Checkmate, Feminists.

by Danelle on July 28, 2011 · 27 comments

When explaining what type of young ladies are involved with NeW, I always use two words: driven and poised. Regardless of whether NeW ladies choose family, career, or both, I think it is clear that conservative women have a certain personality to them that (bitter) feminists lack. In quite of a few of my posts, I have discussed how Third Wave Feminism has helped create the Anti–Lady. A lady who cusses like an uncouth man, carries herself like “one of the guys,” and thinks that being as aggressive as a “macho male” will take her farther than being herself. A recent study published in the Journal of Occupational Psychology by Olivia O’Neill from George Mason University and Charles O’Reilly from Stanford University, states that:
...female pushy hard-drivers are seen as not behaving in a traditionally feminine way. So even though they are seen as competent, they are also perceived as less likeable, and hired and promoted less frequently. (from Huffington Post)
This “pushy” female is similar to the Anti-Lady in that she believes acting aggressively (like her perception of how men act) is the ticket to getting promoted. However, the study says that “self-monitoring” women – women who are assertive and confident, yet know when to act in certain situations are actually the ones more likely to get promoted. I always preach in my posts that women should not have to act like men - especially Anti-Gentlemen - in order to get far in life (though much of our media says to do just the opposite). This study proves that acting like someone you are not does not get you promotions and does not make you likeable by any means. It is as simple as that. NeW ladies know this already. We are driven, meaning we are confident as females that we can do anything we choose and we are assertive about it. We are also poised, meaning we are, well, likeable. Being well-mannered or poised is not about conforming, it is about understanding what to do in social situations, i.e. how to act around people civilly. In other words, conservative women – NeW ladies – are “self-monitoring” women. Assertive, yet considerate. Lucky for us, those are the traits that get more promotions according to the study and make people more successful in life overall according to simple logic. Acting bitter and "macho"  like radical feminists advocate does the opposite. I would even bet the same is true for men (Anti-Gentlemen) who act this way, too, but that is for another post. In sum, it turns out that radical feminists do not even have the right idea within the workplace - a domain they say they dominate. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we are beating feminists at what they claim to be their game. Checkmate.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }

Emily July 28, 2011 at 3:01 pm

While I respect your opinion, I have to wonder if you actually know many feminists. I cannot think of a single person in my Women and Gender Studies programs who acts as you have described, and neither do our professors. As a liberal feminist, I embrace my stereotypical feminine qualities in addition to those considered masculine. I love cooking and baking, I never let my boyfriend cook dinner for me, and I plan to have kids and be a stay-at-home mom. I do curse occasionally, when the situation allows for it, but I am well-versed on how to behave in various social situations. To be honest, this article and your previous one about the Anti-Lady seem incredibly misinformed and misleading. Maybe you should interact with these radical feminists you’re talking about before you judge them.


Danelle July 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Thanks for the comment. Here as well as on the “Anti-lady” post, I talk about radical feminists who are much different from other people who identify as feminists – liberal ideology included. I actually am much like you in that I embrace both my stereotypical masculine traits (I weight lift, target shoot, and love outdoors) and my feminine traits, too (pearls, shopping, and baking). However, ideologically, I’m on the right. You are on the left. That’s fine, but being on the left does not make you a radical feminist. I’m talking about the women throwing glitter on politicians, Code Pink disrupting events, the media alluding that men aren’t needed ( or my post here and some radical women’s writers.

I took quite a few Women’s Studies classes, and although they leaned a slightly more left than I liked, they were not the problem. In my posts, I use a lot of what I learned in those classes actually. However, organizations on campus and in the real-world like WARR or the Vagina Monologues who yell the c-word during lectures are the women I am referring to. If you fit in that crowd, then you are a radical feminist. If not, then this post should not offend you.

Also, I have many liberal feminist friends and talk with them on a daily basis. None of them are “radical feminists”–the ones I am talking about.


