I figured it out
The “it” being this:
As you’ve identified, one flaw, hopefully not fatal, of lefty feminism is the tendency to militantly guard the door.
If that is the case — if contemporary leftist feminism is like that — then why? And when did it happen?
I know I’ve told you guys a million times that I’ve been a feminist since 1971. I’ve always identified with the radical, Gloria Steinem/Susan Brownmiller style of feminism. And the attitude I grew up with was that feminism was something we wanted to spread to everyone. We wanted gender equality to become a bedrock mainstream value. And every step in that direction was welcomed.
Not long after I posted that comment, I realized that I had answered my own question.
The difference between me and those feminists with a bar-the-door seige mentality is that we came of age at different times. Our attitudes to feminism were shaped in very different eras, and subconsciously that affects how we perceive change.
For me, I became aware of feminism when it was on the rise, an almost evangelical movement that was constantly growing. Feminism was both a revelation and a revolution, and it was spreading through society. Life Magazine put “The Woman Question” on the cover. Edith Bunker got a pantsuit. Gloria got a job. Emily Newhart went back to school. In real life, the universities (the ones I would soon be applying to) were becoming co-ed. Suddenly there was a woman cop on TV. There were women doctors and lawyers. Shirley Temple Black was no longer the only female politician you could name. The Methodists started ordaining women.
To me, feminism is something that spreads. It is a great social revolution moving through the world, and while its pace may slow, it doesn’t stop. Of course people who didn’t use to be feminists eventually become feminists. That’s how it works. When I hear that conservative Christian women are trying to reconcile feminism with their faith, I think “of course they are.” Welcome to the revolution.
In contrast, younger feminists came of age when feminism was seemingly static or even in decline. It wasn’t a new thing in the world; it was already there. They grew up understanding that some people were feminists and some people weren’t, just like some people were Democrats and some people were Republicans, and some people were liberals and some people were conservatives. Different camps. And the feminist camp was under seige, constantly, from the anti-feminist conservatives. These children of the 80s and 90s have no fundamental sense — I’m speaking of subconscious attitudes here — of feminism as an ever-expanding circle that will eventually take in almost everyone. When they hear that conservative Christian women are trying to claim feminism, they think it’s a trick. It can’t possibly be real. The very idea is preposterous. Conservative Christians belong over in that other camp.
The problem with this mentality is that it tends to obscure the reality of how feminism actually progresses. It’s usually a messy journey, with lots of compromises and half-steps and halting little attempts. For example, check out this article in the Ms. blog about Hirsi Ali and Muslim feminism:
But while she may be in the U.S. (and now a favorite of certain U.S. conservatives), Hirsi Ali remains distant and seemingly uninterested in the efforts of Muslim-American women to redefine their faith. Her book, while poignantly capturing the weight of structural inequalities crippling Muslim women from Somalia to Pakistan, refuses to take seriously the efforts of Western Muslim women who are refusing to let mullahs define Islam. One example of this is the “Pray In movement” launched last year through which groups of Muslim American women have insisted on praying front and center in mosques in non-violent protest against gender segregation. Similarly,this past Friday, June 11th, a Muslim Canadian woman named Raheel Raza led a mixed congregation of men and women at Oxford University in England, going against the stricture that says only men can lead communal prayers. In another reform effort, Laleh Bakhtiar, a scholar at the University of Chicago, has translated the Quran and challenged earlier translations of verses that supposedly allowed for men to “discipline” their wives. The work of all these women, and scores of others in Muslim countries, show the transformation of religious tradition instead of the handing off the task of defining faith to mullahs and religious clerics.
Now here’s the ironic part: right there in the sidebar of the Ms. blog is a link to an article about how Sarah Palin and conservative Christian women in the U.S. are trying to “co-opt” feminism:
The irony is that what the conservative Christians are doing isn’t so different from what the Muslim feminists are doing: trying to work within their faith to move towards some kind of equality.
The lesson here — though now I’ve strayed rather far from the original point of my post — is that perception is everything. Young American feminists consider Muslim feminists to be sincere activists, while they regard our own conservative Christians as spoilers who are out to destroy feminism. This is because Muslims are exotic and non-western, while Christians are just the all-too-familiar local Republicans. Similarly, Hirsi Ali (who grew up in a Muslim country, of course) seems to consider Muslim feminists to be nothing but apologists for patriarchy, while she looks upon Christian feminists as sincere reformers. Funny, huh?
89 Responses to “I figured it out”
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Intricate. What role do you think Patriarchy plays in the ease with which women create and maintain these schisms? Are there analogs in male movements? I find it hard to ignore that analysis paralysis around the “what is feminism?” question just so happens to do a great job preventing women from reaching critical mass on demands the vast majority of us would want.
Simplified: how much is human nature versus the Patriarchy f-cking us over?
*****A
June 15th, 2010 at 12:29 am EST -
Violet Socks says:
I think it’s because women aren’t a natural group — we’re half the human race — and patriarchy is such a deep-structure aspect of society.
Can you imagine a social revolutionary movement that would unite conservative Christian men, atheist men, Muslim men, Nation of Islam men, socialist men, Republican men, Democratic men, pot-smoking hippie environmentalist men, short-haired ROTC men, Wall Street bankers, libertarians, Rastafarians — all men?
