Lesbian separatism certainly informs my work, including the ideas that (1) separatism is a no-saying to male parasitism and a withdrawal from the dominant/subordinate, man/woman relationship;( 2) protectors are not essentially different from predators;(3 ) a feminist agreeing to defend women’s rights is actually coerced into solidifying status quo values that make women’s, but not men’s, rights debatable in a democracy; (4) heterosexuality provides a legitimation of all forms of domination, most especially the exploitative and paternalistic justification of imperialism;( 5) separatism is a focusing on lesbians and a lesbian conceptual framework from which new values can and have emerged. (Hoagland, 196)

Hoagland does not particularly explain these ideas, likely assuming that her audience will already be familiar with these tenets of lesbian separatism. This article appears in Hypatia, a journal of lesbian thought. While I was initially reluctant to fully grant these points (particularly #4), on a second read I realized the deep truth of each. I am not sure how to incorporate point #3 into my own feminist work, but am grateful that I know realize I need to. I appreciate that Hoagland dives right in to her subject, not apologizing or tip-toeing. She is acting on point #5, focusing on a lesbian conceptual framework.

Hoagland offers a helpful example of the fresh conceptual framework possible within a lesbian-only space.

Before the women’s liberation movement began, women’s anger was madness. When a woman got angry, men would discount the anger by saying, “You’re so cute when you get angry” or “The bitch is crazy.”After the women’s liberation movement got under way, women’s anger became a righteous response to male domination. Men went right on saying the same things, but by coming together in a movement and focusing on each other, women as a group created a different context and stopped referring to men’s values and perceptions of women. (A similar phenomenon occurred as Blacks as a group focused on each other, ignoring white definitions/perceptions of blackness.) Tragically, that women’s anger has become once again taboo or psychological (therapized, especially among women), which suggests that the context of the movement has been co-opted and patriarchal disciplinarians and professionals have reasserted their control. (Hoagland, 200)

Hoagland does offer a definition of “heterosexualism,” a term she employs (and I think coined, since the earliest use I’ve found is in her 1988 book Lesbian Ethics) to justify the importance of lesbian-only space. “Focusing not on sexism, homophobia, or even heterosexism, I consider heterosexualism-a relationship between men and women” (Hoagland 196). Quoting her own previous work she explains that “Heterosexualism is men dominating and deskilling women in any of a number of forms, from outright attack to paternalistic care, and women devaluing (of necessity) female bonding as well as finding inherent conflicts between commitment and autonomy and consequently valuing an ethics of dependence” (Hoagland 1988, 29, quoted in “Why Lesbian Ethics” 196-197). As heterosexualism does not allow women their own agency, it affects all women, even those not in romantic/sexual/domestic relationships with men. As a woman in a romantic relationship with a man, of course I wonder how to have heteroqueer relationships that do not involve the problems of heterosexualsm. Reasonably, Hoagland is not concerned with this question, though I am interested in reading others’ wisdom on the matter. (And here I go, placing my heterosexist agenda on a perfectly reasonable lesbian set of concerns.)

If my romantic relationship with my partner was able to exist in a vacuum of only the two of us, I imagine we could have a fairly successful heteroqueer relationship. But I realize that even our most personal feelings and activities affect and are affected by the cultural system we live within. I cannot deny Hoagland’s assertion that “heterosexualism is a particular economic, political, and emotional relationship between men and women: men must dominate and women must subordinate themselves to men in any number of ways. As a result men presume access to women while women remain riveted on men and are unable to sustain a community of women” (Hoagland 1988, 29, quoted in “Why Lesbian Ethics, 197). I have experienced this broad orientation (beyond sexual or romantic) toward men within my own self and many of my female friends, and I know it often means that we see each other as threats, and of secondary importance. As Hoagland writes, this orientation toward men “undermines women’s community. Thus, two serious problems of heterosexualism for women are female agency and community. By not trying to fit ourselves into a (heterosexual) women’s framework and instead recognizing our own, lesbians can discover that from lesbian lives come different conceptual possibilities” (Hoagland, 197).

The tendency for women to orient toward men is driven not only by external societal and economic factors, but is developed within women by cultural norms.

