Give me better reasons to hate feminists

by Kim

Please give me better reasons to hate feminists. I’m a bit tired of hearing the same old unintelligible rant against feminism. Daily writer Gabe Nelson satiated his bottled-up resentment against feminism in “The Wrong Woman for the Job” (2/21/2007). Nelson interprets Ms. Faust’s background in history and Women’s Studies as intrinsic proof of her lack of qualifications to serve as Harvard’s President. The article is, therefore, less of an analysis of Faust’s credibility, and more of a tirade against feminism and Women’s Studies.

What’s dissatisfying about the article is the lack of meat against feminism. Nelson fails to provide any reasons as to why feminists should inherently be hated, or at least branded ‘unqualified for positions of authority’. In an attempt at good journalism, Nelson at least backs up his views with quotes from the authorities. The following are reasons feminists shouldn’t be trusted according to the quoted authorities:

• Some higher education experts have publicly questioned whether there could be such a thing as too much feminism.
• City Journal columnist Heather Mac Donald says that Radcliffe Institute is “one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country.”

Yet, this leaves me unsatisfied, yearning for more. The above reasons beg the question—telling me nothing substantial, only that feminism doesn’t make sense because…well gosh darn it, it just doesn’t! But Nelson is missing two major W’s of journalism—Why and What. Why is feminism nonsensical? But before you answer that one, what is feminism? I encourage Nelson and others to dig up some more dirt on the feminists, but before doing that perhaps it would be more helpful to figure out what feminism is in the first place. Perhaps, taking a Women’s Studies course would be a helpful place to start. That way, one can infiltrate on these nonsensical feminists, and expose them for their nonsensical academic theories.

Now, there is a kind of feminist—“a different kind of feminist”—that is permissible under Nelson’s view. That is, Mary Sue Coleman. I agree, I think she’s great too. But Nelson—if Coleman is a different kind of feminist, what’s the other kind anyway?

The difference in Coleman’s feminism, according to Nelson, is that: “Rather than writing about discrimination against women, Coleman overcame that discrimination to become a prominent…chemist- a field traditionally dominated by men.” So ladies, lets take this as a lesson from journalist Nelson—writing about discrimination will not make you overcome it, suck it up and work harder. Sojourner Truth shouldn’t have written “Ain’t I a Woman”. Martin Luther King Jr. shouldn’t have written “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he shouldn’t have bitched, he should’ve worked harder to get into fields dominated by white men. Yeah, writing about discrimination is pretty dumb…

Regardless of Nelson’s personal views on feminism, he argues that society largely does not accept feminism. Therefore, Faust’s views and future actions as Harvard President can more easily be discredited as “feminist ramblings” and feminist-doings. Perhaps this is true—Faust may be under more scrutiny because she has a background in Women’s Studies. But such scrutiny, similar to this article, is unwarranted and unintelligent. Is the irrational unpopularity of feminism reason enough to pull Faust out? If anything, the lack of awareness surrounding feminism, makes Foust’s views more needed especially in one of the nation’s leading universities.