Tara you have already shown us twice convincingly that you have zero idea about feminism or feminist theory. I doubt you have read any feminist books in your life. Why don‘t you go and enjoy some more ‚jouissance‘ with Lacan and the feminist postmodern boys you so adore and leave feminists who have written feminist books for forty years to discuss feminist issues. Your antifeminism will make you many friends - just not among feminists who roll their eyes at your ignorance. You might stick to geography, perhaps you have something interesting to say in that field.
Ms. Klein, a textbook feminist hysteric, reacts to critique not with engagement but with symptom. She rapid-fired nine logical fallacies—defense mechanisms deployed to deflect critique rather than confront what might destabilize her libidinal investment in The Patriarchy fantasy.
Ms. Klein’s Logical Fallacies (read: symptoms):
1. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Attacks my personal credibility (e.g., academic background, field of study) instead of responding to the argument’s substance.
2. Credentialism / Appeal to Authority: Invokes the authority of unnamed feminists as a stand-in for actual engagement. Citation is used as deflection, not as argument.
3. Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresents my critique of institutional or imperial feminism as blanket ignorance of feminism itself, in order to dismiss it more easily.
4. Argument from Silence: Assumes I have not read or studied feminist theory simply because I do not cite or affirm its conclusions—without considering that I am quite familiar with the current state of feminist thought, such as it is.
5. Gatekeeping / Boundary Policing: Attempts to exclude me from the discourse on the basis of group identity or presumed inauthenticity, rather than addressing the validity of my claims.
6. Poisoning the Well: Pre-emptively discredits me by framing me as inherently ignorant, thus eliminating the need to engage with my critique.
7. Appeal to Group Consensus: Relies on the implied authority of “real feminists” to silence dissent, instead of responding to the argument with evidence or logic.
8. Moral Posturing: Assumes a position of moral superiority without demonstrating how that position addresses my critique. Affective righteousness stands in for analysis.
9. Performative Outrage: Frames my structural critique as a personal attack, in order to shut down the conversation and recast me as the aggressor.
This is a hysterical outburst, not a rebuttal: a structurally defensive maneuver aimed at preserving the subject’s fantasy framework by redirecting critique onto the analyst. The real object being protected here is not feminism. No—it is her sublime object cause of desire: The Patriarchy™.
Enjoy your symptom, Renate
Now, since credentials are apparently the currency required to enter feminist discourse—a rule, ironically, set by a very minor publisher few outside the clique have heard of—I’ll play along. I minored in Women’s Studies (Magna Cum Laude).
And not to be elitist (your rules, not mine), but: It’s Dr. Tara. Momma to three got a DPhil. 😉
Do you? Or does my symbolic capital trump yours?
Also, still waiting for your response to my piece that Jennifer Bilek published—or to the longer version in Savage Minds.
Or is this deflection all you’ve got? If so, I accept your surrender.
It's a pity you ignore the feminist critics over at least the last 50 years engaging in critical thinking about war, power, globalisation, ecological disaster. If you are really interested you could read the works of Maria Mies, Farida Akhter, Vandana Shiva or, indeed me. My book Wild Politics: Feminism, Globalisation and Biodiversity was published 20+ years ago https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/shop/p/9781925950687. Or read my more recent book, Vortex: The Crisis of Patriarchy (2020). https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/shop/p/9781925950168
Why should feminist cirtiques prevail over human rights critiques? Women are human and this is a disaster created on the heels of imperialism and capitlism, not misogyny, not anything to do with women specifically. I know Vandana Shiva personally and she knows quite well that the uses of feminist criticism are largely symbolic and mythological, which of course have their place, but so too do the narratives of male communalism (eg. Marshall Sahlins). I fear until we address capitalism and outlandish, elephant in the in the room colonialism, these problems will always exist. Feminism gives minor salvos and plasters to the situation. We need a gutting of the system through a revaluation of class and power that strips through all the identity politics of theories. Give everyone the means to production and a home, just as UN studies show how literacy for women and girls function, and you see quick remedies to all the problems that feminists highlight.
Just about every male writer I read, even the ones I roughly agree with, rarely cite the work of women. I have written critical work about capitalism, globalisation, war, climate catastrophe, colonisation, class, Indigenous knowledge and much more. There is so much good feminist work in these areas, but so much is ignored. That is my point. These feminist analyses are not narrow, we cite the men, but that is rarely reciprocated. I too know Vandana and have published seven of her books. I am surprised you think I disagree with you. I read Savage Minds regularly.
This is simply not the case today, Susan. There is so much good work that is not feminist that better addresses the catostrophes we are facing. As thousands fo feminists around the world maintain massive support for the genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine, anyone look at this would only see feminism as a sham and a complete failure. In fact, many regard feminism as a problem in the world today just as they view identity politics of other veins. The lambasting of "men don't do this" is precisely what I thought feminists were supposed to oppose: the swift generalisations of what men and women ought to do or don't do enough of. One must resist the temptation to generalise or make caricatures of the opposite sex because this has proven time and time again to fail. Feminists talk about male violence and avoid the just as well-documented female violence replete throughout history and social science studies. Feminists herald the murderous legacy of women like Hillary Clinton advocating for such figures in public office, and then turn around when these women lose elections and scream "misogyny". It's all so simplistic and skirts around the greater problems of feminism and violence.