Emily July 28, 2011 at 6:17 pm

I feel like your definition of “radical” feminist is really off though. I’ll be honest I have never heard of WARR, which I gather is something exclusive to OSU, but after googling it I don’t see what the problem is with an organization that hosts Take Back the Night, which is an extremely positive experience for survivors of sexual assault and rape and their supporters. And I am a fan of the Vagina Monologues, but I don’t think that makes me a radical feminist. The Vagina Monologues encourage women to celebrate themselves and their bodies with real stories. A friend of mine who is very conservative and a devout Christian performed in her (Christian) university’s production of the play and she saw it as a wonderful experience even though she doesn’t even identify as feminist. So I have to ask, how exactly do you define a radical feminist outside of the terms you have already described, because those really don’t fit?


Danelle July 28, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Yes, WARR hosts Take Back the Night but in combination with all the women’s organizations. NeW has participated in it along with them, but sometime after, they came to a NeW event and yelled the c-word throughout it. That is radical conduct. As for the Vagina Monologues, I highly doubt your conservative friend performed all the monologues–probably only the ones about birth or menstruation. I have no problem with those. All the other ones – “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could” or Reclaiming C—” for example – are not something a conservative girl would perform. If she did, I suggest she reevaluate her political/social ideology.

Now why are these types of women considered radical? Because they are an extreme representation of women who are callous and ultimately have an agenda of female superiority rather than gender equality. Need examples? See the links I posted in the first reply. I am all for women’s progress. I don’t think women should be oppressed obviously. But the glitter warriors, the Code Pink-ers, the writers of the Vagina Monologues, and shouting the c-word at public events is not progress. It’s drastic and unnecessary. It also does not help the image of women for equality in any way.

If you think shouting the c-word, disrespecting yourself by mimicking an orgasm on stage (See Vagina Monologues if you haven’t already), or not wearing a bra is progress, then okay, you’re radical.

I assure you that I am not ignorant of radical feminism or Women’s Studies or not knowing any feminists. I have liberal friends, I’ve taken Women’s Studies courses, I’ve chatted with WGSST professors personally, and done a lot of reading on feminism and outside of that, radical feminism. Additionally, I’ve witness radical feminists’ behavior. I promise I’m not ill-informed and I do my research before I write.

Thank you for the comments. Maybe I will write a future post strictly about radical feminism vs. other forms of feminism.


Thomas Alberts July 29, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Thanks for your comments? Who said Emily was done commenting? It isn’t fair for you to shut down a debate so you can win and have the last word. The reason that Emily didn’t take into consideration your examples is because they don’t really illustrate the existence of the so-called “bad feminists” that you claim radical feminists, such as myself, of being. Your first example is from a television show, not a real incidence. The second is about MTV and commercials that you analyze is a way that isn’t even correct in order to jump to a wild conclusion about feminism that you all ready decided. And if you think that Hollywood is pushing a feminist agenda, I suggest you take a look at rap music videos. And no, women don’t allow men to treat them in crude manners because they think they’re better than men. That’s a wacky conclusion with no evidence that you came up with to justify your opinion of feminism that you’ve all ready decided.
Also, I find it amusing that you attack all feminists in your original post and then quickly backtrack when a real feminist confronts you. I don’t believe that you really know any feminists and your definition of radical feminism does not exist and is simply a tool for you to use to make all feminists look bad. In reality, your article is actually all about homosexuality. The reason being is that these “radical” feminists you point all happen to be gay rights activists, which is what the glitter throwers (who were throwing glitter to protest Michelle Bachmann’s bigotry against the LGBT Community) and Code Pink are. Interesting (and telling) that the feminists you are trying to slander and humiliate are the ones who support gay rights.
Lastly, the reason they shout the c-word at political events or the Vagina Monologues is because they are trying to reclaim it so that it can no longer be used as an insult against women. Similar to the term “suffragette” which was an insult to first-wave feminists until they reclaimed it. Since you apparently didn’t know that, that is proof that you don’t know what feminism is, except what you choose to believe about them.

