#WeAreTheLeft: The day identity politics killed identity politics

Yesterday, the ongoing self-parody that is liberal feminism reached its natural pinnacle with #WeAreTheLeft.

In a letter to no one in particular, a number of liberal feminists argued that sexism on the left boiled down to meanies who mocked “identity politics.” “We are the Left,” proclaimed over 100 pro-capitalism signees, warning leftist movements they would lose “credibility” without them.

Even referencing Shulamith Firestone in a vain attempt to align themselves with some political movement — any political movement — couldn’t disguise the nonsensical claims that followed.

Firestone was an odd choice, considering that the signees have outright rejected her analysis of patriarchy, which is that gender inequality is rooted in a system of oppression imposed on women due to their biology (i.e. their ability to reproduce).  Firestone demanded we “take the class analysis one step further to its roots in the biological division of the sexes.” What liberal feminism did, though, was to erase the roots of patriarchy (that is, biological sex), thereby ignoring the radical feminist concept of a “sex class.”

No matter what women do, they cannot escape the fact that their oppression is chained to the fact they were born female. Firestone knew this, all radical feminists know this. Liberal feminists do not (or, at very least, they seem unwilling to admit it).

Rather than fight as a cohesive group towards the liberation of women as a class, the authors and signees of “We Are The Left” rejected the concept of solidarity in favour of identity politics. There could no longer be a movement of any kind, because the movement was no longer permitted to admit that all women shared something in common, which forced them into a subordinate status, regardless of their class or white privilege. Under patriarchy, working class women and women of colour suffered the most, pinned to the lowest rungs in society not only by class and race oppression, but by their sex class. Regardless of men’s oppression under white supremacy and capitalism, they were still capable of beating, raping, and prostituting the women who suffered alongside them.

“Identity” now divided us, according to liberal feminists — no experience was the same, every feeling was legitimate, and no movement could define anyone’s experiences or feelings on their behalf. There was no society, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, only individuals — a series of disconnected experiences that could only be assessed and defined by the person having the experience. And, with biological sex erased as the defining factor of our oppression, there was no way to tie women together and, therefore, no reason for us to fight together, in solidarity, against a common oppressor. When “woman” becomes “people” it becomes rather difficult to determine what, exactly, we are all doing in this so-called “women’s movement.” Not only that, but liberal feminists were forced to erase even their own oppression, arguing that they were, in fact, privileged by their biology and the gendered socialization that followed.

The Letter complains vaguely about a sexism on the left which truly does exist. Dear Shulie herself wrote, in 1967 for The Guardian:

“We say to the left: in this past decade you have failed to live up to your rhetoric of revolution. You have not reached the people. And we won’t hitch ourselves to your poor donkey. There are millions of women out there desperate enough to rise. Women’s liberation is dynamite. And we have more important things to do than to try to get you to come around. You will come around when you have to, because you need us more than we need you… Fuck off, left. You can examine your navel by yourself from now on. We’re starting our own movement.”

That movement was radical feminism.

I suppose what the authors of The Letter might have asked themselves is, “Why do leftist men persist in their misogyny?” Is it because we are people, just like them?

The real answer was perhaps too uncomfortable. So they concluded, oddly, that the sexism they experienced was happening “because we have been identified as representatives of ‘identity politics.'”

Oh.

What happened next, once The Letter was published, was most telling. Beyond the merciless mocking from actual socialists online, who pointed out that, in fact, a person who supports capitalism and neoliberal ideology is not, in fact, “the left,” the authors and signees were accused of a number of crimes and failures, all rooted in… you got it… identity politics.

The authors were subjected to attacks of their own making, accused of the very thing many of them have built a platform on: nonsensical accusations that turn critique into “phobia” and analysis into “hate” and “exclusion.”

Catharine MacKinnon wrote about this failure in analysis, invented by liberals, back in 1990, before “whorephobia,” “TERF,” and “SWERF” were invented as excuses to harass, blackball, and smear feminists who provided an analysis of patriarchal oppression that named the problem, unapologetically. “Once there was a women’s movement,” she wrote…

“… When this movement criticized rape, it meant rapists and the point of view that saw rape as sex. When it criticized prostitution, it meant pimps and johns and the point of view that women are bom to sell sex. When it criticized incest, it meant those who did it to us, and the point of view that made our vulnerability and enforced silence sexy. When it criticized battery, it meant batterers, and the point of view that violence expressed the intensity of love. Nobody thought that in criti­cizing these practices, the movement was criticizing their victims.

