The real issue with the word “feminism” is that feminism has, like all mature social movements, lost its way. There are still gender injustices in the world, but the movement has shattered into a thousand self-directed shards that individually are more likely to fight among themselves than they are to address the real problems.
But this is perfectly normal.
Once upon the time, there is an injustice; a single, systematic thing that affected every member of the class. At this time the movement is populist, universal, and hardly even needs organization. Victory is inevitable.
But as time goes by, it’s clear that the one single, systematic thing was just a symptom of a more structural flaw in society. The challenge this time is much harder; what’s more, not all members of the class are necessarily affected or bothered by it. At this point, defeating the injustice requires organizing the members of the class. The organization forms, steps are taken to right the most obvious wrongs. The organization has to keep people within its class, who all have different ideas and backgrounds, focused on the common goal.
As the wrongs get righted, that focus diminishes. Something that affects or bothers this group of members isn’t as important (or is nonexistent) to that group of members. And many (if not most) of the members of the class may feel that the battle is won, or that they are equipped well enough to fight their battles individually. And they may completely disagree on if a given thing works for or against the class. (Stick Andrea Dworkin and Camille Paglia in a room with a recent copy of Playboy and a variety of ancient weaponry and see what happens next.)
What happens is that the one group so vital to defeating injustice once upon a time, eventually becomes ruled by a single sub-group whose interest don’t necessarily mesh with the whole. And this organization then becomes a cultural echo chamber, where dissent is chased off with accusations of treason. In this environment, cockamamie ideas, normally unable to bear even the most basic elements of skepticism, have the chance to take root and blossom, until among the sub-group they become doctrine.
So when you say “feminist” you could be describing any one of the fifty-seven flavors there are today, some ideal that existed way back when before the splinter occurred, or who knows what? It could be something completely reasonable or something schizophrenic. This makes the term extremely useful for politicians and pundits, but somewhat less so for actual discussion.
Combine that with internet and anonymity and what do you get?
I like this because it describes so many of the people involved with this tempest in a teapot so well.
