I found this post fascinating but perhaps mainly for two sideline information pieces you alluded to around your main arguments.
Firstly, I was interested in your description of Barbara Kingsolver's novel 'The lacunae' as I'm interested in the paintings of Frieda Kahlo and especially in the murals of Diego Rivera. I saw a lot of these murals on my various trips to the USA - the Detroit Ford factory quartet now in the Art Institute and also a number of his works which are still in San Francisco. I spent a week there and concentrated on seeing these murals as well as those in the Coit Tower on Telegraph Hill. I know you've been to SF too, so expect you've visited them too.
And secondly, I know some of the paintings of Artemisia Gentileschi, whose work as one of the first professional women painters is now becoming known and appreciated. And I remember how powerful this panel of Judith slaying Holofernes is when you see it (I've seen the second version which is in the Uffizi in Florence.) She was the first woman to be admitted to the Academy of Art in Florence. Very few women had the opportunity to train or work as professional artists then but Artemisia was able to train as a painter within the workshop of her father Orazio Gentileschi. She was remarkably successful as a painter and for a time worked in England for King Charles I.
Hi Sue. Yes, I do remember the stunning Diego Rivera murals in San Francisco. And I did see the Gentileschi painting in Florence. I was profoundly moved by it - even more so when I read later of how it related to her personal situation.
Hi Alan, here's a summary of what Tara wrote, it seems to show the gist of what her essay is about is mostly missing from your criticism:
The text critiques radical feminist views on patriarchy, arguing that they promote a simplistic narrative where men are solely responsible for violence and oppression, while women are depicted as perpetual victims. This perspective is seen as essentialist, creating a moral binary that labels maleness as evil and femaleness as innocent, which undermines historical complexity and internal critique within feminism.
The author contends that feminist historiography often overlooks the nuances of power dynamics, reducing them to a narrative of male privilege without considering factors like class and individual choices. The text draws parallels between radical feminist rhetoric and Nazi ideology, suggesting both position a specific group as the root of societal problems, leading to a totalizing worldview that precludes compromise.
Ultimately, the critique argues that misandric feminism offers a false sense of moral superiority and fails to address broader societal contradictions, warning that such fantasies of purification can be self-defeating and hinder genuine progress in gender relations.
What your summary of Tara van Dijk’s post leaves out is that her characterisation of radical feminism is based solely on her interpretation of a book she hasn’t read. She quotes one sentence of the promo for aurora linnea’a Man Against Being, and misinterprets it as essentialist. If she had bothered to read the book without preconceptions, perhaps she would have reached a different conclusion. I suspect, though, she would have found another way to further her political objective of damning radical feminism.
Pretending to know what a book says without taking the trouble to read it is dubious enough at any time. Going on to claim that the book in question, which centres on the affirmation of life, is a “feminist Mein Kampf”, is beyond despicable. As is the implied characterisation of all radical feminists as nazis.
Hi Alan, thanks for your considered response. I'd agreed that van Dijk's take is quite polemical and far from perfect, but I do agree with the substance of her argument.
I consider that a major blind spot in modern feminism is the substantial indifference to social and economic class structures.
Patriarchy may still exist in some form today in Western countries, but modern feminism preserves it in the form of an ideological dogma, supported by a selective interpretation of history.
Dear Alan,
I found this post fascinating but perhaps mainly for two sideline information pieces you alluded to around your main arguments.
Firstly, I was interested in your description of Barbara Kingsolver's novel 'The lacunae' as I'm interested in the paintings of Frieda Kahlo and especially in the murals of Diego Rivera. I saw a lot of these murals on my various trips to the USA - the Detroit Ford factory quartet now in the Art Institute and also a number of his works which are still in San Francisco. I spent a week there and concentrated on seeing these murals as well as those in the Coit Tower on Telegraph Hill. I know you've been to SF too, so expect you've visited them too.
And secondly, I know some of the paintings of Artemisia Gentileschi, whose work as one of the first professional women painters is now becoming known and appreciated. And I remember how powerful this panel of Judith slaying Holofernes is when you see it (I've seen the second version which is in the Uffizi in Florence.) She was the first woman to be admitted to the Academy of Art in Florence. Very few women had the opportunity to train or work as professional artists then but Artemisia was able to train as a painter within the workshop of her father Orazio Gentileschi. She was remarkably successful as a painter and for a time worked in England for King Charles I.
Hi Sue. Yes, I do remember the stunning Diego Rivera murals in San Francisco. And I did see the Gentileschi painting in Florence. I was profoundly moved by it - even more so when I read later of how it related to her personal situation.
Hi Alan, here's a summary of what Tara wrote, it seems to show the gist of what her essay is about is mostly missing from your criticism:
The text critiques radical feminist views on patriarchy, arguing that they promote a simplistic narrative where men are solely responsible for violence and oppression, while women are depicted as perpetual victims. This perspective is seen as essentialist, creating a moral binary that labels maleness as evil and femaleness as innocent, which undermines historical complexity and internal critique within feminism.
The author contends that feminist historiography often overlooks the nuances of power dynamics, reducing them to a narrative of male privilege without considering factors like class and individual choices. The text draws parallels between radical feminist rhetoric and Nazi ideology, suggesting both position a specific group as the root of societal problems, leading to a totalizing worldview that precludes compromise.
Ultimately, the critique argues that misandric feminism offers a false sense of moral superiority and fails to address broader societal contradictions, warning that such fantasies of purification can be self-defeating and hinder genuine progress in gender relations.
What your summary of Tara van Dijk’s post leaves out is that her characterisation of radical feminism is based solely on her interpretation of a book she hasn’t read. She quotes one sentence of the promo for aurora linnea’a Man Against Being, and misinterprets it as essentialist. If she had bothered to read the book without preconceptions, perhaps she would have reached a different conclusion. I suspect, though, she would have found another way to further her political objective of damning radical feminism.
Pretending to know what a book says without taking the trouble to read it is dubious enough at any time. Going on to claim that the book in question, which centres on the affirmation of life, is a “feminist Mein Kampf”, is beyond despicable. As is the implied characterisation of all radical feminists as nazis.
Hi Alan, thanks for your considered response. I'd agreed that van Dijk's take is quite polemical and far from perfect, but I do agree with the substance of her argument.
I consider that a major blind spot in modern feminism is the substantial indifference to social and economic class structures.
Patriarchy may still exist in some form today in Western countries, but modern feminism preserves it in the form of an ideological dogma, supported by a selective interpretation of history.
thanks