Emily July 29, 2011 at 4:05 pm

I agree that shouting the c-word at an event is somewhat radical. I don’t believe in disrupting other events, but I do believe the word should be reclaimed, because being called a vagina or any synonym for it should not be a bad thing. And no, my friend did not perform all of the monologues because in the play one girl does one monologue. She performed The Angry Vagina ( and she involved herself in the play to open herself to new ideas and to try and see things from other peoples perspectives instead of sticking to what she knew, and she feels like a more well-rounded person for it, even though she still does not identify as feminist. And as Thomas pointed out, the glitter-bombers and Code Pink are NOT feminist organizations. Glitter-bombers are protesting bigotry and Code Pink is an anti-war group that occasionally works with feminist groups, so I do not see those as examples. I also fail to see how mimicking an orgasm is disrespecting ourselves, because orgasm are healthy, natural parts of life. And The Vagina Monologues are not universally supported by feminists. I do not agree with the content of “The Little Coochie Snorter That Could” or the colonialist perceptions of third world women in the play such as in “Under the Burqa.” Also, how does not wearing a bra make you radical? Some women don’t need to wear bras because they have small breasts, some find them uncomfortable. I don’t see lack of an undergarment as a radical statement, and second-wave feminists RARELY burned bras, that was an image the media got ahold of and spun it out of proportion.

I’m sorry if you feel that I have offended you by suggesting you have not done your research, but it seems as though you are relying on the media-distributed images and perceptions of feminism that became prevalent after the Reagan administration. I have never in my life and all the work I have done met a feminist who supports gender superiority. I realize that writers such as Christina Hoff Sommers propagate that myth, but I promise you that what 99% of us want is gender equality.

Emily July 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm

Okay, I was going to let my previous comment be my last, but I just looked at your links. Sex and the City is not in ANY way a feminist resource. A lot of feminists detest that show. I’ll admit I enjoy it for its entertainment value, but I don’t think anyone looks at it as a feminist show or a way to spout feminist rhetoric. The characters in the show are confined to a very shallow, class-centric world where shoes and sex reign supreme. They are based on books and columns written by a woman known for being a socialite And Carrie often rearranges her life to fit men-in the last season she moved to Paris for Alexander, she consistently lets Big get away with all of the crap he does to her and ends up marrying the guy. The only remotely feminist character in that show is Miranda and even she is more cynical than anything. And all of those ads you cite were created by the media which also loves to villanize feminism and any byproduct of it. The media uses stupid stereotypes to sell its products. Women are often portrayed as shallow shopping zombies (kind of like in Sex and the City). Even in political coverage we are relegated to fashion critiques and being sucked into the “madonna-whore” categories (look at the treatment of Palin, Clinton, and Bachmann).

And to back Thomas up, you did backtrack after I commented. You only say “radical feminist” once in the entire post-the rest of the time you refer to feminism as a whole.

Julienne July 29, 2011 at 3:44 pm

There is no strict definition of feminism or of a feminist and anyone who says otherwise ought to spend more time reading multiple feminist theories. Danelle’s post regarding “radical feminists” is one of many attempts to describe and analyze a particular group of people. Boundaries will always be debatable and shifting, but it is extremely reductive to use phrases such as “real feminist” and accuse Danelle of not understanding feminism as the crux of an argument. The basis of your argument is that her definition does not fit yours, therefore it must be incorrect. Your assertion that her argument can be boiled down to one against homosexuality is also flawed. The commonality of gay rights activism is not present, since Code Pink is primarily an anti-war organization.

With regard to interpretation, it is amusing that your poor abilities cross-apply to social niceties, as well – you have decided that Danelle’s “thank you” is a “shut down” and a proclamation of victory, when in fact it is entirely possible – and probable, given the lengthy replies she has composed – that she is simply thanking Emily for the opportunity to discuss and debate her post.


Danelle July 29, 2011 at 7:39 pm

Emily, I’m not offended at all. However, I do believe you are missing the argument here as a whole. As I’ve said, I am talking radical feminism here–not liberal feminism, not marxist feminism, not conservative feminism, etc. To show the differences, let’s just use the prefix words here and define them. Liberal – reformist, flexible, progressive; Radical – extreme, drastic, excessive, dramatic.

I think we’d both agree that those two words are different, so feminists who go by those different names have different agendas. Radical has a more extreme, drastic agenda, whereas liberal has a more gradual social change, usually through law rather than protest, force or demonstrations. Something like this: would be considered radical. Clearly, it does not provoke progress, it’s extreme, and it’s unnecessary.

Sure LGBT glitter-bombers and Code Pink are not primarily feminist organizations, but it’s not hard to find overlap. Lesbian feminism a huge facet within LGBT (as opposed to GLBT) and Code Pink says they live by the feminist principles & work to cultivate women’s voices right in their mission statement. I understand they are primarily anti-war, but they also have a feminist agenda and use radical methods to get that agenda across. Same with glitter-bombers (and by the way, I have nothing against gay rights. I’m actually strongly in favor of them. I just disapprove of those types of methods.)

