I'm convinced that this attempt to keep feminism toothless and palatable to the masses is in the interest of the status quo/patriarchy in general. Women that are dissatisfied with ongoing inequality and male violence can be turned toward this "easy, positive" feminism that soothes them with a loving community where they feel they are heard and never made uncomfortable. There, they are dissuaded from becoming radical feminists because "that's bigotry! transphobic! hateful!". This pop feminism is vastly supported by all sorts of corporations and politicians, because they like good little consumers, the last thing they want is difficult topics, disagreements or boycotts. You can't make money with unsexy concepts like "fight oppression on the basis of sex" or facts like "96% of prosecuted domestic violence is committed by men", but you can make money with things like rainbow-colored products and mindless entertainment that pays lip service to feminism.

[–]jkfinn 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That identity also stems from the way social media has transformed the feminist movement, reducing a complex body of work to a series of memes, hashtags, and Instagrammable pics. There is now a certain type of female solidarity—call it “pop feminism”—that addresses only topics we can safely agree on. (Viviane Fairbank)

This understanding is, to me, central to this piece. Although the piece is primarily about Solnit, it is just as much about “pop feminism,” which I think has been the dominant form of feminism since the split in the second wave. So many feminists then fled into psycho-therapy, Buddhism, and other New Age practices; while still others adopted sexual revolution, Queer, and gay male politics. All this and most everything that followed can be described as “pop feminism.” And what assured this was the rise of the internet and social media in the 1990s. The very nature of this media all but makes radical feminism impossible, because fragments based more on psychology than on politics, is not sexual politics, or a vision, or an understanding of male supremacy. Radical meant connections & unity stemming from a radical political platform, while pop means separate pieces, none of which are supposed to offend (oh my god) those in the sympathetic online bubbles, for fear of bumping heads with similars who tend to push dissimilars out. It’s a long story but I suspect that the comments to this piece will key on Solnit and less on the ground or lack of ground that produced her.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I never heard of Solnit and frankly she writes like someone barely able to string together a coherent thought. Her article was atrocious. Not sure who it was meant to convince.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ovarit