Someone will immediately say “yeah: patriarchy” — but patriarchy isn’t a social revolutionary movement. It’s the status quo. And there is nothing easier in the world than maintaining the status quo. Everything in society is built to support it.
In contrast, if all men of all shapes/colors/religions/ethnicities/etc. had to unite to pull off some big new change in the world, could they do it? Think about that.
-
Sophie says:
There is no way “to work within their faith to move towards some kind of equality.”
Religion does not allow for equality. Religions may allow for cosmetic changes, but will always support and maintain male dominance. -
LabRat says:
Tangential note that seems to have attracted the notice of no one outside the state even though the media’s bothered to notice the high number of female candidates this year:
This year’s New Mexico gubernatorial race will be a Republican woman who won her primary handily versus a Democratic woman, making it the first time the state has had a female governor no matter who wins.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Yeah, but I don’t think the accord has to be deep or lasting to work. All women are a natural group, to the extent that we can meet another woman and immediately bond over how annoying men can be. I mean women in real life, not the media women trotted out to confuse and divide us. We all know what another woman means when she complains about men. Just as all those groups of men you cite know exactly what a different flavor guy means when he says those bitchez are out of control.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
All women are a natural group, to the extent that we can meet another woman and immediately bond over how annoying men can be.
I understand what you mean. But for anyone reading along, let me clarify that when I use the term “natural group,” I mean something very specific. I mean a self-sustaining human community. A community of reproducing families.
I think the “natural group” concept is important because a great deal of human behavior tracks along those lines: kinship, ethnicity, tribe, even nationality. And those bonds seem to be much stronger than other sorts of bonds. (The example I often use is the failure of Marxism, which assumed people of the same class would unite across ethnic lines, whereas what really happened was that ethnic groups united across class lines.)
-
tinfoil hattie says:
I’m with Sophie. There is no “re-defining” male-run religions. They’re male-run, male dominated, full of woman-hate.
-
Anglofille says:
When they hear that conservative Christian women are trying to claim feminism, they think it’s a trick. It can’t possibly be real. The very idea is preposterous. Conservative Christians belong over in that other camp.
I’m one of those feminists who came of age in the 90s and it’s true, I don’t think someone like Sarah Palin is a feminist. I use bell hooks’ definition of feminism – feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression. If one believes, as Sarah Palin does, that abortion should be illegal, then I don’t think she is trying to end sexist oppression; rather, she is reinforcing it in the worst way possible. For me, that’s a deal breaker. If she wants to support female candidates, great. I think that’s a good thing. But I don’t consider her to be a feminist and I for one will fight to keep feminism from being identified with conservative values and agendas, be they Christian or Muslim. I grew up around conservative Christians and was raised that way, so it’s not an academic concept for me. My conservative Christian church actually excommunicated feminist academics. I understand that religious women want to reconcile feminism with their faith, but first and foremost, to me, feminism is about attacking structures of patriarchy that oppress women, religion being chief amongst them.
How different is this from the so-called “fun feminists” who think that stripping and porn are feminist as long as one labels them as such? Whether it’s that or Sarah Palin, it just seems to me that attempts to water down feminism so that everyone can claim the label makes it ultimately meaningless. I wish we were in an age where feminism was being embraced and spread, but sadly we’re not. Feminism and feminist gains are being chipped away, in part because people who don’t support feminist values are trying to speak for feminism.
-
Violet Socks says:
Whether it’s that or Sarah Palin, it just seems to me that attempts to water down feminism so that everyone can claim the label makes it ultimately meaningless.
But you see, I would never think of it that way. It would never even occur to me to think of it that way. This notion that feminism as a concept or a club that must be guarded — it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Feminism is value, a political philosophy. It’s a vanguard moving forward, with the most radical elements on the bleeding edge. And like anything, it has long coattails. People jump on where they can, and at the very back there are the most conservative people. What is there to worry about? I’m at the vanguard, and I’m trailing long coattails of people. Good on them. This isn’t a club where we all drink the same drink and it has to be watered down for the children.
Do people talk about democracy this way? Does democracy have to be defended as a concept, and do we have to thrash out in public who really believes in democracy, and if some banana republic makes a mockery of the thing does that threaten “real” democracy? I mean, what is so scary here?
-
flyswatter says:
Well, of course they want to be considered feminists now that they want our votes. Before that, they trashed feminists for years at every turn they could.
-
Carmonn says:
Exactly. Social movements are about, well, movement. Progress. Growth. It would be a lot easier if we all started at the maximum stage of enlightenment, but we don’t. This is America, there are thousands of women in this country who’ve never really been exposed to feminist ideas in any kind of depth, and it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to just excommunicate them wholesale unless they’re willing to accept A-Z in the space of approximately 30 seconds. It’s a process.
OTOH, it is understandable that the Kate Hardings can’t automatically accept the sincerity of conservtive women. It’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility that they’re using the feminist label in a calculated way to try and sucker us. We’ve lost so much ground, we really can’t afford to lose much more. Then on the third hand, are conservative women really doing more damage to women’s rights than liberal men? And who’s more likely to be influenced in a feminist direction?
It’s easy to see everyone’s point of view, but a lot harder to see the best way forward.
-
Violet Socks says:
It’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility that they’re using the feminist label in a calculated way to try and sucker us.
Well, sure, some of them are, but that’s the nature of the thing. There is forward movement on a long time scale, there are some fakers, there is movement and countermovement, etc.
