This is a common slogan used by feminists as a rebuttal to the idea of post-feminism. It is used to explain the idea that post-feminist will be a viable alternative in the case that patriarchy is eliminated.

However, it is clear to many feminists that patriarchy, misogyny, and a male-normative society are thriving right now. In a world where patriarchy is alive and well, how on earth could we be post-feminist?
    Note: Wow ... I never realized that so many of you gave a shit until I saw the insulting softlinks ... oooohhh, maybe now I can get an insulting node of my very own ... *crosses fingers*
It is worth noting that we (Americans) live in a Patriarchy only by circumstance and not by design, that is to say; it is possible for women to be elected in to any public office democratically. A true patriarchal political system would likely have a king or an emperor and the title would be passed down the the oldest male child. It would be possible to logically conclude that a democratic political system is "patriarchally oriented" were there laws against women holding office, but this is not the case in America.

America does, however, have a quasi-patriarchal social system in which families pass their name down the male side of the line but this is not in any way legally enforced. Participation in such activities is completely up to the marriage partners and is followed out of tradition, habit and practicality rather than any sort of strong social or governmental pressures.
Despite any lack of official force, it should be clear that we live in a patriarchy. Women do not hold a significant fraction of positions of power; women are underpaid for their work; women wield less power in private life. Why? Lack of offical discrimination does not eliminate unofficial discrimination; also, girls are educated to fulfil gender roles which promote these outcomes. Later on in life, attempts to surpass expectations and break out of limiting roles are often quashed by prejudice and/or fear. This is anathema to me, a man.

I would rather have an equal than an inferior.

As I would not be a slave, so would I not be a master.

Death to the patriarchy!

It has been difficult to decide where to post this among the plethora of writings about feminism.

However, it seems to me that there are conflicting definitions of postfeminism being circulated here. The first appears to be a definition based on the idea of post as 'after': so that postfeminism means 'after feminism' and thus indicates the assumption that feminism has achieved its goals - however they are defined. Postfeminism, then, will be the state of belief that the world is sexually equal.

If this definition is taken, then transform's statement that she will be a postfeminist in the postpatriarchy makes sense. As does the following sequence of nodes.

However - there is an alternative definition of postfeminism which rests in feminist, poststructuralist and postmodern theory. A postfeminist, here, is to a feminist what a poststructuralist is to a structuralist: not anti-feminist, not believing that the work is done, but rather deconstructing the notion while building on its foundations. A postfeminist in this context will still be a feminist of sorts; but a feminist who uses the theories of the 'post' - deconstruction, creativity, power, to be simplistic - to redefine and recategorise the issues.

As the term postfeminist is generally used in the media to indicate the first definition above - we've come a long way, baby, and we can stop right here - it will be rejected by any feminist who can see further than the titles in Cosmo. Yet by the second definition, postfeminism may be one way out of the middle class white hegemony of feminism which has been criticised since the First Wave.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.