Victim Feminism: Naomi Wolf

Heres a few scattered quotes from the internet which I found
interesting:

The 1960s emergence of 'Victim Feminism' and its ascendency as today's most popular brand of feminism:

------------------------------------------

Three books were central to the progressive emergence of modern victim feminism during the 1960s. They were Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique which was first published in 1963, and Kate Millett's Sexual Politics and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, which both appeared on the bookshelves for the first time in 1970.
These three books established the platform for the progressive replacement of the original highly individualistic, 'positive' classical feminism with a general critique of men and masculinity and an incessant collective carping which dominated the victim feminism of the 1980s, and continues to dominate the mainstream feminism of the 1990s....

Countless subsequent feminists and their writings have not added substantially to the core ideas initially put forward by Friedan, Millet and Greer. They have simply attempted to find new examples in which men allegedly oppress and discriminate against women and often fabricate evidence to 'prove' it. The degree to which this feminist search for new areas of patriarchal oppression is taken is evident in book titles such as "Fat: A Feminist Issue" and "Meat: A Feminist, Vegetarian critique" !


The general claim made in criticisms of 'victim feminism' is that feminism focuses too much on women as victims, e.g. of men's violence or male power or patriarchy. By focusing on women's vulnerability to rape and sexual harassment and domestic violence, feminism ironically makes women feel helpless and disempowers them [Brant & Too, 1994: 6]. Women are represented as passive, weak, and always and ever the victims. Victim feminism downplays and underestimates women's capacity to achieve positions of power and authority.

Naomi Wolf agrees with this general claim. For her, one of the most pressing problems symbolised by victim feminism is that it positions victim status itself as a source of strength and identity [Wolf, 1993: 154].
However, Wolf does not support other criticisms of victim feminism or of a focus in feminism on women's victimisation. The criticism that victim feminism is essentialist.
Wolf spends about eight pages outlining the "Core mythology of victim feminism". She is primarily concerned with two aspects here: the essentialist account of gender, and the reluctance to take up forms of power which are traditionally male.

Wolf argues that victim feminism involves the myth of a harmonious and peaceful past based on 'female values'. Evil is confined to men, and institutionalised in patriarchy [157].
Men are inclined towards hierarchy, domination and separation, while women are inclined towards egalitarianism, communication and connection [157]: men to objectification; women to commitment; men to killing; women to giving life; and so on.

Wolf's problem is not with the values themselves which are seen as essentially female. Her problem is with the portrayal of particular values, forms of behaviour and ways of knowing as essentially male or female, as fundamentally gendered rather than simply human [157]. She supports the valuing and integration into public life of values and traits which have been seen as stereotypically feminine, but rejects essentialist claims about them.

Of 'Victim Feminism' Warren Farrell writes:

'Woman-as-Victim catalyzes the protector instinct in all of us, leading us to create advantages for women, from affirmative action and scholarships to special legal defenses. It creates female Victim Power. This tempts feminists to ignore data and perspectives empathetic to men for fear of destroying this female Victim Power.

Does male victim data catalyze a parallel male victim power? No. It catalyzes the "cringe response." Why? Our fear is that a man who needs help cannot protect. Cringe.'

Subject: Re: Victim Feminism


I'm struck by Farrell's comment: "Our fear is that a man who needs help cannot protect. Cringe." Feminism cannot claim to be progressive in any sense of the word if it is simply championing 'males as protectors' and females as the 'softer-sex' victims.... this is an extemely old-fashioned gender-role idiology which has been dressed-up to look like an attempt at surpassing old cultural stereotypes.

I often think of (victim) feminism as lamenting the loss of the chivalrous good-old-days, albeit as hidden agenda. -- Jason T (from the fathers4equality Australia list)

At some point you have to ask: So what happens as a man grows older and becomes disabled?
The answer in Australia from my experience is that he has effectively become illegal. He has no rights within his own home because there is no means for him to defend those rights. It doesn't matter whether he lives in his own home, in a relationship, or simply in a roommate situation: the disabled man in Australia is an outlaw.

Beyond my own personal experience with this phenomenon of Victim Feminism, I wrote an email to the offices of Bruce Billson about a 74-year old man a few blocks away. He is in a roommate situation where his younger roommates -- in their 40's! -- we abusive. They were only nice to him when his pension came in because he was paying the rent.

There was no response from Mr Billson's office. -- Why?
Because there is nothing a federal MP can do for such a man, and less interest in his plight; or the plight of any man abandoned by the system.

Would you call this inhuman?
Would you raise your voice to announce this man had Rights?

If I had written about a similarly situated woman, there would be numerous options, agencies and funding available. Where there are 2500 shelters available for women in Australia, there are none for men.
Yet over 160 Australian and international studies indicate that men are as likely to be victims of domestic violence and abuse as women. -- This is the prejudice that Victim Feminism has instituted in Australia.