Look, we are in the midst of several social movements right now, viewed over the long haul. One is the move towards racial harmony. One is the move toward gender equality. One is the move toward environmental awareness and conservation. One is the move towards treating animals humanely. Etc., etc., etc. All these movements have been going on through my life, and with measurable progress. Of course there is backsliding, and the pace slows or stalls at times; there are fellow travelers and cynical opportunists (think Georgia Pacific or Exxon touting themselves as green companies), there are fakers and spoilers, and much of the movement is stop-and-start. But change does come, and gradually society evolves. People who 40 years ago threw trash out their car windows, now recycle. My grandparents’ church gets a woman minister. We elect a black president. Slowly, slowly, things change. That’s how it goes.
Yet only with feminism is there this mentality that it’s a pure thing that must be defended and it’s a club and no by god you are NOT a feminist unless you believe this and on and on and on. And panty-sniffing and card-checking and jesus fucking christ.
This is why I think a lot of it is just a difference in age. Maybe if you’re not old enough to have a visceral experience of feminism advancing, then it just feels like some static thing under seige.
-
Ciccina says:
I couldn’t agree more, Violet – I think it may be an age thing. My thinking is more in line with the siege mentality. And I think its more justified than you may realize.
I came of age as the language we use to communicate political ideas and news was utterly debased. I take it for granted that political labels often portray the opposite of what an idea or group actually stands for. High profile examples include the labels “pro-life” and “pro-abortion,” widely used by the press, which convey nothing of what those so labeled actually think. There are (and now I’m paraphrasing) Americans for Voting Rights who want to limit access to the polls, Americans for Tax Fairness who want to screw 90% of those who pay taxes, and the Heritage Foundation advocating a return to a nonexistent past. Libertarians who would bring about feudalism, not liberty. Far-right wing McCain is labeled a moderate while Obama is labeled a socialist, and on and on.
We’re used to people trying to trick us into thinking they are something they are not.
Further, those of us who have been immersed in the fight for sexual and reproductive rights are keenly aware of the tactic of exceptionalizing abortion (and now contraception/ family planning). We see this in the tiresome “common ground” gambits, which entreat us to recognize that progressives and conservatives agree on so many issues except abortion, if we just jettisoned abortion we’d make real progress. These are the “compromises” in which feminists give up everything and everyone else gives up nothing. Palin has a bit of that “everything but” tinge to her, and it rightly sets off alarm bells in people like myself, because the tactic has been so successful in isolating, ostracizing, and silencing the discussion and practice of first abortion and now family planning.
Oh, how I look forward to the months leading up to this cycle’s general election. I’ve just about resigned myself to endure what will surely be a barrage of “this is the year of the Pro-Life Feminist Woman” media spin, even though pro-choice women were elected in recent primaries too. All sorts of people, mostly men, will come out of the woodwork – several already have in the pages of the NY Times – who couldn’t care less about women’s rights, who are anti-feminist, even – to tell us what a huge advance this “new feminism” is for women, and what a rebuke it is to the “old feminism.” People whose true agenda is broadly authoritarian.
None of this excuses the exaggerations and outright lies that are told about Sarah Palin. To call her the greatest threat to feminism, the country, the universe and so on is ridiculous. She says and embodies a lot of great things, and she has been significantly inactive in advancing the “pro-life” agenda (a bit of rhetoric is as far as she’s gone). Moreover she’s not anti-birth control or sex ed and she has sensitivity to the real-life experiences of women. That’s a net plus. She’d make better decisions on women’s health issues than many of the men currently in the Senate.
-
Caroline says:
This post is brilliant.
Submitting to your study, Dr. Socks, I present myself as the missing link, born in 1970. My earliest memories are of feminism kicking ass, and I seriously thought women were going to take over the world.
As a generational half-ape, I am often puzzled by the Palin outrage from younger women. Who cares if she calls herself a feminist? Yes, her stated politics are horrible. But we need every woman on the planet if we are going to take over. And as the missing link, I am aiming for a complete takeover.
Because let’s face it: Women should be running things, and everyone knows it. The oil spill? I mean come the hell on. How much male incompetence are we supposed to take? The Gulf of Mexico looks like a puddle in a Wal-Mart parking lot. We should be running things, and it’s going to take more than Jessica Valenti to do it. We need women with every strength: practical smarts, wit, brawn, insight, intellect, knowledge.
And the compassion has to swing both ways since left-wing women need it too. I have met women with the shiniest, most liberalist, most going-to-atheist-heaven ideals who are totally unpleasant, neurotic snobs in their dealings with real women. Does their inability to behave well with actual females mean they should not call themselves feminists? No. It just means that they can’t live up to their ideals.
-
Violet Socks says:
All sorts of people, mostly men, will come out of the woodwork – several already have in the pages of the NY Times – who couldn’t care less about women’s rights, who are anti-feminist, even – to tell us what a huge advance this “new feminism” is for women, and what a rebuke it is to the “old feminism.”
Sure they will, and it’s infuriating. But they’ve been doing that in cycles for a century now. Yet feminism advances.
It’s the same thing the Republicans do when they make Michael Steele their chairman and pretend they’re all in favor of racial equality. Racial equality doesn’t change — it’s still there, it’s still a goal, no matter what the Republicans do or say or who tries to jump on the bandwagon. It’s actually a good sign that racial equality has become such a value that everybody wants on the bandwagon.