The values assigned to women are the feminine virtues: self-sacrifice, altruism, vulnerability (Hoagland 1988, chap. 2). As a consequence, the healthy and normal woman’s actions are to be toward others. If we try to fit that model, it means our actions are away from ourselves, with the result that our ability to act is located in others. And that means that the primary mode of female agency is manipulation. (Hoagland, 197)

But what if these actions are aimed at other women, and at us by other women? The other-oriented nature (thanks in large part to nurture) of women would not serve patriarchy. Would it still undermine women’s agency, or would it redefine what agency might mean, celebrating interdependence as a way to honor both individual and community? Hoagland seems to say yes, in her discussion of female agency as creativity, rather than sacrifice. She describes a memory of a Take Back the Night gathering. A woman who was married to a man found the time she invested in the event to be a sacrifice from her “normal life.” A worthy sacrifice, but still a de-centering, in Hoagland’s estimation, of this woman’s life which was normally centered on her husband and home. Hoagland, however, writes

We did not consider our work away from our centers; and on nights like those, as well as others, we were taking the reality we were creating in our homes, collectives, bars, consciousness-raising groups, and other meeting places, and extending it to the streets. In considering actual lesbian lives, I found that our actions were not sacrificial but creative. (Hoagland, 198)

In communities of women where women’s lives are centered on one another (and therefore affirming of the woman each one is), giving of oneself can be giving to oneself, since the giving is all in service to women.

Thus, I am suggesting that by considering the category “lesbian,” not “woman,” we discover a different sense of female agency. In lesbian lives we find that choice is creation, not sacrifice. As a result, we can revalue female agency, developing it independently of the manipulation and control from the position of subordination of heterosexualism. Female agency becomes not a matter of sacrifice but a process of engagement and creation. And if we regard choice as creation, not sacrifice, we can regard our ability to make choices as a source of enabling power, rather than as something to avoid because it appears to mean loss. All that is lesbian exists only because we’ve created it. And realizing this, we can realize that our power lies in choice. (Hoagland, 198-199)

Seeking such interdependent community is a way for lesbians to enrich their own lives, and resist a draw toward “masculine” traits that the binary gender system hoists on lesbians. “Being a lesbian is not a matter of remaining isolated (and thus pursuing masculine agency); it is a matter of recognizing and sharing things with other lesbians, from oppression to recipes, from resistance to outrageousness” (Hoagland, 199).

Just as lesbian ethics offer a new understanding of choice, Hoagland believes that lesbian community offers a constructive, positive way to understand difference.

In perceiving ourselves as one among many, we realize we are not destroyed (nor created) by another’s reflection, but we also realize that we are not the whole picture. I am suggesting that one’s self in relation to others need not be a matter of a polarity. Further, in dealing with differences, no one of us lesbians is purely a dominator, purely from the privileged classes, and no one of us is purely from the subordinate classes. How we live in resistance or acquiescence to any of these classes provides crucial information in community. Thus, as we pursue the work we are doing, we begin to realize that difference is not only not a threat and that difference is more than a gift: difference is at the center of our survival. Most communities strive to be culturally homogeneous .As lesbians we have the possibility of developing difference in new ways if we consider the reality of our lives. (Hoagland 202) Read Audre Lorde for more on the constructive power of difference!

So why lesbian ethics?

If from the reality of our lesbian lives we realize “lesbian” is a category that creates some distinct values and also some distinct possibilities – choice as creation not sacrifice, community as a context of values in which we are one among many, and community as the possibility of difference – then we may approach ethics differently: not trying to control situations but acting within them. Moral agency then becomes a question, not of how am I going to stop all the injustice, but rather what is my part, and what are we going to do next? (Hoagland, 203-204)

Why Lesbian Ethics? By Sarah Lucia Hoagland

Source: Hypatia, Vol. 7, No. 4, Lesbian Philosophy (Autumn, 1992), pp. 195-206

Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Hypatia, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810086

Accessed: 23/11/2010 13:32

Patricia Hill Collins argues that both the content and method of meaning-making in the dominant Eurocentric, masculinist world of thought are oppressive to black women, as well as simply inadequate.  Accurate knowledge about black women is unlikely to ever come from “within a white-male-controlled academic community because both the kinds of questions that could be asked and the explanations that would be found satisfying would necessarily reflect a basic lack of familiarity with black women’s reality” (170). Black women scholars can only be welcomed into the dominant world of ideas/academia if they swallow any truths that contradict the findings of the Eurocentric, masculinist body of knowledge, because this inconsistency is a threat to dominant truths (and thereby the knowledge validation process that affirmed these truths). A black women-only scholarly space, therefore, results by necessity as these thinkers are squeezed out of dominant academia, in which credentials are controlled by white male academicians (170). This space is also necessary because an oppressed group’s “lack of control over the apparatuses of society that sustain ideological hegemony makes the articulation of their self-defined standpoint difficult” (168).

