My goodness.  The local leftybloggers are having what passes for a field day in their circles with my statement, in the previous post, that I am the foremost feminist I, or (likely) you, know.

Local rentablogger and Soros byatch talkingpointbot Jeff Fecke notes:

(Note to super-feminist Mitch Berg: this is why distinguishing between “gender” and “equity” feminism is prima facie evidence that you’re not a feminist:

No, Jeff, it’s prima facie evidence that you and I disagree, and that you got your views of “feminism” from the bottom of some fembot’s stiletto as it sank into your throat.   

My view of the difference between Equity and Gender feminism is coherent with, among many others, that of Camille Paglia – and if you want to tell her that she’s, um, prima facia not a feminist, I’ll be happy to sell tickets to people who want to watch her twist your giblets into party animal shapes (rhetorically speaking, of course).

 there’s no equity without adjusting our view of gender.) 

That’s one of those statements that’s about nine syllables too long to be a protest chant, but is usually spoken/written with about the same level of consideration – and it dodges my point (most likely without really knowing it, or why).

Views of gender change.  Doy.

But in an age when women have, for most practical purposes, achieved equity with men in the workplace and in society (yeah, yeah, there are exceptions, bla bla bla.  And I have a fifteen year old daughter who’d going to be going out into the world before too terribly long, so if anyone wants to compare how much they’re onto these exceptions with me, they’re in for a rude, smugness-cracking surprise), the current strain of “gender feminists” aren’t so much “adjusting our views of gender” as they are – to quote the Friesians – engaging in a social revolution…:

…which is essentially based on a form of Marxist theory that substitutes “gender” for Marx’s category of “class,” or simply adds the two together, usually with “race” thrown in. This sort of “race, class, and gender” theory is typically a dangerous form of political moralism, with the same totalitarian characteristics as other versions of Marxism have proven to display. One consequence of this is that the substantive content of criticism is rarely addressed but that it is considered sufficient to vilify critics as, in effect, “class enemies,” i.e. directing ad hominem arguments against them that their status, in terms of race, class, or gender, or simply in terms of their critical attitude, is sufficient to refute their arguments. Hence the convenient device of dismissing most of Western civilization as the product of “dead white males” — though for feminism the inconvenient fact remains that Eastern and Middle Eastern civilization (and every other) must also be dismissed as the products of “dead non-white males.”  

In other words, save the slogans, Jeff.  “Adjusting our view of gender” has little or nothing to do with “gender feminism”. 

SIDE NOTE:   Given that we’re dealing with Soros’ kids here, I’ll take bets on which response will come out first:

1. Rew from Powerliberal/MNMoney:  “Bwahahaha!  Mitch has a crush on me”
2. Jeff Fecke from BlogOModLeft/MNMoney:  “Why does Mitch Berg hate women?”

Place your bets now.