Bolshie, softie or old school? Find your feminist tribe - pathetic article by Sarah Ditum. As if MSM didn't ridicule feminism enough without female writers collaborating to get column inches.

[stumbledin]

Apart from the fact that a lot of what she says is just plain wrong in terms of facts, I think what made me angry was that it was shoved in the middle of what was meant to be serious article about male violence and getting to the root cause.

Just shows that the Times many print gender critical articles but it obvious doesn't respect women activists.

So disappointed.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bolshie-softie-or-old-school-find-your-feminist-tribe-t32flf055

Sorry no share token. Can someone give link to archive web site?

/web/20210321192759/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bolshie-softie-or-old-school-find-your-feminist-tribe-t32flf055

Quite aside from anything else here ‘bolshie’ a word I’ve only ever heard used about women when they’re asserting themselves strongly.

It's an uncomfortable read given the context. Crass and flippant. Normally a big fan of SD, so disappointed too. Not that she'd give a shit and admire that about her also, but this falls short of the mark.

Thanks for archive link. In a way highlighting it on mumsnet is giving it attention it doesn't deserve. But I was really taken aback at seeing it as somehow part of a discussion about male violence.

What a pile of tosh.

But then, Ditum popped over here a couple of years ago "Sarah Ditum here" to berate the extremist meanie feminists who wouldn't call a fella 'she' even if he asked nicely. Just to make sure that we all knew that if you were that noncompliant you could perfectly reasonably be excluded from feminism for being beyond redemption.

Fluff articles like this just have a whiff of desperation to stay relevant about them. Not to mention she's apparently missed the obvious opportunity to reference Sisters Uncut recent heartfelt tribute to 7 male criminals, amongst them convicted child rapists and murderers. I wonder what cutesie name we can think of for that tribe of feminism...

But then, Ditum popped over here a couple of years ago "Sarah Ditum here" to berate the extremist meanie feminists who wouldn't call a fella 'she' even if he asked nicely. Just to make sure that we all knew that if you were that noncompliant you could perfectly reasonably be excluded from feminism for being beyond redemption.

Wow, didn't know that she'd done that. Seems at odds with the position she takes in her writing.

Fluff articles like this just have a whiff of desperation to stay relevant about them. Not to mention she's apparently missed the obvious opportunity to reference Sisters Uncut recent heartfelt tribute to 7 male criminals, amongst them convicted child rapists and murderers. I wonder what cutesie name we can think of for that tribe of feminism...

She was much clearer about her view on Sisters Uncut on Twitter at the time and in this article for unherd:

unherd.com/2021/03/the-police-have-a-woman-problem/

I guess that's why it feels so flippant.

@Goawayquickly

Quite aside from anything else here ‘bolshie’ a word I’ve only ever heard used about women when they’re asserting themselves strongly.

It's not sex specific. I use it for both sexes asserting their opinions aggressively- particularly if the opinions are Bolshie.

It's a terrible article- pure tosh.

Just went and had a look at the comments, about 50/50 with some saying terrible article, terrible decision to publish it and other using it as an opportunity to say feminism is all wrong anyway.

But someone has pointed out that you cant have definitions of feminism without referencing mumsnet!

"You forgot the matrifocal women of Mumsnet, Sarah, and the theorists behind them. A terrible omission!"

But seriously, it now seems that the Times have allowed comments on this trivia but not allowed any comments of the main article about violence against women. Why?

Perhaps the editor asked Sarah to write about that subject specifically? For example, an editor might request an article about the feminist take in order to give some background to a main piece about violence against women

I agree, SarahGoode - it felt to me like a commissioned article rather than one that she herself pitched. The editor would have thought, "I know, let's have a fun article that describes all the different kinds of feminisms around. Who would be a good person to do it?" And then she asked Sarah Ditum, who agreed, because she needed the money.

Could be wrong - it's just a guess. But it seemed to hit exactly the wrong note at a time when there's a lot of distress and anger in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder.

That is a highly likely scenario, but agree it struck the wrong note.

I thought it was an ok article and clearly not taking itself too seriously (hence the daft category names, rather than going with what they are actually known as).

Even if it was an okay article, it was totally inappropriate printed as it was in the middle of an in depth article about male violence.

Why wasn't this little extra about types of men.

Jusst disgusted at the Times and Sarah Ditum, have lost respect for both.