X Close

Are white feminists evil? New anti-racist books don't understand the true power of modern feminism

Dictatorial feminism. Credit: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty


September 3, 2021   7 mins

The evolution of middle-aged white women into fearsome spectres of villainy has been just over a year in the making. It started in Central Park last May, when a woman named Amy Cooper was filmed making a 911 call in which she claimed that a black man was threatening her life. This 40-second video hit the internet at almost exactly the same time as another one — the one capturing the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

These two incidents were connected by neither geography, subject matter, or substance; the first was a tense but ultimately toothless conflict between two neurotic New Yorkers in which nobody got hurt, while the second captured not just a horrific tragedy but a gross abuse of police power. It didn’t matter: within hours, the two viral moments had fused in the public consciousness to create a monster, literally. She was a boogeyman spawned on social media, one we loathed and feared in equal measure.

And because we live in the age of movies spawned by memes, she’s coming soon to a cinema near you. A bedraggled and atrociously-hairstyled Taryn Manning will be playing a villainous white woman who antagonises the sweet and blameless black family who’s just moved in down the street. She’s the embodiment of all evil, the manager-calling bigot next door, the proud owner of a soap dispenser emblazoned with the confederate flag. Her name, of course — and the movie’s — is Karen.

You don’t have to see Karen (and based on the trailer, it looks like a pile of hot garbage) to know how it will end: the villainess will come to a brutally but suitably violent end, and we’ll all learn an important, even life-changing lesson about embracing diversity and equity — lest one end up disemboweled by a wine opener.

Manning herself believes that Karen will pack a powerful, even global punch: “I felt a social responsibility to take on this role,” she told Deadline. “Even if I had to play the villain to effect change around the globe, then I was more than willing to step into the role… It’s time for change, and for me to be a part of the bigger picture meant a lot to me.”

Alas, Hollywood has but one “Karen” to cast. But for white women who yearn to effect change by embracing their own inner villain, two new books offer a way forward. Nova Reid’s The Good Ally and Rafia Zakaria’s Against White Feminism, both published this month, invite white women everywhere into a new, exciting role: that of the bad guy.

“I felt like I was being eaten alive by a pack of wolves,” Reid writes early on in her book. But the feeding frenzy she describes isn’t a brutal, racist attack; it’s how she felt after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, fielding calls and emails from people who wanted to hire her as a diversity consultant. The tragedy in Minneapolis triggered an international wave of reckoning, and being recognised as an expert in her field, people turned to Reid for help. And those wolves? White women. Entitled, hungry, snarling.

The white feminist antagonist, inflicting countless harms in her desperation to do good appears in both Reid and Zakaria’s books — but it’s in Against White Feminism that the critique is sharpened to a point. Not that readers should feel attacked, mind you — “White women must not feel that the critique of whiteness within feminism is some crude intimidation tactic meant to silence them altogether,” Zakaria writes, even as she insists on the importance of denouncing “those who cling to exclusionary histories, stories, and forms”. (So, you may be denounced, but don’t let it intimidate you.) Reid, meanwhile, assures her reader: “Any discomfort you feel is temporary and pales in comparison to what Black people and People of Colour often have to experience on a daily basis.”

In reading these books, Reid and Zakaria become an omniscient authority, one who has never met you but knows you better than you know yourself. Zakaria explains that people of colour understand white women fluently, as a matter of necessity: this is the natural outgrowth of “the need to survive in a white-run world”. In practice, this means that Zakaria spends much of the book ascribing intent and motive to the behaviours of various white women; needless to say, her interpretation is not flattering.

White women’s reactions — or in some cases, what Zakaria imagines those reactions might be — are presented in turn as expressions of fragility, of defensiveness, of grasping hunger for power. For instance, Zakaria was married young to an abusive husband, a terrible situation from which she ultimately fled. But when the opportunity comes to tell this story to a group of friends, she assumes that this is beyond the scope of any white woman’s experience. In fact, she doesn’t tell the story at all, lest the other women “demote me mentally below the women who do the real work of feminism”.

