Why does Sheehan bother

Paul Sheehan in today's SMH tried to write something withering about feminism.

One commenter on the article noted;

A derivative article, with ideas lifted from two recent articles in the "New Yorker" magazine on Betty Friedan and Christian Laboutin. You'll have to work harder, Mr. Sheehan. Some of us subscribe to the same sources you pinch your ideas from.

Sheehan himself gave his game away writing;

Academic feminism in the West has turned out to be little more than another flag of convenience for the left, in the way the Greens use environmentalism.

That is he was just trying to bluster about the left ... again.

Apart from some crazy polemic about the fact the fashion industry (continues) to exist the crux of the analysis seemed to be;

All the great recent advances made for women have been made by people - men and women working together. Most of the legislation that seeks to advance the progress of women has been passed by legislatures dominated by men. And no amount of government social engineering is going to stop women behaving badly to women, which happens all the time. Women bully women. Women block women in the workforce.

Of course all the great advances by women have included men in their making - heck it was men who had to vote to give women the vote! And whoever said feminism was about stopping women behaving badly to women? The "sisterhood" is actually a myth of male construction - denigration - to talk about feminism.

The debate is about power - not jobs, or careers or anything else. That's what makes feminism a left issue - it is a challenge to a pre-existing (and enduring) unequal power structure.

PS Why when the SMH publishes Henderson, Sheehan and Hartcher is it usually labelled a left publication?







http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/scarlet-soles-are-a-red-rag-to-feminists-ideology-20110410-1d97i.html



Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est