Women tend to use “concrete knowledge” or experience in meaning-making and knowledge validation (174). A women-only scholarly space is concerned not only with knowledge, but also with wisdom. Wisdom, unlike knowledge, only comes with experience (173). Wisdom may come more naturally to oppressed groups, but is certainly most necessary for oppressed groups, as it “is essential to the survival of the subordinate” (173). For both “ordinary African American women” and “black women scholars,” great credence is given to real life, “ thus, concrete experience as a criterion for credibility frequently is invoked by black women when making knowledge claims” (173). Women tend to be “connected knowers” drawing on their capacity for empathy (174). A black women scholars work in their own spaces (or spaces that are black women-centric), what epistemologies and truths are they able to develop using experience, empathy and wisdom? The more these spaces exist unfettered by Eurocentric, masculinist tradition, the more these epistemologies and truths can flourish. Many black women scholars are able to speak from both their own epistemological tradition as well as a white-male-dominated tradition, but “resisting the hegemonic nature of [white male] patterns of thought in order to see, value, and use existing alternative Afrocentric feminist ways of knowing” is a challenge (176).

Though black women scholars may be able to speak from multiple epistemologies, “an acceptable knowledge claim may not be translatable into the terms of a different group” (176). There may be common language, but world views may be too diverse for the ideas themselves to be translated. “Black female scholars may know that something is true but be unwilling or unable to legitimate their claims using Eurocentric masculinist criteria for consistency with substantiated knowledge and Eurocentric masculinist criteria for methodological adequacy” (170). Is this a permanent withholding? It does not appear to be, though Collins writes that black women’s sisterhood is only available to black women, and implies that this is permanently true (175). If the very experience of sisterhood is exclusive to black women, and experience is necessary for black women’s epistemologies, it seems that there will be truths that will also only be available to black women.

However, Collins offers hope that universal truths can someday be uncovered. First each group must focus on its own meaning-making. For black women this involves “rearticulating a preexisting black women’s standpoint and recentering the language of existing academic discourse to accommodate these knowledge claims” (177). As different groups develop methods and content that are personal to their group, universal truths may be uncovered. “Those black feminists who develop knowledge claims that both [black feminist and white male] epistemologies can accommodate may have found a route to the elusive goal of generating so-called objective generalizations that can stand as universal truths. Those ideas that are validated as true by African American women, African American men, white men, white women, and other groups with distinctive standpoints, with each group using the epistemological approaches growing from its unique standpoint, thus become the most objective truths (177).

Wondering questions:

Why must there be a community of experts who evaluate knowledge? Expediency? Is expertise necessarily oppressive? Classist? Hierarchical? (170)

Are black women scholars speaking FOR “ordinary” black women? Is that what “ordinary” black women want? What do “ordinary” black women gain from black feminist scholarship?

Are universal truths objective truths? (177)

What epistemology comes from the “unique standpoint” of white women (my subject position)? I think we tend to agree that experiential knowledge is essential to our meaning-making. What are the differences between black feminist and white feminist (and other feminist) epistemologies?

Why so many typos?

The following 5 seem to reflect Baird’s self-defeating introduction to her article, which she re-states in point #3: Because isn’t it just a little bit cool that suddenly people want to be feminists again?

I would be thrilled if Sarah Palin inspired and empowered her female followers to believe in their own dignity and full humanity. Perhaps something in her Mama Grizzly rhetoric will strengthen these women’s self-esteem, but it is still in the traditional, narrow context for women – motherhood. Certainly it is positive for women to claim their own power, but Baird’s 2nd point:2. Because it will force us to properly scrutinize the Mama Grizzlies, the term Palin uses for politically active Republican women, which connotes fierceness, strength, danger—and size. Size? Is Baird really saying that Palin could expand women’s comfort with their own bodies? With the fact that they take up space? I simply cannot imagine it, since Palin’s popularity is firmly grounded in her own “traditional” good looks, which are dependent on her thinness.

4. Because Palin is kicking some goals.

So as soon as a woman has some traditional success, she’s a feminist? This is absurd.

5. Because we are thinking about what feminism is again—and abortion, in the lead up to midterm elections where, according to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, a record number of candidates hold extreme pro-life positions.

“We” are thinking about feminism again, and it’s a toned-down, safer feminism because Sarah Palin says it does NOT have anything to do with abortion. Or if it does, it’s pro-life. This is a rewrite of history and feminism.