As for reclaiming words: The word “vagina” is not a problem. It’s a scientific/anatomical term and not derogatory in nature, but the c-word is–it was created to be derogatory. It was derogatory in 1230 and it will always be. To illustrate further: I am Italian, and I do not want to reclaim the word “dego.” It’s derogatory, it always will be, and I’d rather eliminate it from vernacular because I am respected as a person than give it power–even if I’m the one using it. Gail Dines, a professor of sociology & women’s studies talk about a similar idea

Last point: Media–whether on positive or negative issues helps to drive public opinion. Jersey Shore is radical–not all girls act like that, but the problem it creates is that it makes it OK to act like that–desensitization of a sort in the mind of girls and guys. And watch episodes of Everybody Loves Raymond or commercials for Digiorno or read my post “The Flip Side” or “Are Men Stupid.” Female superiority is a very frequent theme–matriarchy is nothing to be celebrated as is patriarchy.

P.S. Thank you Julienne for the support!


Thomas Alberts July 30, 2011 at 2:36 pm

I also have to agree with Emily in that you still only seemed to be opposing all feminists in your article. Besides, you never refer to yourself as a feminist, simply as a “conservative woman.” And I’m shocked you said you support gay rights, because it causes me to question why you would then call yourself a conservative and not a feminism, because feminism and gay rights are so closely related. I’m also surprised you haven’t been ripped to pieces by other “conservatives” for supporting gay rights.
Now when it comes to reclaiming words, I understand your viewpoint on the matter. But I feel that trying to remove words from the vernacular is not really possible, and also immoral because it violates free speech rights. The reason I support word reclamation instead is because it doesn’t violate free speech but it does take power away from the person trying to use the word as an insult. I understand that the word was invented intending to be an insult, but that doesn’t mean you have to be insulted by it.
Also, I don’t see what is wrong with the tactics being used by the glitter bombers. Nobody pulled a gun out on Bachmann, it was just glitter. I don’t think that protests for equality should be stifled for the sake of faux politeness. Besides, if women and men are to be treated equally then there shouldn’t be different standards in terms of behavior and personality. Women shouldn’t have to have a certain amount of politeness because they are women.

Oh, and thank you Bob for showing us the bigot’s point of view. 🙂


Bob July 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm

“And I’m shocked you said you support gay rights…” Shocked, I tell you, shocked!!

Thomas Alberts, you must have been foaming at the mouth and spewing forth spittle while typing out your mangina rant.

“I understand that the word was invented intending to be an insult, but that doesn’t mean you have to be insulted by it.” Perhaps you should take your own advice and stop being a mangina.

Remember, behind every great man is a strong woman. Behind her is his wife.


Thomas Alberts August 2, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Oh, I’m not insulted by the term mangina. I’m a proud feminist and believer that nobody has to adhere to stereotypical gender roles. I was just amused that you chose to humiliate yourself in front of everyone on this forum with your knee-jerk insult which is based in your hypermasculinity and lack of intelligence.

And that was a cute anecdote at the end of your rant. Too bad it shows your sexism. Why should women always be behind men? The two should stand together as equals.


Emily July 30, 2011 at 6:35 am

Sure you can find overlap with the groups, but your argument would be better if you were talking about groups that are flat-out feminist, as in the things that they fight for are directly under the scope of women’s rights and feminism. And of course Gail Dines is against slutwalks, she’s an anti-sex feminist whose job is going around the country talking about how porn is the root of all evil.
And fine, use the media, but don’t chalk it up to being feminist or spouting feminist rhetoric when it isn’t. And Everybody Loves Raymond isn’t a good example because the women in that show are portrayed as nagging and unsatisfiable. Female superiority is only a theme when the women are portrayed as bitches. If you want more examples, I recommend Susan Douglas’ recent book Enlightened Sexism. And I’ll say it again, you only said “radical” once in the entire post in your very last paragraph. Maybe you meant to say it the whole time and forgot, but either way it’s pretty easy to take your post as being anti-feminist.


