However, there is a clear difference between feminism and a left-wing hit-job — and the article alluded to is of the latter variety. Michele Hanson writes for the Guardian, and she has no reason to be charitable to Rebekah Brooks née Wade of The Sun. (Interestingly, you could turn that the other way and it would still make sense… Rebekah Wade – nay – Brooks.)

If you read Hanson’s piece again, you will find that she struggles to make sense of her own argument in the second half of her article, where she is terribly confused about whose last name the kids should take. Indeed Hanson does not have a coherent argument, but she does very well in the portions where she takes on the other woman, and tries to portray her as spineless. Indeed Hanson has nothing to lose here. Some people will nod in agreement, and those that disagree will not be able to counter her because they are shackled by the fact men do not assume their wives’ last name after marriage.

My point is very simple. In such matters, women must have the right to choose. So long as they are able to exercise their right, no one should be overly concerned. Feminism is advanced and diverse enough not to come crashing because of someone’s personal choice. It is very disturbing though that the article equates feminism to some kind of a sharia law, the comeuppance for transgressing which is excommunication.

btw, what do you think of the Women reservation bill in India (i don’t think it has become an act yet as i write this comment). if you think the subject is worth a blog, please do the honors

~ak

PS: Nor am i a big fan of such feminists

PPS: All “Feminists” reading this post and wanting to bash VK, please note that I’ve used (s)he not an explicit masculine pronoun so, be gentle on me.