I think your reference to the Orwellian discourse you grew up with maybe helps explain something that has puzzled me for years about the third-wavers. It’s that they seem so lacking in confidence about what feminism even is. It’s like to them, feminism is some fragile, nebulous concept, and everything hinges on who gets to call themselves a feminist.
In Jessica Valenti’s recent piece, this sort of confusion was on full display. She gave a definition of feminism, which was good, but then she worried aloud that feminism would have to be redefined if Sarah Palin got in the club. Whaaaa??? Didn’t you just define the word, Jessica?
This must be the result of growing up in the backlash. Ask a woman with a Second Wave mentality (like me, even though I was a little kid then) what feminism is, and she’ll tell you: equality. We can fight about how to get there, and argue over specific points, and we can definitely assess how well people are measuring up, etc., etc., but we have no lack of basic gut confidence about what it fundamentally is.
Bottom line is, I just don’t feel remotely threatened by Sarah Palin or any other conservative feminist. Shit, to me it’s clear that if even the conservative Christians want to jump on the bandwagon, then obviously we’re progressing as a society.
And the other thing is this notion that somehow other people getting interested in feminism means we (those of us already feminists) have to water it down. Horseshit. What social movement works that way? Feminism is what it is, and there’s a vanguard, a radical edge, and then loooooong coattails of people following along, trying to work some of it into their own world view. They can water it down for themselves; those of us up front don’t have to do anything. That’s how it has always been. This is nothing new. Feminism has always been a continuum of people.
-
anna says:
Yeah, but there are a lot of people calling anti-feminism true feminism, so we do have to watch out for that. “We’re real strong women! We don’t need government handouts like maternity leave and child care. We can do it all by ourselves!” Like the Independent Women’s Forum.
Anyway everyone wants women to be equal to men, pretty much, or at least says they do, but there is so much disagreement on how to get there. I think we really need to do more single issue work. A lot of pro-life women will never support abortion, but they can support the Equal Rights Amendment. Like your big tent idea.
I really do wish the Equal Rights Amendment would get more footing. It seems like everybody has given up on it, but I think it would be really hard for a Democratic president (personally sexist though he is) and a Democratic congressional majority politically if they didn’t support it if it came to a vote.
-
votermom says:
Great post.
I wish women wouldn’t attack other women, period. Because there are enough men in the world to doing violence to us. We can disagree without attacking.
Sisterhood.
-
lisas says:
I would imagine that the women who are dismissively referred to as “sexpoz funfeminist” (being a woman who came of age in the 90s, that means that most of the young women I knew who identified as feminist were of this variety) would agree that indeed, there is a lot of door-barring going on.
-
Violet Socks says:
Oh horseshit. God, how I hate passive-aggressive crap like that.
-
Kali says:
Maybe if we think of actions/ideas as opposed to people being feminist or not, we could address some of the problems with this gatekeeping of feminism? There are feminist concepts, ideas, goals, and some anti-feminist or feminist-neutral ones. Any individual woman would have a combination of these ideas in her head. Like Sarah Palin.
-
quixote says:
I disagree that religion is an exercise in male domination. Organized religion is an exercise in supporting the status quo. That happens to be male domination, but I still think it’s important not to get the ideas confused.
Religious feelings have almost nothing to do with organized religion, but they can blow the organizations wide open. Judaism : Christianity, Hinduism : Buddhism, Catholicism : Reformation. Those then go on to become organizations themselves, but the point I’m trying to make is that at the outset, deep convictions about divinity and truth can bring about huge changes. Those same changes would never happen if an outsider tried to bring them in.
So women embedded in grossly anti-female religions like many branches of Christianity and most branches of Islam, women who are convinced they’re on God’s side, can accomplish changes inconceivable to those of us who see nothing but a hidebound bunch of men in fancy dress.
I’m with those who don’t get it, but just because I don’t get it doesn’t mean they can’t do it. It’s happened before. It can happen again.
-
quixote says:
(Just an aside on the sexpositive funfeminists: they’re very important to feminism. The feminists I know all turned toward women’s rights partly, not solely, because they didn’t feel like spending their lives with their legs crossed and having no fun. They take it for granted that the men in their lives take the trouble to please them. And that goes both ways. Because they believe in equality.
Fitting women into a male porn fantasy, on the other hand, is contrary to equality. That’s why it’s not feminism. Just as Violet made the point that if Palin really did advocate obedience to men, she’s not any kind of a feminist. It’s contrary to equality.)
(I know all this is heterocentric. I get the impression gays don’t have these issues to anything like the same extent.)
-
Violet Socks says:
Yeah, but there are a lot of people calling anti-feminism true feminism, so we do have to watch out for that. “We’re real strong women! We don’t need government handouts like maternity leave and child care. We can do it all by ourselves!” Like the Independent Women’s Forum.
IWF is always who I think of when I think of anti-feminists pretending to be feminists. True story: the first time I read an op-ed by Wendy McElroy, I thought it was by Rush Limbaugh or somebody like that. Didn’t see a name attached to it, assumed it was some misogynist freakazoid. It was extremely derogatory towards women and ridiculed the feminist movement. When I realized it was a woman writing this, and calling herself a feminist, I could hardly believe it. It’s like the local paper mill renaming themselves The Ecologically Sound and Thoroughly Green Paper Company (That Just Happens To Be Spewing Pollutants by the Metric Ton But Don’t Look).