“I know that my companions’ world is split into women of colour who have ‘stories’ to tell, and white women who have power and an inherently feminist outlook,” she writes. Remarkably, she’s so certain of this she never actually tests her hypothesis; instead she tells a shortened version of her life story and then quietly resents her friends for the rest of the night, first for their imagined lack of empathy, and then for failing to notice when she pays more than her fair share of the bill. (Zakaria, unlike her “prettily dressed, slightly soused, fashionably woke” companions, had refrained from drinking — a decision for which she also imagines she’s being judged.)

Zakaria is deeply suspicious of white women, perhaps reasonably so, but it’s hard to separate her historical analysis of white feminism from the grudges that animate the book’s more personal sections. Her anecdotes often include snide observations about other women’s physical appearances; Zakaria is antagonised by a “smug white professor” seen “duly sporting the scarves and baubles of the well-travelled,” or a “willowy blonde” with her hair in braids. And while she assures us that white women need not feel attacked, this may prove difficult even for the most open-minded reader; the words “white women” appear in Zakaria’s book 161 times (the book is 245 pages long.)

Sometimes, the entire case for this or that thing being fundamentally “white feminist” seems to rest on the presence of an individual white woman somewhere in the equation. One chapter, titled “White Feminists and Feminist Wars,” seeks to frame the War on Terror as a white feminist exercise primarily through the lens of Zero Dark Thirty, the movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and its female CIA agent, Maya, who was instrumental in the operation’s success.

Here, too, Zakaria’s personal experience ends up dominating the narrative. She dwells at length on the screening she attended of Zero Dark Thirty at a movie theater in Indiana, where the crowd “repeatedly cheered” at the sight of “a brown man being waterboarded”, then gave the movie a standing ovation while Zakaria wept despondently in her seat. (Sidenote: I know the notion of a bunch of red-state yokels cheering for torture scenes before leaping to its feet to applaud the end of Zero Dark Thirty — in fact a pretty meditative work that in no way glamorises or glosses over the horrors of the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden — may hew believably to certain ugly stereotypes about the American midwest, but if you’ve ever actually seen a movie in the US, this scene is so out of keeping with how audiences usually behave that it’s hard to believe it’s entirely factual.)

Amid this myopic focus on a fictional CIA agent and a handful of real-life female soldiers, one could almost forget that the American war on terror was enacted, strategised and fought almost exclusively by men. And indeed, overlooking the role of men in lieu of vilifying white women is a recurrent theme in Against White Feminism. In one chapter, Zakaria blames “self-declared feminists” after an article she wrote for Dissent magazine is met with an Islamophobic response — even though the ugly backlash was apparently fuelled by a male editor.

In another, she recounts showing up to an event that was billed to her as a speaking engagement, but turned out, humiliatingly, to be a sort of global bazaar at which she was supposed to man a table of Pakistani handicrafts. Zakaria was urged to attend by two friends, both men, who evidently misinformed her about the nature of the event — but rather than blame them, her contempt falls squarely on the women in attendance. She rages at the organisers, at the white women drinking wine and buying crafts, and particularly at the “Black and brown women doing the bidding of my handler and others of her kind”.

Zakaria is at her strongest when she zooms out to a systemic distance, such as critiquing misguided efforts to support women overseas, where a lack of cultural literacy led to interventions that were more intrusive than useful. But even as Zakaria reasonably criticises various movements for “imposing the goals of white, Western feminists upon women who were neither white nor Western and did not necessarily share their concerns”, the bad actors at fault were massive organisations: the UN Global Alliance for Clean Stoves in one case, the Gates Foundation in another.

And in some cases, her anger at the “dictatorial feminism” practised by these would-be do-gooders is oddly reminiscent of the right-wing critiques that have lately proliferated surrounding the failed American operation in Afghanistan: both Zakaria and Tucker Carlson have similar things to say about the usefulness of neoliberalism in a nation ruled by tribal politics and religion, and its attempted imposition of Western gender roles on Afghan women. At any rate, it’s hard to see what the individual white women who make up her readership are meant to do with this information.