Bob July 30, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Thank you Thomas Alberts, for providing the mangina point of view.


Bev July 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm

In my opinion, Everybody Loves Raymond is a great example. He’s the doofus & the wife is the one who’s always right in I don’t know how many episodes (a lot). It’s certainly a funny show, but the women are unhappy most of the time because they’re married to complete idiots (and all the men in the show act like them). It’s that elitist rhetoric feminists brought about. They may not be hiding in the corner writing it into the script, but the idea is pretty fluid in today’s world: men are stupid, women are empowered & always right. Where did that come from? Feminists. Same with chivalry being a dying practice. Really sad if you ask me.
Great post, Danelle!


Thomas Alberts July 30, 2011 at 5:01 pm

No, it didn’t come from feminists. You’re using feminists as scapegoats. Let me ask you this, the second wave of feminism came during the 60s yes? Why is it that a formula similar to Everybody Loves Raymond is present in sitcoms well before feminists became active? For example, in I Love Lucy Ethel is often portrayed as the more level headed and reasonable one while Fred is seen as being brash, cheap, and of less intelligence. If feminists are responsible for for this formula on sitcoms in anti-feminist Hollywood, then why was it all ready present before they were?
Also chivalry is evil and discriminatory toward men. Women who think men should have to be chivalrous only do so because they are selfish and think that being women entitles them to pampering.


Bev July 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm

I Love Lucy? I grew up on that. Lucy was always the one doing absurd things and being scolded by Ricky. They were the main characters & it was a patriarchal relationship. Ethel wasn’t really level-headed–Ethel was always Lucy’s accomplice. So you had the two absurd females, Ricky the center male and Fred was kind of his own guy…probably because he was older. So now the absurd female has turned into the new absurd male.
And chivalry is discriminatory? I don’t think men should be forced to be chivalrous, but it certainly shows respect and courtesy to among the sexes. Courteous men shouldn’t be scared off by feminists for doing respectful things. The only thing discriminatory here are the feminists you defend who think the male race is stupid.


Thomas Alberts July 31, 2011 at 11:10 am

And why do you think that women deserve more respect and courtesy than men? Because the chivalry you defend does not serve both sexes. Furthermore, feminists aren’t trying to scare of these so-called courteous men, it’s just that men need to be liberated by feminism as much as women do. And there is no woman who thinks the male race is stupid, this is just a figment of your imagination. As for I Love Lucy, do you recall that Ethel was the one always trying to talk Lucy out of her schemes before joining her? Furthermore, there are plenty of examples where the men are doing silly things as well. I can think of countless examples in both the media of today and in the past where both men and women are slandered and stereotyped. You focus in only on examples of male derision in television and ignore all the examples of women being demeaned. I hardly think that men are attacked more in the media than women are, especially since Hollywood is not influenced by feminism, and even if it were, that wouldn’t mean there would be an escalation of attacks against men.


Danelle July 31, 2011 at 10:35 pm

Here most of you are arguing under your impression of what feminism is to you–your understanding of feminism in your eyes. That is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion and ability to express it. However, as a researcher and history student, I analyze groups based on a lot of evidence and remove my own bias to come up with an overarching representation. I also seek to find cause-and-effects of society–why things are present today, where they came from, etc. Simply dismissing my examples or arguments because you, as a proclaimed “feminist,” do not agree with them is not convincing enough compared to studying feminism through research and person-to-person interaction. If you would prefer, I could write a scholarly analysis of radical feminism and its affects on society today, but since this is a blog, I try to be concise. You are more than welcome to comment more of course, but I do not have the time like you might have to keep responding. As my article said, conservative women are too busy beating feminists at the career game, so I’m a busy gal.


Thomas Alberts July 31, 2011 at 11:36 pm

No offense, but it just sounds like you can no longer come up with arguments to debate with, thus you make the excuse of being “busy” in order to no longer comment. That’s fine, do what you want. But I wasn’t dismissing your examples or arguments because I disagree with them. I dismissed your evidence because it isn’t really evidence, and I dismissed your arguments because they contradict each other (you once again claim to have an “overarching representation” of feminism when you previously claimed that you were only attacking one form of it), are quite biased, and frankly, like your article’s title, smack of arrogance and lack of respect toward the people you owe your very freedom as a woman to. “Conservative women” can never beat feminists at the career game because, most of your assertions about feminism is hateful figments of your imagination, and because if it weren’t for feminism in all of its forms, you would not have a career.
I’m sorry that you disagree with some of the effects that feminism has on society today, but from my experience most of these effects that conservatives complain about are not really bad things or interfere with the conservative’s hyper-religious or self-centered desires for society.


