Susan, I think one reason older feminists do not see what is happening is that many of them were not in the wave of women who entered non-traditional professions in the 1980s and 1990s. I tried to attend a local book group recently in my neighborhood in San Francisco. These are women who were old enough to be "hippies" in Haight-Ashbury …
Susan, I think one reason older feminists do not see what is happening is that many of them were not in the wave of women who entered non-traditional professions in the 1980s and 1990s. I tried to attend a local book group recently in my neighborhood in San Francisco. These are women who were old enough to be "hippies" in Haight-Ashbury in the 1960 and 70s. It's hard to get these women to engage on topics around the type of misogyny that women have experienced since the 1990s. My impression is that they've simply bought into the narrative that women's rights were fully won when women won the right to abortion and that women's rights are addressed simply by defending the right to abortion.
After women won the right to abortion, there continued to be a conversation in the 1980s and early 1990s about gender roles. Unfortunately, in the last twenty-five years or so, Judith Butler seems to have transformed this discussion into a discussion that has tried to eliminate the notion of gender and sex entirely. Many people don't realize that this has huge legal and social ramifications.
The single best account of the varying definitions of "gender", and the transformation of academic feminism in the 1990s, is recounted in Kathleen Stock's book "Material Girl". If any of the women you are talking to would be open enough to read this book, that might be a good start.
In terms of the psychology, and what's going on with teenagers, one needs to consider social media and smartphones. I think people that don't have teenagers with smartphones don't understand that smartphone addiction is real, and that what is on social media is toxic, especially to teenage girls.
For what is going on with teenagers and social media, Jon Haidt's and Jean Twenge's papers are enlightening:
Margaret Atwood is probably the most prominent example of a feminist who hasn't been willing to defend biological sex. That's quite significant, because in Canada, sex as well as gender are protected in law in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Yet many women's rights are under attack in Canada. Atwood has explicitly said in an interview with Hadley Freeman that she thinks sex is on a distribution. I love several of Atwood's books, especially "The Edible Woman". Yet, she refuses to dig into the literature and science that shows that biological sex is not on a distribution.
On top of this, Canada has had, and continues to have a dialog about violence against women:
How can we even have a dialog about violence against women if we can't even talk coherently about who women are?
Many people outside Canada think that Canada's most prominent feminist is Margaret Atwood. I would say no. The "sex is on a distribution" position is convenient for her to take. She's got two million followers on twitter.
Francine Pelletier: 4,300 twitter followers
Canadian Femicide Observatory: 8,800 followers
Amy Eileen Hamm: 33,000 twitter followers
Meghan Murphy: 83,000 twitter followers
Atwood continues to be a darling of the Guardian and the New York Times. Many women continue to read her as a beacon of feminism.
Susan, I think one reason older feminists do not see what is happening is that many of them were not in the wave of women who entered non-traditional professions in the 1980s and 1990s. I tried to attend a local book group recently in my neighborhood in San Francisco. These are women who were old enough to be "hippies" in Haight-Ashbury in the 1960 and 70s. It's hard to get these women to engage on topics around the type of misogyny that women have experienced since the 1990s. My impression is that they've simply bought into the narrative that women's rights were fully won when women won the right to abortion and that women's rights are addressed simply by defending the right to abortion.
After women won the right to abortion, there continued to be a conversation in the 1980s and early 1990s about gender roles. Unfortunately, in the last twenty-five years or so, Judith Butler seems to have transformed this discussion into a discussion that has tried to eliminate the notion of gender and sex entirely. Many people don't realize that this has huge legal and social ramifications.
The single best account of the varying definitions of "gender", and the transformation of academic feminism in the 1990s, is recounted in Kathleen Stock's book "Material Girl". If any of the women you are talking to would be open enough to read this book, that might be a good start.
In terms of the psychology, and what's going on with teenagers, one needs to consider social media and smartphones. I think people that don't have teenagers with smartphones don't understand that smartphone addiction is real, and that what is on social media is toxic, especially to teenage girls.
For what is going on with teenagers and social media, Jon Haidt's and Jean Twenge's papers are enlightening:
https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/
Material Girls is a terrific book. I recommend it to everyone, whether they ask for recommendations or not! I am a big, big Kathleen Stock fan: https://prufrocksdilemma.wordpress.com/2023/05/31/taking-stock/
Margaret Atwood is probably the most prominent example of a feminist who hasn't been willing to defend biological sex. That's quite significant, because in Canada, sex as well as gender are protected in law in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Yet many women's rights are under attack in Canada. Atwood has explicitly said in an interview with Hadley Freeman that she thinks sex is on a distribution. I love several of Atwood's books, especially "The Edible Woman". Yet, she refuses to dig into the literature and science that shows that biological sex is not on a distribution.
On top of this, Canada has had, and continues to have a dialog about violence against women:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2023/06/12/incels-murder-designation-as-terrorism-more-proof-its-a-grim-time-for-womens-rights.html
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-december-1-2019-1.5377096/30-years-since-the-montreal-massacre-we-still-see-a-deadly-hatred-of-women-1.5377220
How can we even have a dialog about violence against women if we can't even talk coherently about who women are?
Many people outside Canada think that Canada's most prominent feminist is Margaret Atwood. I would say no. The "sex is on a distribution" position is convenient for her to take. She's got two million followers on twitter.
Francine Pelletier: 4,300 twitter followers
Canadian Femicide Observatory: 8,800 followers
Amy Eileen Hamm: 33,000 twitter followers
Meghan Murphy: 83,000 twitter followers
Atwood continues to be a darling of the Guardian and the New York Times. Many women continue to read her as a beacon of feminism.