F for facile?
Oct. 6th, 2007 10:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
slemslempikeI read the f-word, which is a UK based feminist blog. I've always found it interesting, and even when I don't agree with their views, they're usually thought provoking, and well-argued. Today I found this on it. It's a blog post by Abby O'Reilly, who has taken issue with Zoe Williams' writing about her pregnancy. It's a pretty nasty piece of writing, I think - seeming to place "breeder" (delightful!) and "thinker" as opposite positions, and asserting that no-one except Williams and possibly other pregnant women could possibly be interested in what she has to say. So I wrote this as a response.
...is this some sort of joke that I'm not getting? Zoe Williams has always written about her own experience, so what your columnist seems to be complaining about is that Williams' experience no longer reflects her own. More than a little ironic, given that O'Reilly's post ends with a plea to embrace views that are inconsistent with one's own.
As a childless woman who fervently intends to stay that way, I hope I am not so self-centered that I can't find people's differing experiences interesting. It is untrue that only women who are or want to be pregnant will be interested in her writing about baby books. Not to mention decidedly anti-feminist - following the misogynist work of claiming that women's experiences, and particularly reproductive activity, is intrinsically dull and boring to 'normal' people. How retro. Her views on mothers continue "She has ... has carved a reputation for herself in the journalistic world for being quite the thinker...so why did she so readily endorse her reduction to that of breeder?" Since when are the categories of thinker and breeder antithetical?
Her analysis of Williams' comments on abortion was offensivly off-mark. I don't think that the sentence O'Reilly quotes in any way demonstrates a dismissal of forced abortion, and I'm at a loss to work out how anyone could come to that conclusion. "Leagues of women" is hardly equivalent to all, and to decide that this is a dangerous sweeping generalisation is to seem entirely ignorant of the context in which Williams is writing, in which the right to choose (which O'Reilly herself notes is fragile) is assailed with threat of removal "for women's own good".
The shoes analogy isn't just "trivial", it plain doesn't work. Williams' isn't saying that women don't ever consider what might have been, she's saying that such consideration isn't necessarily psychologically damaging. If O'Reilly must post such ill-thought out work, is it too much to ask that it at least be less excruciatingly written?
...is this some sort of joke that I'm not getting? Zoe Williams has always written about her own experience, so what your columnist seems to be complaining about is that Williams' experience no longer reflects her own. More than a little ironic, given that O'Reilly's post ends with a plea to embrace views that are inconsistent with one's own.
As a childless woman who fervently intends to stay that way, I hope I am not so self-centered that I can't find people's differing experiences interesting. It is untrue that only women who are or want to be pregnant will be interested in her writing about baby books. Not to mention decidedly anti-feminist - following the misogynist work of claiming that women's experiences, and particularly reproductive activity, is intrinsically dull and boring to 'normal' people. How retro. Her views on mothers continue "She has ... has carved a reputation for herself in the journalistic world for being quite the thinker...so why did she so readily endorse her reduction to that of breeder?" Since when are the categories of thinker and breeder antithetical?
Her analysis of Williams' comments on abortion was offensivly off-mark. I don't think that the sentence O'Reilly quotes in any way demonstrates a dismissal of forced abortion, and I'm at a loss to work out how anyone could come to that conclusion. "Leagues of women" is hardly equivalent to all, and to decide that this is a dangerous sweeping generalisation is to seem entirely ignorant of the context in which Williams is writing, in which the right to choose (which O'Reilly herself notes is fragile) is assailed with threat of removal "for women's own good".
The shoes analogy isn't just "trivial", it plain doesn't work. Williams' isn't saying that women don't ever consider what might have been, she's saying that such consideration isn't necessarily psychologically damaging. If O'Reilly must post such ill-thought out work, is it too much to ask that it at least be less excruciatingly written?