Jim August 2, 2011 at 4:52 pm

I heard about this site from CNN’s site today, so I thought I would see what this group is about. I then decided to read this blog and found some of the replies to be so riduculous I had to reply.

Danelle’s original post was right on. It was well researched, well thought out, and well worded. I can also state from my extensive education and years of business experience, all of her claims are true. I could state case after case to back this up. I can’t think of one case in my career that conflicts with her findings. Then, upon reading the replies, I saw that the people that were disagreeing with her were actually proving her case. They were not capable of rational, courteous debate of a topic, they lowered themselves to the exact aggressive behavior referred to in Danelle’s original post. They nit picked and twisted every word and just made complete fools of themselves and their lack of knowledge. Yes, they practiced the exact behavior that will lead to them watching people like Danelle walk right past them.

By the way, I am not making this comment to defend Danelle, it seems she can do that just fine. And the funny thing is, she did it with class, something that was lacking in most of the replies.


Thomas Alberts August 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm

I find it amusing that you expect the people whom this article attacks, slanders, and humiliates, without real evidence mind you, to then be courteous in their responses. Even the title of this article (Checkmate, feminists) is incedibally condescending, disrespectful, and arrogant. So if some of the responses were tad bit aggressive, I’m sorry, but I get really irritated when Conservatives refer to me and my allies in a condescending manner as if we’re soooo beneath and then are shocked when we get angry about.
And on the note of aggression, let’s make an assumption. Let’s say that feminist women are aggressive, for the sake of argument. So what? Men are aggressive in the workplace and don’t get nearly as much flack for it as a woman would. If a man’s aggressive, people just deal with it, or even find it quite endearing. If a woman is aggressive, then she’s a bitch or (my favorite) “she’s acting like a man.” That was my main issue with this article. The single assertion that women who don’t fit the socially invented “lady” stereotype that Danielle clings to act like men.
Let me make this crystal clear for you. There is no such thing as acting like a man, because there isn’t a behavior that is unique to male nature (I bet that statement makes the religious blood boil). But it’s the truth. Are there differences between the sexes? Yes, but they are not behaviorial. Personality varies by the individual, it is not determined according to gender.
I grew up being teased, and harrassed, and humiliated, and persecuted not because I was gay, but because regardless of my sexual orientation I was “effeminate.” Because I had a personality that didn’t fit the stereotype of what little boys should be that meant I wasn’t really a little boy according to my classmates, or my teachers, or even sometimes my father. I also witnessed girls growing up getting harrassed by both their peers and adults because they weren’t “ladies.” Well, let me tell you there was nothing wrong with those little girls, and there wasn’t and isn’t anything wrong with me.

That is why I was shocked that Danielle supports gay rights. If she thinks that women who don’t act all dainty every second of their existence are therefore “acting like men,” then I don’t see how she could support gay rights? Afterall, if I’m married to another man doesn’t that mean, according to her logic, that I’m just trying to be a woman?

There is no natural law that says a woman has to be more docile, or gentle, or soft-spoken, or “feminine” than a man. The same goes for men. There is no reason that a man has to be more assertive, or strong, or braver than a woman. That is why I get so riled up about this issue, because I had to grow up dealing with this. That is why I disagreed with the article.
I think I’ve said everything I can say. I’m sure I’ll get a bunch of mangina comments in response to this, but I don’t care. I take it as a term of endearment. But I want to make it clear I hold no negative feelings toward Danielle or anyone else. I’m sorry if I offended her or anyone else, but like I said, I didn’t appreciate the condescending tone of the article, even if it wasn’t intended and it may not have been.


Jim August 3, 2011 at 2:54 pm

I truly am sorry for what you have gone through in your life. I can’t imagine how difficult it was. But I do think you took the post as an attack when it was an observation with facts to back it up. You actually went so far as to assume all radical feminists are gay, which is simply not said. As much as we all want to be politically correct, there are some things that are true, even if we don’t want to admit to them. If she stated the sky was blue, is that an attack on all people that think the sky is green? No, it is stating what you have learned.

