Comments on: The fantasy life of Whig historians, or, Srsly, Tina?

By: Keri

Keri — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:12:48 +0000

Roiphe has always been an misogynist anti-feminist- from back in the 80′s when she allied with misogynist men in blaming female rape victims to now with this just as unscientific garbage. She’s basically just a younger Shafley. Her mother was a minor star of second wave feminism, whose words have basically been forgotten over time. Guess Roiphe wants to make sure she doesn’t suffer the same fate as her mother- by being the now 40 something (she was born in 1968) female mouthpiece for the misogynist power structure in our culture. She’s the “poster girl” for everything that went wrong in so called “third wave feminism”. (I’m a 1966 baby- so yeah I’m very familiar with this corrupting of the gentle evolution of the early third wave my cultural generation [born 1962-1967]created, with intense respect and gratitude for our direct second wave predecessors. We were quite conscious we were building on the foundation the second wave created and it was because the gifts they gave us (Roe v Wade, Title IX, Fair Credit Act, etc…) we could build upon that- in spite of the anti feminist backlash that started in earnest in 1981. It was that backlash and the consciousness we must fight back against it, not just for our selves, but for the generations that were following us. Unfortunately, the next cultural generation had taken in too much of the backlash and were brainwashed with that virulent misogyny, which completely corrupted even how they expressed what they believed was feminism, but was actually misogyny- thus the pro sexual objectification of women rife in their articles and lifestyle, rigid gender role images (so much so that actively hate fictional female characters who somewhat embody the early third wave comfort in a less rigid concept of gender roles, and call male characters who also somewhat embody the early third wave less rigid gender role models(male characters who highly respect and are willing to follow a woman)- misogynist terms like p-whipped, or call it a “gender swap” rather than as the second wave writers intended, showing a less rigid picture of genders roles they dreamed of and the early third wave pushed to make reality (at least in their personal lives- look how far that influence extended too- even a religious conservative, but mildly feminist like Sarah Palin [born 1964] and her husband are comfortable living with those less repressive gender roles.) That’s what second wave feminism did. I’m so disgusted at the complete corruption of what were the ideals of the founding of the third wave, that I reject the third wave, and call myself a second wave feminist.

By: Mary Catherine

Mary Catherine — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:49:53 +0000

Eh, I like the wig (or, er, Whig) of illusory progress.

Tina Brown is a player, of course. And you don’t get to be a star player in the major leagues without you’re playing the game, without you’re playing for keeps.

Imagine Joan from Mad Men a generation or two later, where’s there now a narrow opening that would allow her to not only be indispensable (which she already *is* in her mid-1960s Mad Men company, of course, though she is not recognized and paid as such), but to also be recognized and rewarded for her must-have, go-to qualities of indispensability. The opening is still quite narrow, though; and her new firm, a generation or two later, doesn’t look much different than Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce in terms of its ownership, management, and, well, “leadership” (though they occasionally offer workshops on sexual harassment, now, and give generously to the ACLU). Would Joan believe half, or even one quarter, of what Roiphe was peddling with her “Desperate Housewives of Short Hills, New Jersey Finally, if Belatedly, Discover the Marquis de Sade” gimmick? Honey, please. Would Joan nevertheless choose to publish Roiphe’s gimmickry, because sex sells and feminist backlash sells even better, and a combination of the two is sheer newstand gold? Honey: Puhleeze.

(The best response to Roiphe is no response at all, I believe [she thrives on the outrage, which she mistakenly interprets, all contrarian-like, as proof of the depth of her "insights"], but that’s more easily said than done, admittedly).

By: J. Otto Pohl

J. Otto Pohl — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:48:08 +0000

Perpetua:

Thank you for the definition. Since I live in a prefeminist country I don’t think I need to worry too much about postfeminism.

By: Northern Barbarian

Northern Barbarian — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:01:30 +0000

Thank you for the Heffernan link, Ladyprof! That helps. There’s a reason that I dumped my subscription to Newsweek shortly after Brown took over.

By: Perpetua

Perpetua — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:55:35 +0000

J. Otto Pohl: postfeminism is basically the idea that we are “beyond” sexism in the same way that we are “beyond” racism. We no longer need feminism because – mission! accomplished!

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/faq-what-is-post-feminism/

By: Tony Grafton

Tony Grafton — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:41:50 +0000

As my grandmother used to sat, Feh!

By: J. Otto Pohl

J. Otto Pohl — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:20:14 +0000

Perpetua:

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is a postfeminist?

By: Z

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:10:37 +0000

I did not know Katie Roiphe. What a bimbo. PhD Princeton, TT job at NYU, hmmmm….

By: Janice

Janice — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:39:27 +0000

Oh, don’t get me started on this book and the media coverage it inspires. Isn’t it bad enough when you have journalists in a frenzy over a bad piece of Twilight fanfiction without deciding that the book represents a major theme in how our society is evolving?

And let’s not get into how this all inevitably comes around to an imaginary social problem where the diagnosis is that women are doing it wrong. For whatever values of “it” the author wishes to evoke.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:17:38 +0000

I haven’t ever found a reason to read Katie Roiphe. What a novel tells us about working women is….wait… NOTHING.