It also criticized sacred concepts from the standpoint of women’s material existence, our reality, concepts like choice. It was a movement that knew when material conditions preclude 99 percent of your op­tions, it is not meaningful to call the remaining 1 percent — what you are doing — your choice. This movement was not taken in by concepts like consent. It knew that when force is a normalized part of sex, when no is taken to mean yes, when fear and despair produce acquiescence and acquiescence is taken to mean consent, consent is not a meaning­ful concept.”

The authors and signees of The Letter, though, have built their careers on this very dilution of feminist analysis and critique. Women who protested the racist, misogynist, imperialist sex trade were accused of hating the women victimized by it. Women who argued that femininity was not innate, but imposed, and that, yes, their biology was indeed central to their oppression as women, were accused of “femmephobia” and “transphobia.” Feminists who saw BDSM as the sexualization of domination and subordination, fetishizing slavery and gendered violence, were accused of “kink-shaming.” Feminists who contested the idea that objectification, even when “chosen,” was a viable route towards female empowerment were told they were “slut-shaming.”

Feminists have pushed back against these clear manipulations, over and over again, clarified their analysis, over and over again, but liberals dug in their heels. Their hatred of radical feminists had gotten them too far to go back on their buzzwords.

So what happened yesterday, in response to their “all politics are identity politics” letter, can only be viewed as the most perfect and most pointed parody. The authors were accused of being “whorephobic” and of excluding and mislabeling various identities. A number of people proclaimed, “You don’t speak for me!” and anti-feminists declared they felt excluded and left out by the letter.

Identity politics had failed to accurately speak on behalf of and name every single identity. A war broke out among the ranks, because there were no ranks. Identity politics refuses a movement because it refuses to acknowledge any one common goal. There is no basis of unity. Having rejected solidarity with movement women in favour of retweets and New York media jobs, liberal feminism was left with nothing but a series of complaints, rooted in nothing at all, without any sisters to speak of.

Much to my shock and awe (and, admittedly, amusement), The Letter claimed the authors and signees had avoided exactly what they complained of, failing to admit or realize the glaring hypocrisy in those words, effectively destroying any shred of legitimacy they may have had left. They wrote:

“What we do not do, however, is send each other sexually explicit or violent images, inveigh against each other with slurs, make claims about each other that we know to be untrue and inflammatory, respond to any discussion of oppression with personal insults, follow each other around the Internet leaving nasty comments on each other’s pieces, set up fake social media accounts to harass each other, monitor each other’s communications, coordinate pile-ons, send explicit or implicit threats, dox, defame, discredit, or degrade each other.”

Numerous women pointed out that precisely the opposite was true. In fact, many of the authors and signatories had relied on untrue, inflammatory slurs as the basis of their “politics.” Almost as if that was all they had

Yesterday, liberal feminism ate itself. And while we wait for them to digest and expel the shitty remnants that exist as a culmination of their gradual, but concerted, defanging and depoliticizing of the feminist movement, we can rest assured that these people will learn nothing from this widely-broadcast mistake. In the meantime, the women’s movement will continue on, as it always has, in solidarity and sisterhood, towards the revolution.

Let them have Twitter.

Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy

Founder & Editor

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010 and has published work in numerous national and international publications, including New Statesman, Vice, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, I-D, Truthdig, and more. Meghan completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Excellent article, Meghan! This entire letter was incredibly stupid, but I was especially angry that they quoted Shulamith Firestone, one of the most important figures in radical feminism, even though these people are against it. Firestone’s work is based upon the analysis that women are oppressed due to our female biology (baby-making ability) and that we are a class of people with a shared interest, just as the working class is a class of people with a shared interest. The people who wrote this letter were happy to use her as an example when it suited them even though they are against everything she stood for. I am really sick of fake leftists who don’t realize that radical feminism is a necessary part of Left politics.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Thank you! And yes, the irony of using Firestone in their letter was just too much.