We are living through a genocide in Gaza and I see no feminists fighting this while putting their need to discuss feminism to the side. I find this to be the number one indicator that feminism has a humanism problem.
This does not represent the feminist communities I live in. Perhaps this represents life in the US which can be like a fishbowl. What do you mean by today? Within the last year? It seems very narrow to me. I have been writing about capitalism and colonisation and environmental issues (climate change too) for at least 20 years. Maria Mies' book, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour (published by Spinifex in 1998; the book is now available from Bloomsbury) is exactly the kind of analysis that should be discussed.
Most people--feminists included--don't live in feminists communities. They live in the world. Most vocal feminists in the UK sided with the US proxy war in Ukraine and likewise with Zionism. I see more pushback from Americans than any other country in the west on this thus far, so I don't understand your reference to the US. I also live in Europe and am horrified by the silence over Israel by prominent feminists. You can cite all the books you want. Gazans are being genocided and feminists are silent.
Interesting that you assume omission is ignorance rather than informed judgment.
Also telling is that your response to Murray’s structural analysis of imperial collapse and genocide is to try to shift the conversation toward feminist mythos and critique, without offering any clear demonstration of how these relate to the concrete situation or the political realignments he’s describing.
Not to mention the fact that feminism—especially in the West—doesn’t just fail to interrupt imperialism, it often functions as its progressive camouflage. What has it actually accomplished, besides putting more women from the Global South in the World Bank, the UN, and the IMF, or celebrating the recruitment of lesbian drone operators?
And while we’re here: what war have Western feminists materially opposed—especially the ones that would put them at odds with Zionist feminists, threaten their institutional positions, or risk deplatforming and arrest for speaking out?
If feminist praxis can’t even stand up to genocide—if it remains silent, confused, or complicit—then it’s time for a reckoning, not another syllabus.
And frankly, it’s nauseating that in the midst of an ongoing genocide, some feminists are still playing Two Degrees to Patriarchy and Three Degrees to “buy my book”.
Tara you have already shown us twice convincingly that you have zero idea about feminism or feminist theory. I doubt you have read any feminist books in your life. Why don‘t you go and enjoy some more ‚jouissance‘ with Lacan and the feminist postmodern boys you so adore and leave feminists who have written feminist books for forty years to discuss feminist issues. Your antifeminism will make you many friends - just not among feminists who roll their eyes at your ignorance. You might stick to geography, perhaps you have something interesting to say in that field.
Ms. Klein, a textbook feminist hysteric, reacts to critique not with engagement but with symptom. She rapid-fired nine logical fallacies—defense mechanisms deployed to deflect critique rather than confront what might destabilize her libidinal investment in The Patriarchy fantasy.
Ms. Klein’s Logical Fallacies (read: symptoms):
1. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Attacks my personal credibility (e.g., academic background, field of study) instead of responding to the argument’s substance.
2. Credentialism / Appeal to Authority: Invokes the authority of unnamed feminists as a stand-in for actual engagement. Citation is used as deflection, not as argument.
3. Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresents my critique of institutional or imperial feminism as blanket ignorance of feminism itself, in order to dismiss it more easily.
4. Argument from Silence: Assumes I have not read or studied feminist theory simply because I do not cite or affirm its conclusions—without considering that I am quite familiar with the current state of feminist thought, such as it is.
5. Gatekeeping / Boundary Policing: Attempts to exclude me from the discourse on the basis of group identity or presumed inauthenticity, rather than addressing the validity of my claims.
6. Poisoning the Well: Pre-emptively discredits me by framing me as inherently ignorant, thus eliminating the need to engage with my critique.
7. Appeal to Group Consensus: Relies on the implied authority of “real feminists” to silence dissent, instead of responding to the argument with evidence or logic.
8. Moral Posturing: Assumes a position of moral superiority without demonstrating how that position addresses my critique. Affective righteousness stands in for analysis.
9. Performative Outrage: Frames my structural critique as a personal attack, in order to shut down the conversation and recast me as the aggressor.
This is a hysterical outburst, not a rebuttal: a structurally defensive maneuver aimed at preserving the subject’s fantasy framework by redirecting critique onto the analyst. The real object being protected here is not feminism. No—it is her sublime object cause of desire: The Patriarchy™.
Enjoy your symptom, Renate
Now, since credentials are apparently the currency required to enter feminist discourse—a rule, ironically, set by a very minor publisher few outside the clique have heard of—I’ll play along. I minored in Women’s Studies (Magna Cum Laude).
