I find it grim that while we’re discussing the “multidefinitionality” of the word woman, man plows on free from such existential challenge - his status as the default form of humanity unimpeded.
Why is it that the category of man is free from the same levels of critical scrutiny, when men hold the lion’s share of power in patriarchal society?
Why is it that the same focus isn’t placed upon making man plural and expansive? There can be no effective redistribution of power until the most powerful are held to account.
Using woman as a catch all for all ‘non-men’ only cements our status as the second sex, the secondary tier of humanity. Nothing revolutionary about replicating centuries’ worth of misogyny.
IMO the most effective approach to redistributing power along the lines of gender would be to start by taking it from the most powerful - and that starts with scrutinising masculinity, holding men to account.
Within every social movement, somehow it always falls to women alone to prioritise collective needs above our own. There can be no gender revolution until men do, at the very least, their share of caring for other people too.
IMO, men doing their share when it comes to inclusivity and placing collective needs above their own interests regularly would do a world of good improving relations between radical feminist and queer perspectives.
You can follow @ClaireShrugged.