>>54
Yeah, frankly I was hesitating for a while between taking that line on the matter and taking the line I just took.
I found myself, for example, pretty seriously annoyed by post 18 in this thread, which suggests that what Dolly has been doing the past couple of days has been an expression of a "sex-positive" (as opposed to the Dworkinian "sex-negative") form of feminism.
THAT argument founders, if on nothing else, then at least on the fact that what goes on on MFC has very little to do with sex. Very little to do with sex for the men involved, that is, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SEX for the women involved.
It's pretty much on record how little Dolly's and Camel's "third-wave feminism" ever corresponded to anything that I personally would be willing to give the name "feminism" to. Give me Dworkin any day. At least she had principles, repellent and quasi-psychopathic as these may have been.
But I think we just have to accept that there is this "thing" that certain groups of young women have got going together these days - and I mean a real "thing", a real "cosa nostra" - that is hardly to be described as "feminism" but DOES bear at least the vague resemblance to it of being a sort of alliance among "femmes" to make their "femme-y" lives materially a little better.
Dolly's decision to do this is ndeed BAFFLING. It's baffled even people who know her much, much better than I do. The only way I can explain it to myself is that she's picked up on RavRav's and Kimi's attitude to the whole "MFC" and "let's-milk-some-money-out-of-men" scam and is approaching it in much the same spirit.
RavRav and Kimi are "feminists" in some weird cartoon-y, "Clan of the Cave Bear" sense that basically consists in conducting a ruthless guerilla warfare against men in the cause of taking as much of their cash off of them as possible.
As I say, I don't call that feminism but, as someone says in "Good Fellas", "this is what it is."