Why some young women are so Woke

Being woke and being a feminist are not the same thing.

Colluding, not colliding.

The problem is that these woke young woman are actively engaged in or are supporting efforts in dismantling what previous generations of women fought for. Not only that, but they are colliding with those who issue violent threats against women who object to such dismantling. Women have lost jobs over this.

So no, I’m afraid I’m short of both empathy and tolerance and am utterly without respect for women who wouldn’t even have the standing to engage in this dismantling were it not for the female-centric feminism they’re attacking.

Most young women aren’t woke though Saraclara.

Most young women weren't feminists back in my day, either.

Most young women aren’t woke though Saraclara. Most people of all generations work well together.

It’s like saying ladettes represented a generation, or hipsters.

Using the word 'woke' is an easy way to dismiss the concerns of the generation below.

And of course the generation above us, OP, was equally dismissive and critical of the attitudes of we feminists when we were young.

Wouldn't it be nice if we showed the understanding and respect that we'd have appreciated, to the young women who are finding their own way on the world right now? It's almost as though some of us haven't learned anything about tolerance or empathy through our own experiences.

I think the question of why women are so resistant to feminism is an important one. It could be that it's because fighting men and male agendas is ultimately futile and stupid,

Maybe the ideal future is one in which different agendas and focuses can be harmonised in some way.

We are all different - which traditional societies have not recognised so much - trying to force men and women into assigned roles purely on account of biological sex. In traditional societies the individual does not have that much importance. It is all about the functioning of the society and the community that is most important.

We have moved beyond that now....but maybe we've gone too far the other way ( as always tends to happen at first). We need to acknowledge the individual, whilst also recognising that there are sex based differences. There are - even if only in terms of biology, bodily function, physicality.

Women's role of creating babies, caring for family etc is not recognised as GDP Economy

Yes, I know - but it should be.......The answer, though, is not to ditch the female roles altogether; although it is perfectly understandable why this has come to be seen as the route out of oppression.

Please do not still fall for this false narrative

I'm not falling for any false narrative....i'm simply reflecting on my lived life and experience as a woman, and reflecting on what I feel is of value.

I think we can tend to over-rate radical structures. Societies are very complex, it's difficult to invent something totally new and have it work without unanticipated effects.

The attempt to break out of family structures for example. While we can look at human societies across the world and see some variations, there is really a lot that is the same. People have the same basic needs around feeding and housing themselves and raising children. Their biology works about the same way everywhere. Attempts to break out of that seem to often be unsuccessful. They sometimes really fail the children. like the hippie communes. Sometimes they end up in abuse like some of the cult groups. Even the kibbutzes were unsatisfying to the next generation and so their attempted radical new structures were abandoned.

trans activism is floating on the coattails of lesbian and gay energy. It was quite a coup getting it integrated into the LGB when transactivism is inherently homophobic as well as misogynistic.

Completely agree.

The bitter pill though is that transactivism is ultimately very conservative. So the young aren't breaking away into radical structures, they're simply confirming and trans activism is floating on the coattails of lesbian and gay energy. It was quite a coup getting it integrated into the LGB when transactivism is inherently homophobic as well as misogynistic.

I've thought that the progressive left reminds me of Calvinism as well, but one thing about the real Calvinists is they usually were very logical and their leaders were typically very well educated.

merrymouse

That's an interesting example because so far, disability remains fairly firmly rooted in a material condition in the mind of the public. You have some physical ailment or characteristic that affects your abilities relative to others and so there are some very specific and practical accommodations we make to try and mitigate that. Though no one pretends it can be totally mitigated, we don't have anyone suggesting someone is bling should become a naval officer, for example.

With a lot of the other identity groups there seems to be somewhat less clarity in terms of the material sense of the identity, but especially with the mechanisms of the differences we are supposed to be recognising, or the outcomes we are meant to strivefor. In some cases, with terms like systemic racism or patriarchy, there is an almost abstract entity which mysteriously transmits the problematic elements and which we are discouraged from looking at too closely.

I sometimes think an element of the problem may be that when people rebel against these oppressive structures, a lot of the time they are imagining that there could be a society without oppression and structures, and it's just not true. But if you think that, you willingly run after an ideology not having stopped to see what the functions of these different structures were. Because they do often have functions around controlling or mitigating or channeling socially negative or dangerous impulses that won't ever be completely subdued.
So you are an idealistic young hippy girl and discover that having left the oppression of marriage and prudishness behind, there really doesn't seem to be a good excuse not to have casual sex or to get upset about people taking liberties, and your boyfriend expects that you won't care about his dalliances, and when you are pregnant he decides maybe it is time to split. So back home to mom and dad to help take care of the baby.
A lot of the time it's not until we leave something behind that we suddenly realise it actually had some use we took for granted.

Responding to the OP, surely this has happened before in terms of radical social movements: young women break away from conservative structures to join a radical movement, only to find that they are expected to make themselves sexually available in a way that they had not anticipated.

The English Commonwealth of the 17thC - weren't some of the sects sexually radical?

Socialist and fascist movements of the 20th C?

The hippie movement in the 1960s - young women left the oppressive model of marriage/suburbia but found that 'free love' in the communes involved a lot of cooking, dogsbody work and pressure to service men that they did not necessarily like.