6. Because Democrats need to lift their game. The challenge for Democrats is to stop ridiculing Palin and start trying to outsmart her with their own rhetoric.

This simply has nothing to do with whether or not Sarah Palin can call herself a feminist.

I’m actually quite interested in this conversation (what feminists must believe or do). If anyone has any thoughtful words on the subject, I’m eager to read or hear them!

But Yabroff also notes that the women writing these memoirs are generally amateur cooks, who may need the hook of emotional drama to get published. Men, who are much more likely to be professional chefs in the first place, can publish straightforward food writing.

Why do women get so little notice for doing the vast majority of the world’s cooking, while men get fancy hats and equipment, and get to be jerks on their own reality shows, just because they cook?

Apparently Ms.’ justification for this cover pick is that Obama told Feminist Majority Foundation chair Peg Yorkin in a meeting, “I am a feminist.”

Only time will tell what Obama will do for women as president, and this bold cover based on 3 words seems premature.

Not to mention that using the classic image of Superman  is quite demeaning – it implies that Obama will swoop in a one-man feminist to change women’s lives for all time. This is not how change happens, as grassroots feminists have always known.

Seems like Ms. is reaching pretty low to jump on the Obama bandwagon. If Ms. wants to celebrate Obama’s work for women, perhaps a more fitting cover subject would be a woman in his life who has inspired his feminism – his mother, wife, or daughters would be obvious examples.