And the IWF is still at it. There’s a recent post I saw on Facebook by whoever their president is, and it’s the same thing. The whole thrust of the piece is that women aren’t discriminated against and feminism as a movement is wrong, unnecessary, misguided, and the very word “feminism” should be retired. That is literally anti-feminist.
To me, that is very different from the soi disant “pro-life feminists,” women who really believe in much of the feminist agenda but just can’t countenance abortion. I would say those women are, to put it bluntly, bad feminists. Or maybe half-assed feminists, to use the term I used before.
-
Violet Socks says:
Though let me clarify that I don’t sit around thinking about how to classify people. We’re just shooting the shit here.
I wonder if other women my age would agree, but in my experience this whole trauma over who gets to call herself a feminist is totally a phenomenon of the younger generation. For me and people of my age and older, in my experience, feminism is a belief and if you believe in it and claim it and call yourself a feminist, fantastic, but it’s not a topic for the inquisition. It’s not like we have identity cards.
-
Sandra S. says:
Maybe I’m an aberration. I was born in 1980, and I don’t think of Feminism as an exclusive club or as “our” intellectual property. But then, I’m a Canadian. We define ourselves in terms of what we aren’t.
But then, I think this whole in-group/out-group stuff is driven by something a lot simpler: insecurity (although I do think you’re onto something with the cohort effect theory). I think a lot of feminists are terribly afraid that they don’t qualify as feminists, or yes, don’t even know what feminism is.
They get a glimpse of the sheer magnitude of the patriarchy, they start seeing it everywhere and they panic. Maybe they notice how they’re reinforcing it and failing to challenging it in a thousand tiny ways, and they just feel like they can’t possibly make a difference. Those feelings of futility could easily translate into a need to hold hard to one single aspect of feminism (say, abortion rights). The sense that one isn’t sure if They belong to the group is most easily remedied by finger-pointing at those other people, who definitely don’t belong.
I know that I read feminist blogs and wonder if I can call myself a feminist (and yes, part of that derives from my pro-porn-ness). I get over it, but I can understand the impulse to define feminism as this one thing that I know I get, and to say that this is the Real Feminism. It’s a hell of a lot easier than butting heads with strong, smart women about feminist ideology.
-
Anglofille says:
Violet, I agree that feminism isn’t a club and that anyone can call herself a feminist. People like Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt wrap themselves in faux empowerful feminism all the time.
But I would like to reply to this:
And the other thing is this notion that somehow other people getting interested in feminism means we (those of us already feminists) have to water it down. Horseshit. What social movement works that way? Feminism is what it is, and there’s a vanguard, a radical edge, and then loooooong coattails of people following along, trying to work some of it into their own world view. They can water it down for themselves; those of us up front don’t have to do anything.
I guess I’m confused. I think this comment implies there is indeed some sort of “real” feminist club who lead and that other half-assed feminists and fakers just ride everyone else’s coattails. If, as you wrote at #9, feminism is not a concept to be guarded, then it’s not possible to water it down because there is no feminism, there is only how each individual feminist defines it for herself. Perhaps I’m just not understanding your point.
I also think a distinction needs to be made between your average woman who may be conservative and may call herself a feminist versus those women like Palin and the IWF, etc., who actually have some power. Those women calling themselves feminist (when they would try to implement anti-feminist policies that hurt women if in power) are where I am directing my comments.
Finally, the generational divide has been mentioned here. I am 37. I know very few feminists and I’m in a huge urban city and in academia. Most women I know run from the feminist label and they define me almost entirely by my feminism, since they think it’s odd. So yes, I don’t have an experience of feminism as some big social movement, quite the contrary. But I think the experiences of those of us who are a bit younger and feel “under siege” are just as valid in this discussion. It’s not easy to be a feminist when feminists are so disliked and it takes a lot of commitment, especially when you don’t feel part of a community (except perhaps online).
-
Adrienne in CA says:
I know very few feminists
One problem is assuming that women who reject the feminist label don’t hold feminist values. Many people cowed into rejecting the liberal label now called themselves progressive. Does that mean there are fewer liberals? Or that there’s a meaningful distinction between today’s progressives and yesterday’s liberals? Liberalism is a good example of how broad and inclusive a political philosophy can be, from the bleeding edgers calling for full out collectivism to those advocating a more compassionate social safety net.
I find it hard to believe that most young woman would really say they don’t believe women should have equality with men.
*****A
-
octogalore says:
Great post. I agree with you that the folks concerned about “watering down” are missing the point. Assuming the point is actually to help women.
The caveat in Anglofille’s comment about “when they would try to implement anti-feminist policies that hurt women if in power” is highly subjective. If someone believes in equal rights for women (including that women do not obey men), s/he’s a feminist.
The issue about whether anti-choice women can be feminists has been discussed ad nauseum and I personally don’t think that’s a feminist view, but I think people (whom I disagree with, for the record) can hold that view while believing in women’s rights. All movements have areas of significant disagreement.
Beyond that, women, even those in power, who are fiscal conservatives cannot be stated definitively to be “try[ing] to implement anti-feminist policies that hurt women if in power.” There are economic arguments on both sides of that, each held by people who believe in women’s rights. That kind of discussion should be outside the scope of defining who is a feminist.