New Age travellers - there was a very interesting thread on here about the sexism of male New Age Travellers, which culminated in one poster's description of a near-naked pregnant woman slaving away to cook a meal over an open fire while two men sat smoking spliffs nearby.

Yes, I think the fear component is high and very unstated.

On a cost-benefit analysis, I can well see young women deciding it makes more sense to go along to get along.

It really does say something when, in San Francisco of all places a city that calls itself the American City of Love transactivists are able to rough up lesbians in their own Dyke March while marching with barbed-wire wrapped baseball bats and t-shirts spattered with simulated blood proclaiming they punch terfs and NO ONE will publicly say this is wrong. (The police, however, did take away their axes they weren't allowed to march with those. Many cries of unfair oppression ensued.)

The threats wouldn't have been a big deal to me if women weren't actually subjected to heinous deaths by men on a daily basis

The Social Justice project has taken on a religious natiure, with overtones of Calvinism. To not be of the elect is to be exiled. And Calvinists can never know who is actually of the elect, so all must act as if they are, just in case, and all must police all, just in case.

Love this. Can I also just say that when I had my feminist blog I got rape threats of varying degrees of nastiness but the transwomen were the worst, in terms of the heinous death they wished upon me.

So there's a real possibility of the element of fear

Frankly, I think the inability to think through to logical conclusions reveals itself every time a young woman says, "What difference does it make what the definition of "woman" is? Why does the word even need defining?"

I hear that a LOT. They don't seem to understand that the law operates based on definitions. There are many laws and regulations which reference "women." If the definition of "women" includes "men," then the law has been changed without actually going through the process of creating a change in law or regulation.

This is what is at the heart of the JY case, and they can't see it. They see only a one-off, a predator the law shouldn't apply to. But law doesn't work that way.

The level of critical thinking is abysmal. But standing in front of that lack are huge defense mechanisms around cognitive dissonance.

The Social Justice project has taken on a religious natiure, with overtones of Calvinism. To not be of the elect is to be exiled. And Calvinists can never know who is actually of the elect, so all must act as if they are, just in case, and all must police all, just in case.

Those who deviate go into the stocks to be humiliated and must forevermore wear the Scarlet T stitched onto their clothing.

What woman wants to be a sinner held in the hand of an angry god over a lake of fire? Or, like Anne Hutchinson, exiled to some place like Rhode Island?

And like all religions, Social Justice requires an ever-expanding list of sins to police because there must always be sinners to serve as object lesson to the rest.

We seem to have moved instead to a kind of view that sees all these groups as actually different

I think it's essential to acknowledge difference to enable equal participation in society e.g. when you design a building you have to make it accessible for people who can't use stairs.

The problem would be classifying 'can't use stairs' as an identity, then saying that it's bigoted not to include people who can use stairs in that identity, and then designing loads of buildings that can only be accessed by stairs, because after all people who can't use stairs can use stairs.

Maybe people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the attitudes and beliefs of the younger generation as woke or naïve. Maybe they're a reflection of how society develops with each generation a little less racist or homophobic than the previous one to use a comparison.

History shows you that each generation is not necessarily less racist or homophobic than the previous generation. The most obvious example is 1930s Berlin.

Another example of a liberal society regressing would be the current demand for legislation that forces people into gender boxes and the idea that it is heretical to suggest that Trans women are not women.

well that has obliviously backfired !! -

I read one anonymous feminist say that feminism itself always backfires because men have thousands of years of practice, first of all, and secondly because the fight excites men, galvanized them and gives them energy and power. Like they're playing a cat and mouse game with us.

The JY thread is just and example of men fucking with us for fun.

Yeah like Dworkin said it's not terribly important to us that men are able to cry, it's important to us that they stop killing us.

As a new member I hope my reply, is not seen as derailing the thread, I am happy to post this reply, elsewhere on a new / another thread.

Goose
" ... it's saying two different things. On the one hand patriarchy claims that women want to avoid having babies, on the other naturally that is what women want because men say they have to have babies? Which is it?"

For 2,000 years Patriarchy ONLY recognised women for the ONE JOB of producing babies, it is then not a surprise, when women say to patriarchy - No I will not have your babies! - as the FIRST response, ON THE WAY to demanding recognition for other jobs!

The Patriarchal Narrative CLAIMS, this first response as the Feminism's WHOLE aim - to divide and rule women.

Feminism says, do not recognise women ONLY for having babies but demand that there be other choices including having babies - but by choice - not by force!

To think Feminism does not value having babies is falling for a false Patriarchal Narrative.

I hope my reply is better than before in explaining my point.

Sakura - totally agree

It was / is women's hope that men will help overthrow Patriarchy if women pointed out to men that Patriarchy also oppresses MEN because men - can not cry, take care of the baby, be touchy feely or wear women's cloths - well that has obliviously backfired !! - Hence this thread and the recognition by Men / Police / Government that a man in a dress is literally a woman.

sakura

Keep in mind that while the law didn't recognise that rape happened within marriages, it doesn't mean that it was inevitable, it's entirely likely that your grandmother didn't experience it unless you have some specific reason to think she did.