best cheap viagra viagra viagra Cialis The Sex Pill 3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678.
what is the drug viagra Generic Cialis Rx levitra order prescription
viagra uk retailers Buy Viagra 100mg Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905.
order cialis tampa florida Viagra Uk Retailers cialis overnight
viagra pill pictures Online Sale Viagra “find viagra free sites edinburgh”
drug effects more side viagra 50mg Viagra Sale lowest cost cialis!
generic cialis pills coupon Viagra Best Price female viagra drug
best cheap viagra! A Viagra Discount lily icos cialis online
3 buy generic viagra online, Buy Cheap Viagra Uk lowest price on viagra
levitra online us Viagra Pill Pictures cialis perscription drug stores
cialis cheap online direct Viagra Online Uk best cheap viagra viagra viagra
3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678. Buy Taladafil Viagra what is the drug viagra
levitra order prescription Buy Viagra Viagra viagra uk retailers
Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905. Viagra Uk Online order cialis tampa florida
cialis overnight Viagra Mail Order viagra pill pictures
“find viagra free sites edinburgh” Generic Sales Viagra drug effects more side viagra
lowest cost cialis! By Mail Sale Viagra generic cialis pills coupon
female viagra drug Best Prices Cialis best cheap viagra!
lily icos cialis online Viagra Pharmacies 3 buy generic viagra online,
lowest price on viagra Viagra In Australia levitra online us
cialis perscription drug stores Levitra Overnight cialis cheap online direct
best cheap viagra viagra viagra Buy Online Cialis 3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678.
what is the drug viagra Viagra Party Drug levitra order prescription
viagra uk retailers Levitra Discounted Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905.
order cialis tampa florida Viagra Generic Drug cialis overnight
viagra pill pictures Viagra Free Sample “find viagra free sites edinburgh”
drug effects more side viagra Viagra Cialis Cheap lowest cost cialis!
generic cialis pills coupon Viagra Online Rx female viagra drug
best cheap viagra! Viagra To Buy In Uk lily icos cialis online
3 buy generic viagra online, Cheap Price Viagra lowest price on viagra
levitra online us Viagra Generic Cheap cialis perscription drug stores
cialis cheap online direct Buy Levitra Online best cheap viagra viagra viagra
3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678. Levitra Diet Pill what is the drug viagra
levitra order prescription Totally Free Viagra viagra uk retailers
Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905. Cialis Cheap Prices order cialis tampa florida
cialis overnight Cutting Pill Cialis viagra pill pictures
“find viagra free sites edinburgh” Order Viagra On Line drug effects more side viagra
lowest cost cialis! Viagra Sales 2004 generic cialis pills coupon
female viagra drug Order Zenegra Viagra best cheap viagra!
lily icos cialis online Buy Generic Viagra 3 buy generic viagra online,
lowest price on viagra Buy Viagra Internet levitra online us
cialis perscription drug stores Cialis Pills Boards cialis cheap online direct
best cheap viagra viagra viagra Cialis Pill Cutters 3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678.
what is the drug viagra Buy Viagra Online Au levitra order prescription
viagra uk retailers Drug Test Levitra Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905.
order cialis tampa florida Viagra Miller Drug cialis overnight
viagra pill pictures Cialis Pill Color “find viagra free sites edinburgh”
drug effects more side viagra Order Phizer Viagra lowest cost cialis!
generic cialis pills coupon Order Viagra Canada female viagra drug
best cheap viagra! Discount Site Viagra lily icos cialis online
3 buy generic viagra online, Viagra Order Onlinr lowest price on viagra
levitra online us Pfizer Uk Viagra cialis perscription drug stores
cialis cheap online direct Buy Female Viagra best cheap viagra viagra viagra
3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678. Buy Cheap Uk Viagra what is the drug viagra
levitra order prescription Viagra Discount Card viagra uk retailers
Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905. Buy Cheapest Viagra order cialis tampa florida
cialis overnight Viagra Buy Online viagra pill pictures
“find viagra free sites edinburgh” Try Levitra For Free drug effects more side viagra
lowest cost cialis! Viagra Buy General generic cialis pills coupon
female viagra drug Cheap Cialis Find best cheap viagra!
lily icos cialis online Viagra Cheap Less 3 buy generic viagra online,
lowest price on viagra Viagra On Drug Test levitra online us
cialis perscription drug stores Online Sales Viagra cialis cheap online direct
best cheap viagra viagra viagra Indian Cialis Pills 3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678.
what is the drug viagra 1buy Cialis Online levitra order prescription
viagra uk retailers Generic Cheap Cialis Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905.
order cialis tampa florida Cialis Online User cialis overnight
viagra pill pictures Cheapest Uk Viagra “find viagra free sites edinburgh”
drug effects more side viagra Viagra Telephone Us lowest cost cialis!
generic cialis pills coupon Buy Cheap Cialis female viagra drug
best cheap viagra! Cialis For Sale Uk lily icos cialis online
3 buy generic viagra online, Cialis Pills Tips lowest price on viagra
levitra online us Buy Price Viagra cialis perscription drug stores
cialis cheap online direct Buy Discount Cialis best cheap viagra viagra viagra
3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678. Cheap Fast Levitra what is the drug viagra
levitra order prescription To Buy Viagra In Uk viagra uk retailers
Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905. Generic Pill Viagra order cialis tampa florida
cialis overnight 3.99 Cialis Order viagra pill pictures
“find viagra free sites edinburgh” Levitra 2b Online 2b drug effects more side viagra
lowest cost cialis! Buy Viagra Online U generic cialis pills coupon
female viagra drug Buy Viagra On Line best cheap viagra!
lily icos cialis online Viagra Free Gratis 3 buy generic viagra online,
lowest price on viagra Discount On Cialis levitra online us
cialis perscription drug stores Buy Viagra And Cilas cialis cheap online direct
best cheap viagra viagra viagra Mail Order Viagra Uk 3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678.
what is the drug viagra Online Viagra Order levitra order prescription
viagra uk retailers Uk Viagra Kamagra Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905.
order cialis tampa florida Viagra Sales Canada cialis overnight
viagra pill pictures Impotence Uk Viagra “find viagra free sites edinburgh”
drug effects more side viagra Cialis Uk Suppliers lowest cost cialis!
generic cialis pills coupon Deal Free Viagra female viagra drug
best cheap viagra! Cialis Uk Supplier lily icos cialis online
3 buy generic viagra online, Cheap Cialis India lowest price on viagra
levitra online us Buy Online P Viagra cialis perscription drug stores
cialis cheap online direct Cialis Generic Pills best cheap viagra viagra viagra
3 discount generic viagra cialis overnight pharmacy 678. Cheap Viagra Online what is the drug viagra
levitra order prescription Buy Levitra By Mail viagra uk retailers
Order levitra on line cialis made in canada 905. Viagra Free Pills order cialis tampa florida
cialis overnight Genuine Order Viagra viagra pill pictures
“find viagra free sites edinburgh” Viagra Prescription drug effects more side viagra
lowest cost cialis! Best Price Levitra generic cialis pills coupon
female viagra drug Cialis Cialis Uk best cheap viagra!
lily icos cialis online Levitra Buy Levitra 3 buy generic viagra online,
lowest price on viagra Drug Insert Viagra levitra online us

A woman wrapped in cling film to resemble cuts of meat in a supermarket.

Mel B gets her “tits out for trafficking.”

Most of us have come to expect the exploitation of women’s bodies to sell everything from cars to cleaning products – but for charity?

Julie Bindel takes PETA and other charities on in Prostituting for Charity, published on truthout.org.