So, where does this leave Karen?

Out of commission, probably. If she reads Against White Feminism, she’ll be too busy wallowing neck-deep in self-flagellating guilt to get busy making a difference, or indeed even have the faintest idea how she’d begin to do so. If she takes the advice of The Good Ally, she’ll be journaling through her awokening with the evangelical zeal of the alcoholic trying to white-knuckle his way through the early days of sobriety (“The magnetic undercurrent of white supremacy is a force to be reckoned with and will tempt you to go back to your comfort zone when it gets too hard,” Reid warns.) Neither book offers concrete solutions; indeed, one gets the impression that asking for them would be just another expression of white feminist entitlement.

But that’s fine. Readers don’t buy these books because they want to be efficient activists. They buy them to marinate in the vision they sell — because while white feminism probably isn’t to blame for every last one of the world’s ills, there’s a particular breed of guilty white liberal woman quite eager to believe it is. Maybe it’s because, if you look at it just right, it suggests a victory of sorts: that feminism has moved beyond mere empowerment and into the realm of actual power, that some women have shed the mantle of victims to become formidable villains in their own right. After all, women can’t ever be truly equal to men until we’ve not only achieved power, but abused it, using it to crush those beneath us. Orwell once said that “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

These books take that picture to the next level: imagine the exhilarating power of having your own dainty foot inside the boot.


Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.

katrosenfield

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

79 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
2 years ago

So Rafia Zakaria harbours an animus towards people of one particular race and sex – an animus strong enough to override any consideration of them as individuals. That makes her a racist and a sexist. Why are her outpourings being taken seriously?

Chauncey Gardiner
Chauncey Gardiner
2 years ago

Good point.
And the most likely answer to your question would be what the author here suggested in the last paragraph: Because there’s a market for it.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago

“Why are her outpourings being taken seriously?”

Come on, CRT, BLM, Universities telling all staff and students to STFU and watch every word they say less they be canceled for life for one incorrect line.

This is the Global Elite using race to break the West by dividing the Nation so it may be picked apart and broken.

Social Media/Tech and the MSM, and the Education Industry have turned into a pathological force out to return the world to a new-Feudalism.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

PS anyone – why has the colour of my ‘icon’ changed from yellow to orange? Is this some kind of ranking and I need to worry I am being phased out – Will I next be the first grey circle, and then ….

Also, what does the DO stand for? It is unrelated to anything I can think of? Is it a score, ‘dangerous + ornery?

What are the meanings of the symbols…

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

I think it’s randomly generated by whatever program is used for comment, Sanford. My work email does the same.
Unless I’m being ranked and I don’t know about it…

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

I knew it – it is online Social Credit Score. yours is 13 + 10, (letter in alphabet) = 23. Mine 4 + 15 = 19 – I hope the low is better, but IA just beneath is 8 + 1, = 9, so must a favorite, and so we should conspire against him.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

My IA is the first 2 letters of my email address

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Probably means they figured out you voted for the Orange man and you are about to lose your job, freedom, Twitter account and Ben and Jerry ice cream

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

maybe it’s more likely that the elite are trying to “shape” nations in their interest, rather than “break” them 


Last edited 2 years ago by Ian Barton
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Barton

If this is the ‘Shape’ of the West they are working towards, mass migration, 138% debt to GDP and 10 X GDP in unfunded mandates, Massive deficit spending, and all the people divided against the others, the political parties at virtual war, the Education system captured by crazy Neo-Marxists, the MSM and Social Media sheer propaganda, and so on – Then what is the final outcome they are trying to shape it into? 1984?

Christopher Peter
Christopher Peter
2 years ago

Precisely. The book and its whole premise is racist, pure and simple. The second you understand that, it’s time to stop listening. Of course that would be “white fragility” or something, but then that’s total nonsense too.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago

It’s disgusting how little has been written about the white lady who threatened to call the police on the black man in the park. It turned out after the online backlash that he was indeed acting in a threatening manner, and had done to others in the park so she was justified in threatening to call the police. I imagine this won’t make it into the final cut of the film however

James Finnemore
James Finnemore
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Your sources?