-
Hedgepig says:
This is the absolute crux of the matter:
“…when I use the term “natural group,” I mean something very specific. I mean a self-sustaining human community. A community of reproducing families.
I think the “natural group” concept is important because a great deal of human behavior tracks along those lines: kinship, ethnicity, tribe, even nationality. And those bonds seem to be much stronger than other sorts of bonds.”
Because of the above truth (nicely articulated by Dr. Socks), until women are allowed to seek to form families based on their relationships with other women, I don’t believe we can destroy or out-manouvre the patriarchal system.
People tend to prioritise their relationships with their life-partner/person-of-first-resort/spouse, whatever we call it. At the moment people are instructed from birth that they are to seek such a person within the section of the population that possesses contrasting genitalia. Because of the power difference, women tend to come off worse through seeking life partners from amongst the male population.
While acceptance of same-sex couples is a step forward, it still echoes the heterosexual relationship model in that it presumes a conjugal relationship is the basis on which a life-partnership should be based. If it became possible to seek a life partner from amongst one’s pool of close, same-sex friends, many women could effectively side-step the patriarchal system, at least in their private lives. Sexual activity would become like going the the pub with friends: something one does on the side for entertainment but not something that must be a component of the ‘significant other’ relationship.
Then women could be a natural group, and could band together because we won’t have our major emotional and economic bonds with males. This is a way of attacking patriarchy at its foundations, without any violent action.Just a thought.
-
Violet Socks says:
I think this comment implies there is indeed some sort of “real” feminist club who lead and that other half-assed feminists and fakers just ride everyone else’s coattails.
No, that’s not it at all. Feminism is like other social philosophy movements, with varying degrees of commitment, investment, radicalism, etc. It’s a continuum. Are you familiar with environmentalism or the civil rights movement?
If, as you wrote at #9, feminism is not a concept to be guarded, then it’s not possible to water it down because there is no feminism, there is only how each individual feminist defines it for herself.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Yes, feminism is a concept. Yes, it exists. Yes, it’s well-defined: gender equality. No, it’s not a fragile amorphous concept that must be guarded.
-
Anglofille says:
The caveat in Anglofille’s comment about “when they would try to implement anti-feminist policies that hurt women if in power” is highly subjective. If someone believes in equal rights for women (including that women do not obey men), s/he’s a feminist.
Octogalore, I cannot agree with this. If a politician “believes” in feminism but then endorses anti-feminist polices, that person is not a feminist in my view. Yes, the opinion of what is feminist and what isn’t is subjective in some ways, but there are certain issues that the majority of feminists agree about, particularly re: basic rights of women’s reproduction, equal pay, etc.
I think there’s a bit of a disconnect here, perhaps, because I’m seeing many people refer to feminism as a movement for “equality” with men. That’s not my definition – my view is feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression. If we just view feminism as “equality” with men, then yes, all of my friends and even the most conservative Christian or Muslim may fall under the feminist label. Agreed. End of debate.
In my view, however, the “equality” definition is how we ended up in a place where Sex and the City is viewed as feminist – the women are equal to men because they have money, they sleep around, have have successful careers, etc., but I don’t think anyone can credibly argue that Sex and the City is a feminist show. So I avoid the “equality” definition of feminism because I think it’s problematic in many ways, but I can see that if others operate with this view, then many of my arguments here don’t really make sense.
-
littleisis says:
Well, this post is fascinating Violet, so thank you. As one of those “younger feminists” you mention who was a kid in the nineties and also grew up in conservative fundamentalist christianity, I have to say that I agree with you. To me, feminism is pretty simple, it’s about one thing: equality.
For one thing, I recently read Hirsi Ali’s book and from what I understand her upbringing influences the way she views Christianity. Had she been raised as a fundie I’m sure she would be able to see things differently.
Feminism involves all women. I think that because a lot of people my age have a stereotype of a feminist as a lesbian who doesn’t shave her armpits, a lot of them don’t understand that they actually are feminists, because they just don’t get what the word means. It’s the same thing with being pro-life vs. being pro-choice. A lot of my friends say that while they would personally never have an abortion, they don’t care if another woman gets one. They think that makes them pro-life, and I’m not kidding about that.
I agree with you that feminism is something that expands. IMO, these women who view it as a club don’t seem to get it either. Feminism involves ALL women, because it is ABOUT women. Making feminism an exclusive clique is detrimental to the progress it can actually make, because it does not involve ALL women. I don’t know if I’m making a leap by saying that such ladies are anti-feminist themselves, but I’ll make it anyway. -
Kiuku says:
Feminism can’t really be coopted. There are no thoughts or beliefs that are enemies to Feminism except anti-feminism, that is, the belief that women should not be equal to men; no natural enemies of feminism except anti feminism. I hear about taking back Feminism, taking over Feminism, and what these words speak to me is a reorganization of the leadership of Feminism, with one’s personal goals for women as a secondary convenience: first the co-opting, then a reorganization of goals. A woman who wants the best for herself, for instance, can never be against Feminism. Anything can be used to make an anti-feminist argument, and that same thing can be used to make a feminist argument. Feminism is in the belief for the equality of women, and anti feminism is that which stands against, positions iteslf against the equality of women, portions justice in favor of men.
