TO THE EDITOR:
I write in support of Jaslina Paintal’s column. The letter published from David Hawisher polices Paintal’s tone while denigrating her worth as a reporter, demands “empirical or theoretical” proof and concludes that the harsh critique of “mainstream” feminism is unnecessarily divisive.
Hawisher did not debate the successes and drawbacks of the second-wave feminism. It was about tearing someone down for daring to unapologetically criticize white feminism.
Hawisher believes that “demonizing even progressives who disagree” is wrong. Darkmatter write, “as Black and brown activists have argued forever, calls for ‘unity’ without seriously engaging the reality of difference are really just a way of incorporating the people you actively oppress into frameworks that continue to oppress them.” If “progressives” maintain a position that contributes to oppression, I fail to see what is wrong about confronting those views
For theory: Audre Lorde, Cherríe Moraga, Kate Bornstein, Gloria Anzaldúa, to start. Furthermore, as bell hooks writes, people can “practice theorizing without ever ... possessing the term, just as we can live and act in feminist resistance without ever using the word ‘feminism’.” Athough Paintal does not ostensibly cite peer-reviewed articles, the article is saturated with theoretical understandings.
Articles such as Paintal’s highlight the best of what The Daily Tar Heel has to offer — insightful, concise thought pieces. We would all do well to grapple with content that challenges us.
Anna Dardick
Graduate Student
School of Public Healthdir AL