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
2 years ago

Check out Bari Weiss‘s Substack.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago

Yes, good piece

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I suspected that because when he started recording her his voice becomes almost comically unthreatening , as if he is tactically responding to the recording process .

Last edited 2 years ago by Alan Osband
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Just like the initial few minutes of the interaction between Saint Floyd and the police was suppressed.

Just so that the “racist” narrative was not undermined by the fact that the behaviour of the police, for a significant period, was perfectly polite and non racist. Or that their over the top aggression in the video was triggered by the victim’s aggression. And, though still an example of highly improper police behaviour, had nothing to do with race.

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I saw a video where he was complaining about not being able to breathe while he was still sitting in his car.

Jane Watson
Jane Watson
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Smith

Many times. I saw it too.

Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I learned right after the incident that the man was acting in a threatening way. He approached her and told her that if she didn’t leash her dog he “was going to do something to her dog and that she would not like it.”
These facts somehow didn’t make it into the general public narrative of what happened.
My immediate thought was that I couldn’t believe that a woman was being completely DESTROYED because she was afraid and called police after being approached in a hostile way, by a large man, in a remote area, who said that kind of thing. .
I’m so old that I remember when a woman being approached by a male stranger in Central Park who said he was going to do something threatening would be supported and cared for.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
2 years ago

Beautiful.

Seems like the authors mentioned in the piece and the White Feminists were made for each other.

May they live happily ever after, occupying each other’s time, and leave the rest of us to get on with life.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago

I think one should separate feminists and radical feminists. There is no doubt that feminists have been a movement for good in the world. The problem is when people take things too far.

David McDowell
David McDowell
2 years ago

Why? The white middle class feminists were radical in their day.
What the writer of this article is asking for is that ‘progress’ is stopped at the point she and her sort are ahead/feeling comfortable.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

Was it ‘radical’ to want the vote and to want to have more in ones life than the role of a 50s housewife?

David McDowell
David McDowell
2 years ago

At the time, yes. Ideas, like time, move on.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

Which is why there are radical feminists and feminists. Or to give a nod to your sensibilities, let’s call them women’s rights. Because women’s rights are under attack and there are many very reasonable women/feminists fighting back. They have the backing of a lot of men too.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 years ago

Women, it turns out , still need to kvetch and use emotional blackmail .
‘Darling have you forgotten what day it is today’ from the great I Love Lucy has just morphed into ‘and ,what’s more ,white people invented racism’ from the (white) lady in charge of the British Library .

Not really an improvement

Last edited 2 years ago by Alan Osband
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago

At the point where women didn’t have the vote or were restricted to being housewives…
Most of the world and the majority of western males didn’t have it either.
And men were condemned to dying in wars or suffering in jobs like mining or factories to feed their families.

Thankfully, the descendents of those men don’t wallow in victimhood because of what happened in the 19th century

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Luckily I am not surrounded by men in real life who don’t like women.
The same old men turn up on all these threads with the same refrain.

Last edited 2 years ago by Lesley van Reenen
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago

Pretty tough to find men in real life who “don’t like women”.
They mainly exist in the feverish imagination of the rather larger group of women who spend their lives hating men.

What I suspect though is you are surrounded by men who are too cowardly to correct your “facts” and expose you to plain truths.

Jessie Gillick
Jessie Gillick
2 years ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

It’s true, men have abused their power over men with appaling consequences as you point out – war. But to be a feminist is not to say only women suffer, not at all. Women fight for female liberty from tyranny and men must fight for male liberty. There’s room and time for both.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

As shown by the French and Russian Revolutions ‘progress’ can never go too far

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

Ah, that slippery concept called ‘progress’. We can distinguish between good and bad here. Women’s equal rights, and no discrimination on the grounds of race, good. But if the term is now pretty much a synonym for woke far-Left inanity, and (deliberate?) failure to understand the real roots of, for example, massive under performance of certain groups (worshipping crime and criminals and absentee mysogynist fathers doesn’t help) – or biology denying ‘trans rights’, then the end of ‘progress’ would be a thoroughly good thing for Western humanity (the rest of humanity not being in thrall to it).