-
Toonces says:
I’ve often wondered if this is why there’s so much money and energy spent stoking the fires of anti-gay-marriage sentiment. I know it’s a distraction tactic, but I also think if single mothers were allowed (legally, socially) to live together with tax benefits, if women weren’t dependent on men to live in a society that now requires two incomes, that would shift a lot of things around and do a lot to undermine the underclass pool.
I am SO not saying there isn’t a substantial anti-gay base, just that I think there’s usually an economic incentive to a lot of the socially bad things politicians do (disaster capitalism stuff).
Am I making any sense? I think I might be speaking in word salad.
-
Violet Socks says:
I think there’s a bit of a disconnect here, perhaps, because I’m seeing many people refer to feminism as a movement for “equality” with men. That’s not my definition – my view is feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression.
A world without sexist oppression would be a world where men and women were equal. A world where men and women were equal would be a world without sexist oppression.
-
madaha says:
“A woman who wants the best for herself, for instance, can never be against Feminism.”
This is simply not true. A particular woman could want to be queen of the world, and always see herself as the exception, but be completely fine with throwing other women under the bus.
The examples one could list would fill a book.
-
Anglofille says:
A world without sexist oppression would be a world where men and women were equal. A world where men and women were equal would be a world without sexist oppression.
Violet, I’m not sure which men we want to be equal to. As a white woman, I have much more power in society than a man who is an immigrant from Mexico working at Wal-Mart for minimum wage. He would probably love to be treated “equal” to me in society. I just think “equal” is a problematic term.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Re women equal to men, I think it’s relative. Women are the lowest of the low (or the lowest of the high), regardless of class. To me, feminism and egalitarianism are two different battles, albeit fought in parallel. If we mix them up and insist on both or nothing, we miss opportunities to advance feminism — and ultimately to advance equality.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
Anglofille, can you imagine a world where there was no imbalance in how males and females were situated? Because that’s what I mean by “equal.” You’re talking about white women and Mexican men, but think in terms of people. That’s what I mean.
-
Violet Socks says:
To put it another way: Imagine that you could not distinguish between how white men and white women were situated. Imagine that you could not distinguish between how Mexican men and Mexican women were situated. Imagine that you could not distinguish between how black men and black women were situated.
That would be a world without sexist discrimination. Obviously, it could still be a world with other kinds of discrimination.
-
Toonces says:
I sometimes think talking about “equality” in certain contexts, especially with the 20-somethings (like me) ignores the misogyny happening around us. I had no idea there was all this hate floating around all around me, and since it wasn’t real for me until Hillary, there was no urgency for me in getting women elected, in paying attention to violence against women, etc. Sure, I felt uncomfortable with a lot of things, but I didn’t really admit that to myself and I assumed that (mostly) everyone under a certain age accepted that girls/women were equal (but seXXXay!). We just weren’t really taught about the hate when we studied women’s history the way we were when we studied the Holocaust or slavery. It was sexism, we stopped that, now it happens to individuals every once in a while sometimes, maybe and full equality is just around the corner so it’s not something to worry that much about.
I guess that’s where my main focus is — if we get rid of the hatred of women, women won’t be discriminated against. We have to talk about that raging, boiling, even subconscious, hatred before we can get anywhere. I think people who recognize that misogyny can look at Sarah Palin and see a non-traditional feminist, though not a supporter of the LGBT community. She is acknowledging that frightening reality many of us were not aware of and I can see how having any public woman do that can be seen as a new kind of feminism because it is a brave thing that so many public feminists don’t talk about. And women who are more traditional in the way they live their lives (maybe they call themselves pro-life, etc.) could get on board Sarah and feel like she’s tackling the most important part of the problem without disrupting everything else for them. (I’m not saying that’s how I feel, just that it makes sense to me.)
So I’m just rambling but I, too, get a little nervous about the conversation beginning and ending with “equality”.
-
K.A. says:
Hirsi Ali (who grew up in a Muslim country, of course) seems to consider Muslim feminists to be nothing but apologists for patriarchy, while she looks upon Christian feminists as sincere reformers.
Brilliant observation.
I think Violet has figured out another layer, too, by simply pointing out that younger, pro-prost feminists regard it as “fragile.” Why else might this be? To Twistify, because they care about the Chads of the world, because their perception of their place in the world must always be green-lighted by Chads, and because they feel (correctly) that their pittance of respect afforded to them by the Chads is tenuous. They would never admit this, but it makes perfect sense.
Their Nigels and random Chads will tolerate them to a certain degree–only a particular level of disobedience–but the personal relationship or crumbs of respect won’t make it unless they eliminate those who might subject them to further ridicule (me? ANYTHING like Palin? Let’s pillory her together, so I don’t get lost in the shuffle by association and meet the same fate). They don’t want feminism tainted because they know there is a hierarchy of women who suffer different levels of abuse and ridicule. While none share a fair social standing, they don’t want their wobbly high heels snatched away from them so they can be standing on the ground again with, say, the stupid rube Godbags who are also the laughingstock of the progressive movement, regardless of gender. Just as men believe there are certain “kinds” of women, the use of whom must be in accordance with their designated role and concommitant valuation (virgins vs. whores who are always asking for it–how can that be rape?), they see women who are allowed a certain level of public abuse, based on how they’re categorized. They need the progressive dudebro crumbs to maintain their very motivation for subscribing to funfeminism at all. They’re not going to be degraded even further by being in a lower caste of woman, subject to (more overt) disrespect and abuse. “Exotic” women don’t have the same cultural precedent for what these feminists observe happens to the women at home who trip up with one of the million excuses for abuse (how many have Palin committed alone?).