  • Lucia Lola

    It was almost surreal. The blatant denial, hypocrisy and gas lighting employed is still too incredible for me to digest. A true WTF. Damn, but how I laughed when I first saw the above GIF online last night. Too apt.

  • Alienigena

    Do people like this ever recognize the internal inconsistencies of their own arguments/position? Left implies socialist and even Marxist. If you want to promote predatory capitalism join the libertarians … where the individual is all. I don’t know what to say re: this story. Mind blown … by the crazy.

  • polina

    The problem is that sexist leftist men indeed throw “identity politics” at anyone who even mentions patriarchy.

    • Meghan Murphy

      That is a problem, though the right does that more than the left, but radical feminists have been critical of identity politics, for good reason, for some time now…

  • Meghan Murphy

    Big time shady.

  • Meghan Murphy

    🙂

  • Gotta love all the corrections at the end where they apologize for mis-identifying people etc.

    • JingFei

      They are hilarious!

    • Zuzanna Smith

      They forgot to apologize to women for assigning us the slur “cis” against our will.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Identity is not, in and of itself, a bad thing… But we can’t do movements based on identity politics. We base movements on individual, personal experiences and identities. Movements need to be based on collective goals and so we have to be able to define and fight oppression on a class basis. I think people have taken personal identity and tried to force political movements to respect and represent each and every one of those identities and it makes movement-building and systemic analysis impossible.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Thanks!

  • Meghan Murphy

    Right??? 🙂

  • mail_turtle

    Still, it seems unhelpful to be harsh towards liberal feminists. Maybe from a radical feminist position they are deluded, but probably not evil, and at least sharing some points of view. (btw I am not a radical feminist, but as an outsider I am surprised that liberal feminists are seen as an obstacle, instead of people who are at least partially on the same path).

    • Meghan Murphy

      I consider blackballing, trashing, smearing, trying to get people fired, etc. kind of evil…

    • Hannah

      They are an obstacle though. They think they have the same goals but what they’re doing is the exact opposite of progress.

    • Wren

      I consider promoting the sexual enslavement of women, aka prostitution, pretty gosh darn evil.

    • Cassandra

      They are not on the same path. At all.

  • Meghan Murphy

    It does suck to feel afraid of blackballing, but it’s a risk we all take when we align ourselves publicly with this movement, I’m afraid. That’s how their bullying works. By making women afraid to speak out adnd stand in solidarity with those branded ‘witches.’ Why we call it the new witch hunt or the new McCarthyism 🙂 Solidarity, sister.

    • Tangelo

      Big thanks to all of the women, including Meghan Murphy and Raquel Rosario Sanchez who are willing and able to speak publicly on these issues and take all the flak that goes along with it.

      • Raquel Rosario Sánchez

        A thousand thank yous, Tangelo! I am beyond thankful that I’ve been able to find my voice as a writer here at Feminist Current along so many inspiring and powerful writers. And I am looking forward to growing some more myself as I learn along the way, to be honest.

        I mean, there’s no other choice, is there? If you center ending violence against women in your activism then having a stronghold on how oppression based on sex and a very clear definition of how “women” as a concept is constructed to sustain patriarchy is fundamental.

        From the perspective of someone who centers ending violence against women and girls in her feminism, you *must* center survivor voices. There’s no other way to do honest, coherent feminist work than to listen to what survivors are saying and survivors have been in this fight leading the way for such a long time. The way that so many liberal feminist and proponents of identity politics dismiss the voices of survivors is a non-starter for me.

        Anytime I feel like “shit, this is dire” I remind myself that survivors have been doing the work for a very long time and a feminism that smears and bullies survivor voices is no feminism at all.

        Most definitely, yes. Let them have Twitter; we’ve got work to do. Until we win.

  • JingFei

    I might be slow, but what do they expect to accomplish from this? It seems like a circle-jerk.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Honestly I have no clue. I think maybe they are trying to seem political or something? idk.

    • Novo

      It’s good old careerism. A lot of these people are angling for media and think-tank positions. The radical left are a massive thorn in the side of liberals so this letter was probably an attempt to neuter them via largely unsubstantiated accusations of not being ‘intersectional’ enough.