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

Black people in the west are certainly ahead of and more comfortable than most black people in sub-Saharan Africa .
A culture of grievance mongering does not equate with progress

Last edited 2 years ago by Alan Osband
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago

Feminists have been a movement for good for upper / middle class women

Most of the good that has happened in the past 200 years were due to broad based, non identity group focused rights movements or technological / medical development, most of which was driven by the patriarchy.

What feminists have achieved is perennial victim status and super seniority in quotas, jobs and courts for a group of women who were better off than most men to begin with.

And of course push things like breakdown of family and lower numbers of productive males, not in their social class but in the working class. Which has really worked out well for the women in those classes.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago

It is amusing how the Confederate flag is now a symbol of utter evil, in the same Western countries where you can openly flaunt your belief as a communist or muslim. Because the latter, of course, were so much better when it comes to equality, respect for human life and aversion to slavery.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 years ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Haven’t you heard ? ‘White people invented racism’
At least according to the white woman who runs the British Library .

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago

I know you shoudn’t skim articles. But honestly, a huge sense of crushing boredom hit me as I got to the third paragraph or so.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Terence Fitch

Boredom or revulsion?

Deborah B
Deborah B
2 years ago
Reply to  Terence Fitch

You are such a trooper. I was yawning from the first word. Seriously, if we keep getting served up more dollops of this tripe I’ll be cancelling my subscription.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago

All rights and no responsibilities, this is the new-Left, which is Post-Modernism, Critical Theory, Cultural Marxism, Identity Politics, and Intersectionality where every aspect of life and discussion is all about ‘Power’. Every individual, or societal, interaction is only about Power.

Feminism opened this Pandora’s Box by making everything male/Female about Power., and now it comes back to bite them.

Time to go back to the old thinking, and a bit of sanity…..

Matthew7:1-3

““Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye””

Alex Stonor
Alex Stonor
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Yes. Could we not talk about social capital for once.

Hosias Kermode
Hosias Kermode
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

I prefer the more poetic rendering of this from the KJV. But agree with the sentiment

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Reply to  Hosias Kermode

I know, but this was the NLT which seemed simple, should have included the designation.

The West is going crazy lately, over the Power/Oppressed thing so strongly I wonder if a civil war could come, or just continuing dysfunction till we resemble the Great Depression.

Try reading the on line Daily Mail. The American section really sets the zeitgeist, it is all Biden, Covid, Afghanistan, and racism (as seen by how every level of government and business and education is 100% backing CRT.) European descent people are soon to be a minority as the Boomers check out, and things are very much changing as the Left-Right are reaching Hostility rather than disagreement. This will explode once the economy blows up and endless streams of free money which keep the lower income placid runs out.

That is the importance of this article – race is become hate as Biden and his Ilk are dividing the nation.

The British section is all Covid, Boris bumbling, and Harry and Megan – which seems is all that is going on in UK this last couple of years, by the coverage.

Sam McLean
Sam McLean
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Try reading the on line Daily Mail.

Nope.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Reply to  Sam McLean

Try expanding your understanding of the world.

Nope.

David McDowell
David McDowell
2 years ago

Is it okay to want both sides to lose in this argument?

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

I thought that too, David. Whenever I see black racists hurling abuse at white liberals, I think of the Iran-Iraq War, I think of the Eastern Front of 1941-5, I think of the USSR in Afghanistan, and I want there to be a way for “both sides to lose”.

Pete Marsh
Pete Marsh
2 years ago

“Zakaria was married young to an abusive husband, … But when the opportunity comes to tell this story to a group of friends, she assumes that this is beyond the scope of any white woman’s experience.”
Maybe she should ask some of the thousands of woman in places like Telford or Rotherham?

