And you're assuming their criticisms aren't in good faith. How is my assumption any worse than yours?

I see these comments as the best ability of these people, which speaks volumes about their positions. The only arsenal they have is name-calling. Really, you can't critique feminism any better than name-calling? I can't believe these people aren't embarrassed about what they post, but I guess the anony helps with that.

If you look closely, however, you will see that I have been reading Broadsheet since the beginning. And I too critique it--often harshly--and have been told that if I don't like Broadsheet, I should keep moving. I find blanket statements that only people who respect Broadsheet should read it not acceptable. I don't respect George W. Bush, but I feel that I have a right to disagree with him. And since I'm a member of this community like everyone else, I think whatever posts I want to make (although I usually refrain from name-calling) are fair game. If you want civilized discourse, you'll need to leave the (largely anonymous) internet.

Today's Salon Daypass is sponsored by

The California Health Marriages Coalition.

http://www.californiamarriages.org/Home.html

Interestingly, their mission statement says that with "healthy marriages" they expect a decline in things like poverty. Good to know there aren't any poor people in healthy marriages.

--you take the good with the bad. There is usually one good show every two weeks or so.

Is her show celebrity and "favorite thing" obsessed? Perhaps.

But I'd be hard-pressed to think of another daytime talk show host that talks about issues as in-depth as Oprah. Sexism, racism, and poverty are her go-to issues. And yes, she has recently branched out into environmentalism.

One show, on about a month ago before the summer repeats started, was clearly aimed at her daytime audience. It encouraged everyone to use canvas grocery bags and then gave everyone in the audience one. The same thing for those eco-friendly light bulbs. It did about 10 different products. Of course, this isn't going to end climate change as we know it, but it is a baby step. I think it would be worse if Oprah wasn't talking about it at all.

And on the Leo DiCaprio environmentalism show, Oprah told him she was going to get rid of one of her cars because she had one of the gross polluters he talked about.

And my husband watched both these episodes and the one a few weeks ago where Oprah had Michael Moore on to promote Sicko.

Oprah knows who watches her show and plans her promotions accordingly. I'm not saying that men don't use grocery bags too, but that in some families (like the ones who probably watch Oprah), the women are the ones most likely doing the shopping.

Does Roiphe opposed 'victimhood' in general, or just when feminists do it? Because if she is that concerned with victimhood, I'd think she'd go after a far more egregious offender: contemporary political discourse. I'm much more likely to hear about what victims we've been ("never forget," etc.) and what sort of victims we might become ("fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here") regarding the so-called war on terror than anything from the contemporary mainstream feminist movement. We have a huge amount invested in the former's victimhood.

In any event, I would not call Roiphe a feminist. Her understanding of gender relations suggests that women just need to change their attitudes about structural gender inequality. Sure, it is easier to pick up the Legos with a smile on your face, but that's not going to figure out a more equal way to divide up housework. In fact, it reinscribes the unequal labor division in the first place. Roiphe's version of feminism thus individualizes the way in which global capitalism uses women's invisible labor in the home. I'm surprised that anyone who has read any feminist lit would emphasize one woman's attitude (the personal is political is hastily reduced in such a formulation) vis-a-vis the power surrounding the relations of production.

If Roiphe is really a feminist, I'm assuming she thinks there is something unequal between men and women. From this article, all I can infer is that she thinks women's expectations of men are too high and that women are cheating themselves by playing the victim. This, to me, suggests very little inequality between men and women. Further, it sets up a dangerous precedent for social change: individualizing social problems. How to fight injustice the world over? Just turn that frown upside down ladies!

sure are.

But none of them think that individual attitude adjustments are any sort of solution to systemic gender inequality. And while I haven't finished my PhD yet, I'm quite well read in the various waves of feminism and the whole idea that there are different forms of feminism emerged in the 1970s when feminists of color and working class feminists critiqued the privilege of rich, white feminism. I think applying this same critique to what Roiphe is doing usurps a strong tradition that made feminism better.

The victimhood Roiphe and kin reject in feminism I see as social empowerment that makes gender inequality visible and thus a rallying tool for social change. There is no theory of social change in Roiphe's formulation of 'feminism'. My definition of feminism, and, again, it is one shared by most over the history of feminism, is political and structural in nature--not an apolitical attitude adjustment.

Roiphe wants to be a feminist as long as it means getting a job at NYU and getting on the talk circuit ($$$). But if it means having to associate with (gasp) critiquing inequality, she'd prefer not to. Well tough titty.