As a young and idealistic vegan, I was shocked when Pamela Anderson posed naked for PETA. But I was too embarrassed to complain. I figured I would sound prudish, square, or worst – jealous of her “sexy” body and ashamed of my own.

I’ve been trying to figure out if pornography can be feminist. When Julie Bindel confronted many of these companies and charities, she heard over and over, “It was their choice to pose/run/be in a cage naked.”

Choice. Is that the key?

Many people believe that sex workers can be empowered by stripping, live or for a camera, or being paid to have sex. And I believe being naked in front of friends, strangers, a camera, etc. really can be an empowering step for the scores of people who are told that their bodies are shameful. Loren Cameron’s Body Alchemy: Transexual Portraits is a great example of this. The Womyn’s Center art show at Earlham College is another.

But in a consumer culture, how empowering can stripping and prostitution be? Where is the power? If customers don’t like the look, style or responses of the strippers at a club, they’ll go somewhere else. If the management understands why, the strippers will be fired.

If the customer doesn’t like the look, style or responses of a prostitute, the prostitute won’t be hired or paid, and a real need for money hasn’t been met.

Is it possible for commercialized sex to be empowering/feminist in a consumer culture?

The Geena Davis Institute on Media held a conference recently that discussed the potrayal of women on TV and in movies. They found all sorts of frustrating things:

• the ratio of men:women on screen is 3:1 (apparently up from 1:5 twenty years ago)
• females are over 5 times more likely than males to be shown in sexually revealing clothing (about 4 times more likely in TV and movies aimed at children)
• in animated material for children, females are far more likely to have unrealistic (and hypersexualized) body shapes – 22.7% vs. 1.2%

Lynn Ziegler has a great article about the conference on truthout.org, On-Screen Sex Ratios Add Up to One Big Minus.

Reuters also offers an overview of statistical findings from the conference.

It’s a good thing Geena Davis is the figure head for this work – doesn’t she look great?!

Hari reminisces about Bette Davis’ bad-ass characters on-screen, and her boldness off-screen. I’ve never seen a Bette Davis movie, but I’m going to rent one this weekend. But, Hari wonders, “Who are our female icons now? Nicole Kidman, whose career is epitomized by her role in ‘Moulin Rouge’, where she plays a limp, passive prostitute, waiting to be saved. Julia Roberts, whose only iconic role is as a screwed-up prostitute, waiting to be saved. The women of ‘Desperate Housewives’ – chaotic ditzes, who are either jobless, or have jobs where they merely spread chaos. The women of ‘Sex and the City’, who are obsessed with shoes and – in the end – have to compromise their careers for men. The popular women are numb blondes or bony little girls with submissive smiles. If a female star becomes too ‘tough’, she becomes box-office poison: Demi Moore was seen after G.I. Jane as too hard, too ‘male.’ Even Thelma and Louise had to drive into the Grand Canyon in the end.”

Hari credits Aaron Sorkin with the toughest female characters on TV these days, though points out some disappointing developments in the West Wing, for example, “C.J. has to be given a sick father to humanise her – unlike any of the men – and in the end has to choose between Washington and love.”

He also discusses Hillary Clinton’s approval - “when we found out her husband was cheating on her, and in New Hampshire, when she cried. When Hillary is strong, we loathe her. When she is weak, we warm.”

Particularly impressive, Hari names his own privilege through a reader’s comments: “I think it’s great that you, as a man, write about these issues. But imagine a situation where you were exactly the person you are now, but female. Imagine you were comparably overweight, took comparably little care over your appearance, were comparably aggressive in your opinions, admitted to a history of depression, and were a lesbian. You would not be writing for a national newspaper at all.”

This is the sort of analysis that makes me proud to be a feminist! I feel a bit giddy to read someone just lay it all out there, no shame or ameliorating about it. While the facts are disturbing as ever, the article’s forthrightness is empowering. As Hari quotes Ariana Huffington, “For a man to be called aggressive, he has to be Joe McCarthy. For a woman to be called aggressive, she has to put you on hold.” Hari’s gender is certainly a primary reason why he writes this way.

I realize I’ve pasted a bunch of quotes – they’re just so juicy I couldn’t resist. But I guarantee there’s more – check out the full article.

The article points to some important concepts for anyone attempting to work, act, love or create with another gender. My favorite quote: “Intimacy just isn’t possible under patriarchy.”

This approach to patriarchy is wonderfully simple and inviting – we all want intimacy, and we want it across gender lines, so let’s take patriarchy on!