I have been frolicking with the ladies. Not last week, of course, because I was fully involved with my smash-hit, long-running production of Ghosts which actually ran, er, one week. No, it was before that that I indulged in some frolicking which, alas, at my age only means pestering some wretched women on their blog-sites, here and here. The first, an American, posts under the name The Happy Feminist which, were she British, would make her actionable under the Trade Descriptions Act! At first glance she appears quite normal in a breezy, bossy, humourless sort of way (well, she's an American woman and a lawyer, to boot!) but closer reading reveals that she is totally and unutterably miserable. She has self-obsession the way some people have bad breath, it is all-enveloping. She recently wrote a long, long post on her father which constituted the most virulent, personal attack I have ever had the pleasure of reading and in which she accused the poor sap of suffering with 'narcissistic personality disorder'. In her next post this frantic woman who has raised 'me, me, me' to the level of an ideology proudly boasted that she had placed herself in therapy. When I pointed out gently that in view of the fact, apparent to any disinterested outsider, that she was already pathologically self-obsessed, and that spending several hours on a couch talking about herself to some charlatan was hardly likely to help, I was banned! Needless to say, the Sisterhood rushed to congratulate her on her 'courage'(?) for taking this bold step into the mumbo-jumbo-land of psychiatry. Mind you, with very few exceptions all of her commenters, including the men, were 'an ego short of an id'!
The other feminist site in which I frolicked belongs to a pair of Brit bird-brains whose political theories could be, and frequently are, written on placards because they are unlikely to need any more space. Their ignorance is compounded by their arrogance, in which condition they cannot see the mirth-inducing silliness of their social stance. For example, when their oft-trumpeted feminist principles actually collided with their 'right-on', 'let-it-happen' libertarianism, as occurred on the subject of pornography they ended up standing on their silly heads. I pointed out that the pornography industry induces stupid, greedy, young girls to copulate for the profits of the men who run the industry and the titillation of those who watch it and must surely be a prime target for anyone supporting feminist principles. But these two latter-day Pankhursts would have none of it lest their free-wheeling comrades thought they had caught morality - a deadly virus in 'Trot-lot' circles! Instead, they seriously proposed that it was perfectly alright for young girls to be stripped and degraded, physically and mentally - so long as they were allowed to carry a union card!
Well, you might say that it is grossly unfair to judge an entire movement by just a few of its adherents. True, but the feminist commenters seem to be in total agreement with all this nonsense. Anyway, it leads to a more important question: what is feminism for? What, in the western world in the 21st century is its purpose? You might suppose that it is to take the fight to foreign lands and free the women there. Going abroad and bossing the natives around used to be called 'imperialism' and was rather frowned upon in Left-wing circles. Perhaps it still is because apart from one or two desultory references, a sort of Sapphic lip-service one might call it, it never seems very high on the priorities of western feminists as exampled in 'Blogdom'. Quite the opposite, they seem totally immersed in their own perceived grievances which in this day and age are petty beyond belief. The Great Feminist War was won long ago. Of course, there might be the odd outpost of male chauvinism hiding out (and if they've got any sense they'll make sure they're well hidden) here and there but nothing to get worked up about. Modern feminists are like victorious soldiers crossing the battle field and kicking the corpses!
The Marxists have it partly right (in this and other things) in saying that the 'personal is political'. They are right, I think, in the psychological sense, that those women who nurse personal grievances probably from childhood, like the 'The Un-Happy Feminist above', are likely to take up daft ideas and take them to extremes. There are, it seems to me, two types of feminists. There are the mad, bad and dangerous to know ones who I call 'feminasties'; and there are the sensible, humorous, confident women, comfortable in their feminine skins who I call 'feminicelies'.