      • JingFei

        Ah I see. Recognizing some of the signed names as some of the worst offenders of the very thing they’re whining about, it never occurred to me anyone could take it seriously. I’m not even on Twitter very much and I’ve seen some of the signatures of people who act appallingly to anyone who dares disagree with them.
        Should have been called #WeAreHypocrisy

  • Hannah

    That’s only the tip of the iceberg, trans activists do this all the time…

  • Hannah

    I read what Jennifer Anniston wrote and I loved it! (For something said by a celebrity) Definitely a good read.

  • Independent Radical

    Oh don’t misunderstand me, I’m not pretending that society doesn’t shove me or other people and into categories and treat them like shit because of them. I’m just saying that those categories shouldn’t be seen as “who we are”. I am a unique human being, regardless of what society says about me. Mainstream society is full of lies. Powerful lies that can ruin lives but lies nonetheless.

    There is a difference between being conscious of social categories and eagerly embracing them. Feminists should definitely be conscious of the fact that womanhood has been forced onto them (womanhood meaning the roles and expectations assigned to those born female), but that doesn’t mean they should identity with it. This is why the term “prostituted women” is used, because prostitution is something done to certain women, it is not who they are. Liberals see prostitution not as something women are forced to do and experience, but as the inner essence of some women and therefore defend prostitution itself, thinking that they are defending the women in it.

    The same mistake is made regularly by many on the left, with regard to a number of issues. The category or condition is celebrated and fought for instead of the human beings in that category. Acknowledge that you are part of oppressed group and ally with others interested in ending that oppression, but don’t forget that you are a unique human being no matter how often society says otherwise.

    • Tangelo

      Excellent point: “The same mistake is made regularly by many on the left, with regard to a number of issues. The category or condition is celebrated and fought for instead of the human beings in that category.”

  • marv

    Liberal identity politics is the privatization of liberation, meaning everyone will be free when the individual is free to follow an autonomous path, as long as it’s within pornstitution and capitalism.

  • Bronwyn Williams

    Tasmania, an island state of Australia, is something of a microcosm of modern Western society. Recently, our government appointed Anti-Discrimination Commissioner released an Options Paper (see http://equalopportunity.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/338490/EOT_Options_paper_on_legal_recognition_of_sex_and_gender_diversity_in_Tasmania_~_CONSULTATION_DOC.pdf) for public discussion, proposing – amongst other things – to amend the state’s births, deaths and marriages legislation to allow self-identifying transgender persons to have their birth certificates altered to reflect their chosen ‘gender identity’. Such a change would not require any evidence of either gender re-assignment surgery or hormone treatment, and the new certificate would not indicate the sex recorded at birth. For example, a transgender woman would, according to government records, have always been female.
    Further, the proposed legislative amendments would allow an infinite number of changes of ‘sex’, provided a period of at least 12 months elapses between each application.
    The Southern Tasmanian branch of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) prepared a detailed submission in response to the options paper, questioning its inconsistent use of the terms ‘gender’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘sex’. and noting the absence of any consideration of the possible effects of the proposal on women’s rights to access female only services and spaces.
    The co-author of the WoLF submission sought, in good faith, to pursue an interview with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to discuss the group’s concerns. What transpired at the subsequent meeting was an unconscionable personal attack, by the commissioner and one of her staffers, on the WoLF representative – a young woman without the benefit of a support person.
    Her legitimate requests for clarification of the terms used in the options paper were met with accusations of ‘small-minded, bigoted’ thinking. She was asked, repeatedly, ‘What world do you live in?’ and odious comparisons were made between the WoLF submission, and those of well-known, conservative religious groups.
    She was informed, in a pious, self-righteous tone, that the proposal ‘was all about transgender rights’, and advised of the extreme discrimination suffered by transgender persons – the clear implication being that ‘cis’ women such as herself came a poor second in the ‘oppression olympics’.
    When she raised the possibility that predatory men might use the proposed legislation to gain access to women’s shelters, for example, she was admonished for her naivete. Nothing would stop such awful men from doing such things, they said, and it was nonsensical to suggest that a man would change his birth certificate to female for a year to carry out such activities. It seemed to totally escape them that their proposal would be another, significant facilitator for those violent men who will go to any lengths to hunt down and punish a non-compliant partner, or those who seek to randomly attack vulnerable women.
    Bizarrely, this young woman suffered abuse and discrimination at the hands of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Where, then, does she go to protest the appallingly unprofessional treatment she received?
    When those whose role it is to eliminate bigotry are held captive by identity politics, and are thoroughly blind to their own intolerance of the opinions of others, the road to true feminist revolution is a hard one indeed.