And not to be elitist (your rules, not mine), but: It’s Dr. Tara. Momma to three got a DPhil. 😉
Do you? Or does my symbolic capital trump yours?
Also, still waiting for your response to my piece that Jennifer Bilek published—or to the longer version in Savage Minds.
Or is this deflection all you’ve got? If so, I accept your surrender.
It's a pity you ignore the feminist critics over at least the last 50 years engaging in critical thinking about war, power, globalisation, ecological disaster. If you are really interested you could read the works of Maria Mies, Farida Akhter, Vandana Shiva or, indeed me. My book Wild Politics: Feminism, Globalisation and Biodiversity was published 20+ years ago https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/shop/p/9781925950687. Or read my more recent book, Vortex: The Crisis of Patriarchy (2020). https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/shop/p/9781925950168
Why should feminist cirtiques prevail over human rights critiques? Women are human and this is a disaster created on the heels of imperialism and capitlism, not misogyny, not anything to do with women specifically. I know Vandana Shiva personally and she knows quite well that the uses of feminist criticism are largely symbolic and mythological, which of course have their place, but so too do the narratives of male communalism (eg. Marshall Sahlins). I fear until we address capitalism and outlandish, elephant in the in the room colonialism, these problems will always exist. Feminism gives minor salvos and plasters to the situation. We need a gutting of the system through a revaluation of class and power that strips through all the identity politics of theories. Give everyone the means to production and a home, just as UN studies show how literacy for women and girls function, and you see quick remedies to all the problems that feminists highlight.
This exchange brought Muhammad Ali's "I ain't got no quarrel with the Viet Cong" to mind...
I ain't got no quarrel with the patriarchy*
* the form of organized breeding that dominated from the shift to agriculture until its real subsumption by capital.
Just about every male writer I read, even the ones I roughly agree with, rarely cite the work of women. I have written critical work about capitalism, globalisation, war, climate catastrophe, colonisation, class, Indigenous knowledge and much more. There is so much good feminist work in these areas, but so much is ignored. That is my point. These feminist analyses are not narrow, we cite the men, but that is rarely reciprocated. I too know Vandana and have published seven of her books. I am surprised you think I disagree with you. I read Savage Minds regularly.
This is simply not the case today, Susan. There is so much good work that is not feminist that better addresses the catostrophes we are facing. As thousands fo feminists around the world maintain massive support for the genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine, anyone look at this would only see feminism as a sham and a complete failure. In fact, many regard feminism as a problem in the world today just as they view identity politics of other veins. The lambasting of "men don't do this" is precisely what I thought feminists were supposed to oppose: the swift generalisations of what men and women ought to do or don't do enough of. One must resist the temptation to generalise or make caricatures of the opposite sex because this has proven time and time again to fail. Feminists talk about male violence and avoid the just as well-documented female violence replete throughout history and social science studies. Feminists herald the murderous legacy of women like Hillary Clinton advocating for such figures in public office, and then turn around when these women lose elections and scream "misogyny". It's all so simplistic and skirts around the greater problems of feminism and violence.
We are living through a genocide in Gaza and I see no feminists fighting this while putting their need to discuss feminism to the side. I find this to be the number one indicator that feminism has a humanism problem.
This does not represent the feminist communities I live in. Perhaps this represents life in the US which can be like a fishbowl. What do you mean by today? Within the last year? It seems very narrow to me. I have been writing about capitalism and colonisation and environmental issues (climate change too) for at least 20 years. Maria Mies' book, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour (published by Spinifex in 1998; the book is now available from Bloomsbury) is exactly the kind of analysis that should be discussed.
Most people--feminists included--don't live in feminists communities. They live in the world. Most vocal feminists in the UK sided with the US proxy war in Ukraine and likewise with Zionism. I see more pushback from Americans than any other country in the west on this thus far, so I don't understand your reference to the US. I also live in Europe and am horrified by the silence over Israel by prominent feminists. You can cite all the books you want. Gazans are being genocided and feminists are silent.
Interesting that you assume omission is ignorance rather than informed judgment.
Also telling is that your response to Murray’s structural analysis of imperial collapse and genocide is to try to shift the conversation toward feminist mythos and critique, without offering any clear demonstration of how these relate to the concrete situation or the political realignments he’s describing.
Not to mention the fact that feminism—especially in the West—doesn’t just fail to interrupt imperialism, it often functions as its progressive camouflage. What has it actually accomplished, besides putting more women from the Global South in the World Bank, the UN, and the IMF, or celebrating the recruitment of lesbian drone operators?
And while we’re here: what war have Western feminists materially opposed—especially the ones that would put them at odds with Zionist feminists, threaten their institutional positions, or risk deplatforming and arrest for speaking out?
If feminist praxis can’t even stand up to genocide—if it remains silent, confused, or complicit—then it’s time for a reckoning, not another syllabus.
And frankly, it’s nauseating that in the midst of an ongoing genocide, some feminists are still playing Two Degrees to Patriarchy and Three Degrees to “buy my book”.