Fredrick Urbanelli
Fredrick Urbanelli
2 years ago

It’s a little embarrassing to admit this: I can’t help but enjoy the double feature of feminist vs. trans and, now, white feminist vs. feminist of color. They have brought this on themselves and the nagging, the scratching out of eyes, the ever-shifting loyalties, and, finally, the total selfishness of the various players involved is just too good a spectacle to not sit back and enjoy. You go, girls!! THATS ENTERTAINMENT!!

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
2 years ago

This essay was a missed opportunity. It ought to have reflected on the myopia and shallowness of identity politics. It ought to have been an occasion for the author to reflect on how she, in the past, succumbed to the temptation of hiding behind victim labels and how, now that she is on the receiving end of the accusations that go hand-in-hand with victimisation, she has gained a broader perspective.
At very least, it could played the fun game of trying to find objective evidence for Karen-ism (e.g. life expectancy indicators by race and sex, discretionary purchasing power of white women versus non-white (non-)women, …)
Sadly, the author seems incapable of learning the lesson. Instead, the essay is nothing more than knee-jerk belly-aching from someone who watched a movie trailer and did a ‘Control-F’ book review on one of those nonsense Culture War books that blames white people for everything. Her conclusion, (PLOT SPOILER) that the War on Terror was really the fault of ‘men’, is as risible as it is predictable.
Nothing to see here, move on.

David McDowell
David McDowell
2 years ago
Reply to  Graham Stull

How could it reflect on the shallowness of identity politics when the writer is so obviously a beneficiary of status quo identity politics and opposes change.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
2 years ago
Reply to  Graham Stull

Writer would call out your “male fragility” for daring to contradict her argument.

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
2 years ago

“Ah, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?”

Paul Davies
Paul Davies
2 years ago

The usual garbage from the usual suspects. Too many people with too little of value to do and seeking a religion.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 years ago

Black empowerment activists have learnt their techniques of belly aching from the (white ) feminists and are now using them against them .
Both seem to want to ally themselves with Muslims against the ‘war on terror’ , in the reviewer’s case because the term resonates with toxic masculinity and in the kvetching black activist’s case because the terrorists are fellow non-whites .

Last edited 2 years ago by Alan Osband
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 years ago

The same mentality that engages in ‘white-bashing’ is exactly the same as those who felt perfectly comfortable expressing hatred toward J*ws and blacks back when it was socially permissible.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
2 years ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Quite so. Indeed, so-called “anti-racism” in demonising one people as the sole source of trouble in the world, wilfully ignoring the crimes, follies and blunders of other civilisations, is clearly modelled on the hatred to which you refer.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago

Let’s just call these this disgusting pair of women what they are: woke racist scum. We should be treating them exactly as we treat BNP members.

Last edited 2 years ago by Drahcir Nevarc
mike otter
mike otter
2 years ago

I didn’t learn a lot from this about the state of feminism applied or academic. I did however learn there is racist author called Zakaria who obsesses about skin color. She appears to be a moron. This central part of the piece is why it can’t really be about feminism, as its possible to be a feminist and not a moron, but this is not true of racists like this Zakaria character. I have never met a racist who is not a moron.

D Hockley
D Hockley
2 years ago

This is fascinating. All these minority activists are sub-dividing their groups into ever smaller slices and then pitting themselves one against the other. And each time they split, they all go further down the rabbit hole of lunacy and ultimately into utter irrelevance. Watching these nutters cannibalise each other in this way is very entertaining indeed.

Divide and conquer.

Deborah B
Deborah B
2 years ago
Reply to  D Hockley

Well said. Previously I suggested they cease arguing (and cluttering up all forms of media) and engage in wrestling. And have it on the tele so we can gawp at them. My suggestion seems more enticing with every article I read.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago
Reply to  D Hockley

Check out Rose McGowan’s calling out(the cannibalising) of Oprah Winfrey.

Dawn McD
Dawn McD
2 years ago

I was under the impression that McGowan’s anger was about the hypocrisy of big-name Democrats like Winfrey who were all for the MeToo movement until it came for one of their own. I don’t really have any trouble picking out McGowan as the hero in this scenario.