I agree with much of your post and will not nit pick on the things I disagree with except one. Men that have the same qualities as a radical feminists don’t make it either. Once again, it is all about professionalism and class. If a man is aggressive and unprofessional, we do deal with it, we eliminate them.


Kelly August 2, 2011 at 11:07 pm

Instead of focusing on attacking each other, I intend to look at the article. While I know that Danelle has said she is too busy and has chosen to withdraw from the conversation, I have to state that I disagree with a few of her assumptions.

She is writing about feminism with tunnel-vision. Sure, it is very easy to imagine that all feminists must have buzz cuts, curse like a sailor, be rude, avoid deodorant, and try to be “manly.” In reality, Danelle has missed a large purpose of feminism.

Feminism is about gender equality, not conformity. The great thing about being a feminist is that I can wake up in the morning and put on heels, by choice. I can walk into my place of work and be poised. I can wear pink, or I can wear blue. I can listen when I should listen, and speak when I should speak. Not because a woman should be seen and not heard, but because I know how to respect someone else and their authority. I can do my hardest work and, when it is appropriate, I can speak my mind.

Now, any person can do the above. Those traits are neither strictly for NeW women or for feminists. If it weren’t for feminists, though, I never would have been walking in to a place of work to begin with. I would argue that there are just as many pushy and close minded NeW-type women as there are pushy and close minded feminists. That is not a product of ones belief on women. That is a product of ones personality. The two are separate.


Thomas Alberts August 3, 2011 at 9:23 am

Thank you Kelly! You’re brilliant!


Jim August 3, 2011 at 2:36 pm

I think it was obvious that Danelle was speaking about radical feminists, she does state that in her article. This is why I mentioned that people were trying to nit pick on what she said, and use the fact that she did not say radical feminists repeatedly only to bully her, which I have seen happen in the real world and it only hurts the people that talk to others that way. I did not feel I attacked anyone, I simply stated how humorous I found the fact that she was being treated in this way after her research, and my experience, make it clear this is simply not a professional way to treat people. Now if you call telling people that they are acting inapropriately an attack, then so be it.

I agree that feminism, in its’ truest form, has opened doors for many women that would have otherwise been closed. I just agree the the premise at the top that states radical feminism is closing those doors. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I am just stating the way it is in the real world. Like anything else, feminism is not perfect, and simply pointing it out should not lead the vitriol I read in the responses.


Danelle August 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm

I’ll jump in here again since a select number of you are trying to accuse me of “backing down,” but don’t bother to listen to my arguments.

My heart goes out to those who struggled when growing up because of deviance from gender stereotypes. Honestly, I don’t fit a traditional feminine stereotype–I love lifting heavy weights & target shooting. That said, in this article, I am not advocating strict gender roles. I specifically talk about women acting like the Anti-Gentleman (or Anti-Lady), and even end the article by saying that men who are Anti-Gentleman (overly macho, uncouth, aggressive, etc. Basically all around aggressive and bitter–who wants to work with someone like that?) probably do not get promoted either. The radicalism of the feminist movement (not to be confused with the movement for women to have equal rights, which was progressive, not radical) has told women to abandon the house all together and only become a career woman and further, become a woman like the Anti-Lady and Anti-Gentleman. Fine, some women want career, but not all women want that and you shouldn’t have to act overly aggressive to do it. It’s as if feminists are telling women they have to “make up” for something they don’t have, which just isn’t true. Additionally, the entitled “feminist” leaders are not the only voice of women. Some women prefer to stay at home, like our fellow commenter Emily. These feminists (radical feminists) do not want women to stay at home at all. That is radical feminism – trying to force women into a mold and not let them be who they want to be. NeW doesn’t do that. Some of us are career women, others stay at home, and some balance both.

Before you come back with arguments, I strongly suggest you read some feminist writing. Start with “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan. I do agree with her on a few things, but get back to me when you read what she says about being a housewife. After reading that, move onto another writer such as Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir, or Vivian Gornick and see what they have to say about the same topic.

Here’s something to get you started: “As long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed…No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”


Leave a Comment