You could be forgiven, reading this article by Gemma Soames about "the new feminists," for thinking you'd woken up in 1994. Plus even more snark Broadsheets bread and butter.

The article is about English feminism and with the history of Kate's understanding of math, science, nutrition and a number of other subjects, I would wager that she has little to no understanding of the current political or sociological mood in Great Britain but of course her Women Studies BA gives her license to snark about it. I am even more certain that she has no idea about the modern history of the feminist movement in England and if they had man haters like Dworkins in their ranks and if they did the influence on society.

And also, there's this woman named Katie Roiphe, who doesn't relate to those hairy, stinky old feminists from the '70s

Now its time for a broadsheet writer to dismiss a women that calls herself a feminist but does not belong to the radical po-mo wing of WS departments. They do this a lot dismiss feminist that don't buy hook line in sinker there nonsense or question the effects of there nonsense on boys and men.

I also ran across a relevant blog post by Lisa Jervis (snark removed), in which she discusses the tension between respecting women's individual choices and trying to preserve a definition of feminism that goes beyond, say, Soames' cutesy explanation of the "new feminist" agenda: "The right to do what the hell you like, however you like, in heels -- if you like."

I am surprised (sorry my snarks is not at your level) that you think Jervis post is great as it is a big pat on the back to Pollitt that calls out Roiphe as not a real feminist.

(Oh, ha, it's so true! Female empowerment in the 21st century = selfish behavior with zero reflection! It's like you read my diary, Gemma!)

I see why you hate Roiphe, she calls for some personal responsibility while you want feminist to think of the sister hood.

Writes Jervis, "How can we deal with this? Can we find the right place on the continuum between uncritical acceptance of every woman's 'I'm doing it for me' boob job... and actually writing those Feminist Clubhouse Rules that some people think we have?"

Great question.

Never mind for a moment that Jervis and Broadsheet do have litmus tests aka clubhouse rules on what is a real feminist, start with just stating an in between is no matter how liberal the definition is a litmus test. There is nothing wrong with having a litmus test for who is in the club and it is not a bad idea but what is wrong is pretending you do not have one or more importantly pretending you don't have one and using it as a shield. I can't tell you how many times that the writers of BS and its cheerleaders in letter pages take as a blanket statement any good that feminist or feminism does but are quick to point out that any criticism of feminist or feminism that there are many different versions so don't judge them all.

As a "young" feminist who does indeed love lipstick and retro dresses, I can't tell you how sick I am of reading articles that feature a bunch of self-proclaimed feminists somewhat closer to my age than Gloria Steinem's going on about how ridiculous second-wavers were for acting as if women were, you know, oppressed or something.

Based on your writing you are a second wave feminist. You might be sick of hearing it but that does not change that there are many younger feminist and women that are able to see not only the discrimination women faced but also the privilege that women received. Or, that they see that for the most part in the West they have achieved equality under the law and in practice.

(at least by the standards of an article that invokes Courtney Love as a current style icon)

So now you are an expert in British women's style?

it's because landing a husband who likes that crap is no longer the single best path to financial security for the average middle-class woman; the stakes are a whole lot lower.

You left out the word white before woman.

And we know that's because those clubby, oh-so-serious '70s feminists worked their asses off so we could join the professional workforce, have our own credit cards, buy our own cars and houses, leave abusive relationships, have access to reliable birth control, etc., etc.

Some of them also called all hetro sex rape, teamed up with the religious right to curb the 1st amendment, have pushed the hardest to stop free speech on campuses, help to curb rights granted by the 6th amendments to name just a few things they also worked there asses off for.

The modern feminist movement reminds me of MADD in many ways. Both started out with noble intentions and where able to fight and win policies that met there initial goals. At this point instead of changing into watch dog groups to insure that there is no back sliding they instead kept asking for more and more. In the case of MADD becoming the modern version of the Temperance movement in the case of feminist demanding special treatment and making up problems where there is small or none.

Too often, sure, we take all that for granted -- but when the younger feminists I know think about the wave that preceded us, we're grateful and awed, not discomfited by the thought of their palpable anger and allegedly hairy legs.

This is most likely due to you living in the echo chamber and not accepting any comment or evidence that goes against your politics.