International Women’s Day used to come with a certain esthetic. A celebration of past victories and a look ahead to new hopes and challenges. But this year, the vibe is women on social media, claiming Iranian heritage, dancing in celebration of US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, even as reports circulate that bombs had killed roughly 160 schoolgirls.

Meanwhile, Western female leaders – those who regularly speak about things like feminist foreign policy and are seen as the epitome of female governance – seemed suddenly to develop an acute sensitivity about tone. Statements were measured and delicately phrased so as not to antagonize the men launching the missiles.

The question practically writes itself: how did a movement once defined by dissent become so cautious in the presence of power?

The answer begins with a misunderstanding of feminism’s history. Contrary to the mythology, feminism has rarely been as radical as its reputation suggests. From the beginning, it contained competing factions. Like most political movements, feminism ended up rewarding the faction that was easiest for institutions to accommodate.

During the second wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s, ideological debates within the movement were fierce, on everything from pornography and capitalism to lesbianism and marriage. Different factions claimed the feminist banner, but only one ultimately ended up with the microphones and funding.

The version that eventually dominated was the one that institutions could live with. One that foundations could fund with their shady backers, and universities could fall over themselves to host. Corporations and government learned to speak its language, and vice-versa, and feminism became a feature of the power structure itself.

That evolution did produce some real........

© RT.com