I understood that she's arguing against the belief that there exists one narrow, all-encompassing feminist ideal. However, it's fair to assume that there actually is a very broad ideal (otherwise "feminism" as a word would have no real meaning), and that is for the equal position/treatment of women in today's society. The need for an active movement that pushes this is the movement that I find redundant.
E.g.,
The position of a white woman in North America, are in many instances, not the same as the position of a black man in North America.
The position of a white woman in North America, are in many instances, not the same as the position of a black woman in North America.
The position of a black woman in North America, are in many instances, not the same as the position of a black man in North America.
All three positions are valid in today's society, you can check the findings in many research from psychology, to health concerns, to sociology, etc.
This points that it's not only about race, but, there's an interaction with gender that we are seeing. So, again, I'm asking you to explain how exactly you think it's redundant.
The feminism of which I speak is the feminism that seeks to have women treated equally in a society where they are largely treated equally and the feminism that seeks to blame female problems on the way in which society treats them.
The "feminism" you speak of is purposely facetious, (lol?), and I don't know many informed feminist theorists and supporters for whom this is a reality. Please show me these feminists that you speak of, name some of these prominent modern feminists. Because, I for one (ignoring the sarcasm of that definition - to the truth behind the sarcasm), find that this in no way aligns with my own views in regards to feminism.
Again, it seems like you have your own idea of what feminism functionally looks like in today's N. American society, and then, bash that idea, rather than speak to what the reality really is.
I'd argue that such "barriers" in these communities are due to something other than just gender. Oppression may exist in certain ethnic, socio-economic, and minority subpopulations, but the driving force behind such oppression is not exclusively gender; it's because of race, economic standing, or cultural dissimilarities, or any of these things+gender, not exclusively gender. If we want to fight for equality, doing it based on gender is the wrong way to go about it, as there are much more expansive reasons for oppression and fighting these other causal factors would be a lot more productive.
Of course there are other barriers, but, gender is relevant as well. I don't think I ever said that because gender issue is relevant means all the other factors are not. That's more reflective of your position, 'other things are relevant so that somehow means gender is not'. Very narrow.
Your bolded, if you can say that it is
not exclusively a gender issue means that gender is still revelant an issue,
along with other factors, so, how do you then claim gender to be not relevant hence no need for feminist advocacy in our current times? Either gender is relevant or it isn't. You need to decide on your position and lift those contradictions.
Secondly, it seems that you are not too familiar with positions of most feminist theories if you think that they're saying oppression of equal rights for women is due to an isolated factor of gender. Feminist theories rise out of pscyho-social and political milieu. They talk of how the factor of gender is intensified or lessened, given different milieu, how the factor of gender interacts with a whole host of other factors, i.e., gender is relevant, in the context of all those other factors. Unlike you, they don't think that focusing on gender invalidates all other factors. Feminism just uses the lens of gender to focus on the issue. It's the perspective that it takes through which it looks at how all the factors interplay with gender to create the barriers that it does. This doesn't negate the focus of those other factors, at all. Where did you get the idea that this is the slant of feminist theories?
Orangey warned you to not just take the stereotyped, Femi-nazi view and apply it to feminism, but, it seems this is what you're really speaking about.
It is the consequences to the women that these theorists and advocates focus on,
women. This, in the broadest sense, is feminist theories, looking through
all the interplay of factors and its manifestation on gender politics.
When people talk of racism, they are not simply focusing on race in isolation to other contributing factors, race issues becomes magnified again through, e.g., socio-economic factors. To say to these people, well, obviously there's other factors, means that
it can't be a race issue is short-sighted. You can say it's
not just a race issue, that would be more precise.
Race theorists have chosen one perspective of focus, feminist theorist another, and so on; this doesn't negate all other perspectives (and those theoriests would never claim that it does). It just focuses on the one that those particular advocates and theorists are interested in.
Taking the race analogy and applying it to gender, your initial position that gender issue is not relevant means that you're completely taking gender out of the equation, which is incorrect, as reality shows.
I wasn't trying to paint the world with a white middle-class brush. Obviously that kind of view is narrow-minded and invalid. Quit using your ENTP brush to paint me with such hyperboles.
It was because of this, which I bolded previously:
I've lived for nearly 22 years as a female, and I've never felt oppressed (at least not in this country) by the fact that I have a vagina. Here a woman is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed; there are available opportunities for essentially everybody, and any lacking opportunities are not due to gender biases. An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale),
You haven't seen oppresion, having been alive for nearly 22 years,
you haven't been oppressed. So,
therefore, it is redundant and outdated, and 'here [all] women is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed'..........
and until we let go of it, women will never realize that their problems have nothing to do with societal oppression and everything to do with their own frame of mind.
And, this also contradicts what you said before:
I'd argue that such "barriers" in these communities are due to something other than just gender. Oppression may exist in certain ethnic, socio-economic, and minority subpopulations, but the driving force behind such oppression is not exclusively gender; it's because of race, economic standing, or cultural dissimilarities, or any of these things+gender, not exclusively gender.
So, either it's "simply" an easy fix of her frame of mind, and NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIETAL OPPRESSION, or there are other societal barriers, as you later point out, like ethnic, socio-economic, etc. Again, you need to fix the contraditions in your position.
Again, I stand by the claim that women are not oppressed directly because of their gender (at least not in the US). If they are oppressed, there's another more important causal factor, and that's what we should be focusing on. Fighting where there's no problem is futile and takes away from our ability to find the real problems and fight them.
What does it mean directly? What's more important? How are you objectively quantifying such terms? "Directly", "more important"?
I mean can you seriously tell me that a woman in America is still treated as an inferior simply due to the fact that she's a woman?
I would never say such a naive statement, and I doubt most feminists, informed on gender politics, would say this either. You have a very skewed (and incorrect) view of what most feminist theories, in our current times, really is.