    • Cassandra

      Thank you for sharing this, Ms. Williams. What can anyone do to help? This is horrifying. When are non-radical women going to wake up to what’s going on?

  • Meghan Murphy

    Yes, fair point. I don’t actually believe ALL liberal feminists are evil, of course! But I do think these people are kind of despicable… It’s tough to find the most accurate way to describe them — “sex liberals” is accurate, but would likely be confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the term…

  • Meghan Murphy

    Fair enough. I do tend to say ‘working class’ to include poor women, but you are right that I’m far more privileged than a woman living in poverty, so point taken.

    • Azalea

      I figured so, and I guess it’s more a broader critique of the wording used. I hear a lot of people use the term “working class” to categorize anyone who isn’t middle or upper class together, but ultimately I find that really problematic (and I fucking hate to use that word haha) because as I stated, working class and the poor can’t/shouldn’t be categorized as one in the same. Their experiences of classism are enormously different from those considered working class. Thanks for not taking my comment the wrong way. 🙂

      • Meghan Murphy

        Well, I think the reason we speak of “working class” vs middle or upper class is not necessarily because we believe that all members of the working class have equal incomes, experiences, or levels of privilege, but in order to speak to the way capitalism and class oppression works. Like, it isn’t *only* about income, it’s about wealth, property, ownership, access — in other words, who controls the means of production and who does not, and how that divide is enforced on a systemic level. But yes, I certainly agree that women in poverty and women who are homeless experience levels of oppression and marginalization that not all members of the working class do.

        • The reason that activist blasted the working class is because they’re committed to a neo-liberal agenda. Their is nothing revolutionary about liberal politics, and they exclude the working class intentionally. Leave it to Liberals to exclude the only entity even structurally capable of change, may their identity politics be a pretext for their ruling class struggle?

          Professor Reed believes this to be so,
          http://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/

      • SomeSilverySong

        I grew up in poverty and before I knew what socialism was I thought “working class” was a euphemism. Oh, I said, Rich, middle class, and working class? Call us what we are, I thought, we’re poor. Back then I believed in two classes, people who worried about food and people who didn’t.

        But working class specifically refers to people who rely on wage labor for survival, people who do not own productive property, as opposed to people who do own productive property, the owning class. Talking about the middle class and the poor and the working class doesn’t make sense – that’s mixing up concepts of conflicting ideologies. Capitalist ideology makes a distinction between poor, middle, and upper – and leads people on with promises of moving on up. Socialist ideology emphasizes the difference between those who economically exploit and those who are economically exploited. Capitalist ideology does not acknowledge economic exploitation and says that the exploiters are job creators and the poor choose to be poor.

      • Your neo-liberal identity politics is a shield for your own upper-middle class interests. Throwing the working class under the bus is what makes you such a liberal. You may have fooled the fistfuls of activists, but you can’t fool an actual leftist.

  • Morag999

    Ugh, yes, can’t stand it. I am not a prefix, let alone one that has been assigned to me by others.

    It’s such an act of aggression that they have chosen a “gender identity” for us and label us against our will.

  • Independent Radical

    Liberalism is so messed up and contradictory that they could claim any idea as their own if it suits them (which is probably why they thought they could get away with including the experiences of a radical feminist in their letter, they’ll do anything to beat out the radical left and gain the support of women).

    They try to take credit for the idea that being female and being feminine are distinct. They insist that anyone who adheres to femininity is a girl or a woman, regardless of their genitals, as if genitals and gender have nothing to do with each other. Then they argue that sometimes genitals need to be altered to “match” people’s gender identities, implied that they are very strongly related. They can claim to be the true radicals taking on the idea that gender is biological, while basically arguing that gender identity is biological (that is innate, a product of biological rather than social processes and that each gender identity matches a particular set of genitals).

