Contemporary feminism needs a broader definition of “woman”

This is very “nice”, as in apt, or a “nice” fit. 😊 And not meaning at all soppy or compliant.

glosswatch

What is a woman, anyway? This question has been asked time and again, and still we don’t have a definitive answer. Why would that be? I have a theory: because under a system – patriarchy – which is invested in dehumanising females, the obvious response – “a female human” – would give the game away. Conscious of their own humanity, women might get uppity and stop letting men objectify their bodies, exploit their labour and generally piss about being violent. This would never do. Hence “woman”, unlike “man”, has to be really, really hard to define (so hard that you need a super-clever brain – the kind of brain that shares a body with a penis – to get it just right).

Mount Holyoke’s cancellation of its yearly production of The Vagina Monologues has given rise to a great deal of pseudo-philosophical babble regarding “reductive” and “exclusive” definitions of womanhood…

View original post 1,104 more words

Advertisements

Comments Off on Contemporary feminism needs a broader definition of “woman”

Filed under Uncategorized

Comments are closed.