Sexual Violence in Spec Screenplays
Kate Hagen

Thank you so much. Your article inspired me to write and submit my own script to the Black List: “Illusory Truth: The Tale of a Bourgeois, College-Educated, White Woman Who Name-Drops Feminist Writers As Her Reference Points, Only to Embody the Very Person Those People Wrote About with the Utmost Disdain.” [Working title.]

You may be able to fool some low-attention span people with your “I haven’t made it past the 2nd page yet” grasps at credibility, but I’m sure many others will see through your transparent assumption of authority, perverse notions of female oppression, and separatist call-to-arms. Those traits have gone hand-in-hand with middle-class white women who have enjoyed flirting with and warping feminist theory since the 1980s — pretentiously awarding themselves the label of “radical” from the comfortable position granted by their status.

“celebrated under the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy (now’s a great time to brush up on your bell hooks, friends)

The fact that you condescendingly (not to mention materialistically) reference bell hooks, and then proceeded to use the entire remainder — literally — of your article exuding the persona and ideas that stand in complete opposition to her contributions on feminist theory, is as dumbfounding as it is shameful.

Did it not strike you that some of your readers could potentially take your suggestion up enthusiastically, only to soon realize that you clearly haven’t even read hooks’ seminal work from which you took that phrase?

Does it not concern you that you’re the editor of a blog belonging to Black List — a service that is almost exclusively focused in reading and comprehending ideas within text — and label yourself as a “radical feminist” but stand in stark contrast to the work you pretend to promote?

Of course neither of things crossed your mind, because you treat your feminism as an accessory. That’s blatantly clear from the entire premise of your article: the repetitive language and rhetoric you use to crucify men while consecrating women (both in generalized terms), twisting the data you cite in wildly off-base ways under the guise of stopping a “common oppression” against female.

Hooks’ denounces your ideas of victimhood and “common oppression” starting on page 5 of the book from which you embarrassingly borrowed her words. Chapter 2 is an entire 15-straight pages dedicated to dismantling your assertions about and deplorable attitude towards men, and she concludes that it’s the reason why feminism has been stagnate and a movement towards nothing but self-aggrandizing for the past 33 years.

Hooks also argues at length against your fantastical and backwards notions of “there needs to be more female run-this, and female representation in this-field”, citing it as presumptuous, generalized notions of superiority in principle and insight compared to men. She says outright that these ideas are largely found in your group of trend-hopping white females who misuse the concept of “common oppression” as an excuse to dismiss your own class and privilege in order to masquerade in some “I am every woman” costume, trading the merits of individual experience for superficial social badges that often serve to help further your class position while the less-privileged women fail to relate.

Maybe it’s a good time for YOU to brush up on your bell hooks, Kate, because it’s highly likely that if she read you use her name in this article, she might just red-pill herself.

But don’t take my word for it — you can “brush up” on it for yourself for free here!