    Reality is somewhere between these two extremes. Gender is related to genitals, but only because society decides to assign the labels “woman” to people born with vaginas and indoctrinate them into conformity with femininity. Being indoctrinated into femininity and then being expected to take on a subordinate status is womanhood. It is distinct from being born female. In an ideal society, being born female wouldn’t mean anything politically. People outside of the medical profession wouldn’t even notice if someone were female or male, they would just see them as a person and the label “woman” wouldn’t need to exist. It exists because society has assigned those born with vaginas to a different social role and this fact needs to be acknowledged (which is why I don’t favour getting rid of the term now, the same way I don’t want to get rid of terms like “worker” and “slave”, I want to get rid of actual real life class divisions).

    I didn’t want to use the term femininity in place of womanhood, because if I had said “feminists should definitely be conscious of the fact that femininity has been forced onto them” it would sound as if I were saying that all women (or at least all feminists) actually were feminine. This clearly isn’t the case. But all women have had the experience of being indoctrinated into femininity and have to live with the consequences of that (e.g. feeling bad about yourself if you don’t meet prettiness standards) even if they choose to defy femininity (along with the punishments doled out to biological females who defy femininity).

    Not all biological females have been successfully forced into femininity, but they have been forced into womanhood (the experience of being indoctrinated into femininity and living in a society that expects you to be feminine). Biological males do not have that experience even if they choose to conform to femininity. Individual biological females can (and should be encouraged to) escape femininity, but the only way out of womanhood is through radical social change. Femaleness on the other hand is just a variation in biology which comes with advantages and disadvantages (though I wouldn’t be opposed to mitigating some of the disadvantages through technology and medicine).

    I don’t think I actually disagree with Dana about anything related to this topic. It’s probably just a matter of language, but I wanted to make my stance as clear as possible. I definitely don’t want to equate being female with being feminine, but I’m not going to deny that they are linked together through a brutal social process of indoctrination and punishment.

  • lagattamontral

    It sounds as if they never even read Firestone.

  • Reffael Fishzon

    Since she is mentioned in the letter, what are your thoughts on Sylvia Rivera? Did they appropriate her too?

    • Meghan Murphy

      I know nothing about Sylvia Rivera so I have no clue.

  • Siren

    Using Firestone like they did for activist cache recalls how John Stoltenberg has appropriated Dworkin’s legacy. He cited one sentence she wrote as an indication of her retroactive support for transactivism (decades before it existed) and using it as evidence for some supposed belief in centring mtts in feminism.

  • Independent Radical

    “Mobilise all feminists in Australia. There are some unapologetic ones in Melbourne.”

    I would totally mobilise if I wasn’t scared of ………. well I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. I’m ready to mobilise once some other people do. Safety in numbers, I say. Of course, if everyone used that reasoning then nobody would mobilise. Collective action can be tough sometimes.

    • anne

      I know what you mean. The threats to health and well-being, not to mention career and financial security, associated with women fighting against abuse are so extreme and real that in one way or another most women find a reason to turn a blind eye, as ling as they can bear their lot. The same is true for fighting against poverty, racism and every other kind of oppression. Most oppressed people are tired and too busy trying to avoid harm and survive. But when we were at university, it was a bit easier.

  • Bronwyn Williams

    Sadly, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and the staffer involved in this meeting are both women – women who insist they are feminists.

  • Persephone Jones

    ” Regardless of men’s oppression under white supremacy and capitalism,
    they were still capable of beating, raping, and prostituting the women
    who suffered alongside them.”
    –spot on accurate.

    • Shona Graham

      Also capable of being raped and beaten by women! Lets stop the bs of identity politics stop libeling one gender and get to grips with fact it is just a mask to supress the poor trash poor men enough and they will stop having poor women’s backs! Was poor men that fought for poor women and vice versa NOT FEMINISTS!

  • Alienigena

    I think the characters and dispositions of liberal feminists are best exemplified by the prominent women and feminists who criticized the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault and harassment in the late 1990s. They tended to fawn all over Bill Clinton. They were almost universal in their condemnation of the women who accused Bill Clinton of malfeasance. Note these women were generally from a lower SES than the liberal feminists, or they were young women like Monica Lewinsky. I think that women who routinely suggest that other women are just imagining things or are malicious are not worth my sympathy. I don’t have time for them. I am not an activist, I am a human being who has been harmed by their attitudes, I don’t have to put on a happy face and say let’s all get along.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/05/williams199805

  • Meghan Murphy

    Welcome back, sister!