Glyn Reed
Glyn Reed
2 years ago

That people such as Zakaria are being given such platforms to air their bigoted and racist views causes me grave concern for the future of my children.
The world has gone stark raving mad.

Jean Nutley
Jean Nutley
2 years ago

Surely this is an example of what happens when things are being taken too far? I was a feminist in the old days, when to be a feminist meant we wanted equal pay for doing an equal job, equal chance of education and to be allowed to express our own opinions. Well , we didn’t do so well did we? Still the pay gap, still inequality in job opportunities and arguably in education, and now we have a legitimate argument being overshadowed by angry women, who have too much time on their hands. The over riding theme seems to be that if you are white you will not understand what it like to be oppressed, which is just plain wrong on so many levels. Not all persons of colour will know what it like to be oppressed, equally some white people will know only too well what it is like to be disregarded.

D Ward
D Ward
2 years ago
Reply to  Jean Nutley

Still the pay gap, still inequality in job opportunities”

I totally disagree. Where is the actual evidence, rather than the anecdotal evidence? I’ve not come across it. I get hired based on my skills, and paid accordingly based on how I negotiate my worth. Mind you, I have worked full-time all my career.

Funnily enough, my husband, who took a career break to bring the children up, now finds he has a pay gap with the women in his (predominantly woman-only) industry and is struggling to get back into the work force despite his skills.

ï»ż

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago

People today have too much time. When you sit and think for a while you can come up with a theory. Any theory will do.

If you read a lot you can find an apt quotation and then you try to impress with your erudition.

This article is a waste of time but if you have a lot of time, then you can read it and express a clever opinion.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I think it’s a perfectly decent review of a couple of books written by a pair of disgusting woke racists.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
2 years ago

The answer to the question is undoubtedly ‘Yes. As a tribe, they are evil.’

MJ Reid
MJ Reid
2 years ago

There seems to be a huge swathe of women who want to be seen as tortured in their thinking in order to be interesting and learned in what they say. In actual fact, they need to grow up, use ordinary language and basically get a life and real work.
White feminists, there are a lot of them are as different as they are women. They cannot be pigeon-hole to make it easier to denigrate them. Women have always been the people who most criticise other women. Maybe we should try being more supportive and see if that makes a difference for all women living in patriarchal societies.

Ian Moore
Ian Moore
2 years ago

Don’t read the book, ignore the author, don’t read anything connected with the author, don’t read news articles on the author, don’t read anything on the subject. Et voila, the issue doesn’t exist because you will live in blissful ignorance of this echo chamber claptrap.

Firat M H
Firat M H
2 years ago

This article is far below the standards of the unherd. It seemed to be stuck in the very contradictions that it claims to unveil; plus, it is extremely boring and there is something deeply unaesthetic about it. In a word, it is a “cheap” product.

Peter Branagan
Peter Branagan
2 years ago

Yep! -as are brown, green, pink, black, coloured, yellow and purple.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago

After all, women can’t ever be truly equal to men until we’ve not only achieved power, but abused it, using it to crush those beneath us. 
This is partial at best. In the terms of this observation I would add that to truly equal to men they must show competence in helping those in, and maintaining, a healthy hierarchy. Why is competence scrubbed from the equation?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
2 years ago

Because competence is hard.
Taking the victimhood elevator to the top is easy

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
2 years ago

White feminists are racists. And Terfs. Along with all white men. They helped bring in this new reality, they now need to own it. They will just occupy a different hut from the men in the Gulag.

Last edited 2 years ago by Peter Shaw
Deborah B
Deborah B
2 years ago

To all Unherders. Time to ask for a refund. This platform is now in the firm grip of the herd. Game over.

William Shaw
William Shaw
2 years ago

Dr Peterson has said that identity politics is ultimately self destructive since the number of different identity groups is unlimited and in the end reduces to the individual.
Be careful when adopting identity politics for your own ends because eventually you will be left trying to pull fragmented individuals back together if you want to achieve anything.
Seems like feminism has fallen foul of exactly this.