The Feminazi strikes again


I thought Prince Harry’s engagement to Meghan Markle would tick so many boxes that even the usual feminazi could not complain. She’s American. She’s a commoner. She’s mixed race. She’s a divorcee. She’s an actress. She champions charitable causes. She also knows how to handle herself in public, seems genuinely head over heels in love with Harry, and is clearly making every effort to become a respected member of the Royal Family.

But no. Of course not.

I found this article on?Stuff Quote:

It seems that for the next week or so at least, Kate will have found favour with the public again – for producing another heir to the crown.

Let’s not forget that this is a monarchy. Although, the recent obsession with American actress turned prospective duchess Meghan Markle is a testament to the kind of unthinking forgetfulness this mentality produces, whereby the history of British colonialism is all but a footnote to the anticipated emergence of feminist royal characters, and their celebrated offspring. End quote.

Do you not sometimes think that some of these writers deliberately complicate their language to try to show how clever they are? What a lot of unadulterated drivel. Quote:

The conviction that a woman’s political authority or celebrity status warrants unyielding praise is absurd, but hardly new. The glorification of destructive figures that have included?Margaret Thatcher, the Queen herself and even the late Barbara Bush are prime examples of the idea that, glass ceilings are for breaking, no matter where the shards may fall. End of quote.

Margaret Thatcher changed the British political landscape. The Queen has served her people faithfully and tirelessly for over sixty years and Barbara Bush has recently passed away. Why do we have to have all this negativity about women who did their jobs exceptionally well? Because they don’t fit the childish narrative? Quote:

San Sudharshan, a?27-year-old graduate of gender studies from Australia’s Macquarie University, argues that current conversations in media regarding feminism usually revolve around A-list figures “rather than working-class or immigrant women”.

“This,” says?Sudharshan, “speaks to a political climate of neoliberal capitalism that has appropriated the radical roots of the feminist movement, stripped it off of its fierce politics and presented back to us a palatable palette, one that cleanses our tongues from the bitter taste of being complicit in oppression.”

“Subversion, set to the tune of making patriarchy work for you is not ‘radical’ – the overhaul of it is.” End quote.

More incomprehensible drivel. A mixed-race American woman marries an English prince and somehow this is anti-feminist? Is that what she is saying? Does anyone actually know? Quote:

She continues,”Feminism is not a brand where words can mean anything and have its principles interpreted as anyone likes. End of quote.

Why not? Feminism means different things to different people. To some, it means an opportunity to sit on the board of a company. For some, it is the right to stay home and look after the kids. For some, it is the ability to write meaningless garbage. It can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean, and this virtue signaller?has no right to suggest otherwise. Quote:

“A strong feminist movement does not argue for capitalism, white supremacy, expansion of colonial empire and certainly not patriarchy and yet, the cacophonous?praise for a woman joining a colonial empire rings hollow to those who need feminism the most ? queer, poor, disabled and working women, especially those of colour.” End of quote.

Oh, I get it. I think. You can’t be rich and be a feminist. You can only be a feminist if you are poor and downtrodden.

Well, I have news for you, buddy. It is the wealthier women that have blazed a trail for feminism. Together with (wait for it, you won’t like it) white men.

Honestly, this article is such drivel, I don’t know why I am bothering to write about it.

Yes, I do. Because it is mere virtue signalling. The royal women do huge amounts for charities and causes. Think about how Princess Diana changed the public attitude towards AIDS. Look at how Princess Anne has chaired Save the Children for years. These people use their profile and influence to do huge amounts of good. And Meghan Markle has already made it clear that she will too. Quote:

In the case of Meghan Markle, her ascension to?feminist icon?in the media is as much about glass ceilings as it is glass slippers, neither of which will produce the kind of material reality necessary for women to advance beyond fulfilling roles traditionally inhabited by men. End of quote.

What does ‘beyond fulfilling roles traditionally inhabited by men’ mean? What roles are these? Guide dogs? Aliens? What on earth is she talking about? Women already fill roles traditionally inhabited by men. What else is there?

I’m not sure Meghan Markle considers herself a feminist icon. Do you have to be a feminist icon to be influential and to do good? I don’t think you do.

By working within the institution that is the Royal Family, rather than against it, both Meghan and Kate are able to exert huge influence to promote their charitable causes. Instead of writing a lot of drivel, they are doing something real. There is no need to tear down everything just to make a point. There is no need to insult people who want to do good, but just happen to be wealthy at the same time.

It seems that to be a feminist, you also have to be miserable. That is why most women are not feminists. No time for all the misery that goes with it.