That is actually what at least some of them perceive as “fragile.” Sure, it’s important to discern what are compatible feminist ideals and what aren’t (regardless of whatever religious subculture one was relegated to by accident of birth), but that’s not what their motivation behind gatekeeping is.
-
K.A. says:
My post disappeared. I didn’t get a comment that it was in moderation, either. Boo.
-
Toonces says:
Or, to say it much more simply: I think we could be equal in all/most areas and still be hated and beat and raped and murdered and no one would acknowledge the gender thing. I think we’re seeing this now with women claiming their rightful, equal places in certain areas, it’s touted as proof everything’s fine (or unfair to men); meanwhile men are shooting us simply because we’re women and that part doesn’t get reported.
-
madaha says:
I think the issue with defining it purely as “equality” is that equality can be easy to fake, if it’s only tallied up in a superficial way. Getting more women in power is of course a major goal, but if those women are simply figureheads and tokens, and if they are not actually working to help end the oppression of women, and if they cater to the SYSTEM of male privilege, (as long as they themselves are the exceptions), then where’s the equality?
If the women in power prove themselves untrustworthy, then perhaps they are MORE detrimental to our cause, in the long run. I would much rather have a progressive man who will institute actual programs to help women, than have a woman in the same role who doesn’t, but says she does. That sounds WAY too much like Obama to me.
These Ayn Rand types that swept the R noms in CA are good examples – they are going to DISMANTLE any programs that help women. Do they *personally* call themselves feminist or not? I don’t care. But if they do it in a political sense, and are running as such, it is problematic, because it’s a case of cynical co-opting. Like Bush’s “Clean Air” initiative, etc. It’s disingenuous to know full well what the traditional political feminist platform consists of, and to not agree, but pretend to when it’s politically expedient.
There are different kinds of feminists, those who consider themselves to be in their personal lives, and those who are feminists politically, who believe in the cause of uplifting women and destroying the unfair system that is the patriarchy. Sexual equality, and the ability to control your own body is a major part of that. If these powerful women kowtow to patriarchal religions and don’t believe in a woman’s right to their own bodily integrity, then I have to say that they may call themselves feminists, but they aren’t my “kind’ of feminist.
There are environmentalists that believe in nuclear power, and I find that to be a disconnect too! I think if a candidate was running as an environmentalist, and wanted to build nuclear power plants, there’d be the same problem that we’re having here.
I think feminism is more akin to environmentalism than any other movement. They both have philosophical and political branches, and one can be one in degrees, agreeing with this part of the political platform, disagreeing with others. And as political movements, they both DO have fairly well-established platforms. And it’s feminism as a political movement that’s an issue here, I believe. If S.Palin believes herself to be a feminist in her personal life, great, that’s good for her. But she sure isn’t one politically.
To say you’re for “equality” is too easy.
-
madaha says:
I guess I’d like to know what parts of the traditional feminist platform these “conservative feminists” agree with? Have they *said* they were for the ERA? I assume they’re anti-abortion….
Are they for a “women in power” quota system? Are they for subsidized day care? And as women are usually the caretakers for the elderly in their family, elder care is also a feminist issue. Are they for cutting social security? And medicare? Do they have a history of defending women victimized by the patriarchy, or do they turn a blind eye, and continue to support the men in status quo power? Are they for increasing funding to women’s abuse victim shelters?well, I am extremely, extremely dubious, since Republicans are usually ANTI all these things.
Saying you’re one thing, and then actually BEING it are 2 different things.
hmm, I’m just saying.
-
Violet Socks says:
Or, to say it much more simply: I think we could be equal in all/most areas and still be hated and beat and raped and murdered and no one would acknowledge the gender thing.
Then it sounds to me like even the word “equal” has been drained of meaning.
When I talk about men and women being situated equally, I mean just that. It is not possible to say that men and women are “equal” if women are still the targets of a deep society-wide roiling festering misogyny. Hello?
-
Violet Socks says:
If men are human beings and women still aren’t, then we’re not equal, are we?
-
Toonces says:
madaha, I mostly agree with you, personally. But I can still see how people can see Palin as a feminist because she really took on misogyny when she ran for VP. I don’t want feminism watered down but I also want feminism to be the opposite of an exclusive club — I want that word to be spread far and wide. I honestly am kind of confused about how I feel about Palin.
I have been thinking, and I apologize if I’ve mentioned it here already, that feminism has a certain number of modules (equal pay, ending violence against women, bodily integrity/choice, equal representation, mother’s rights, etc.) and I think maybe if a woman is for a certain number of those modules she could be considered a feminist even if she’s not for all of them (like, 75%). Choice is a huge one, but gah, I want women who care about all the other stuff but don’t want to call themselves pro-choice because of stigma in their communities* to be involved in making progress, too. Of course, there’s a huge difference between co-opting the term to use for anti-feminist agendas and just not fitting perfectly in the traditional feminist role.
*I think the actual number of truly anti-abortion women is pretty low. I think it’s like 90% men.
-
Toonces says:
Oh I agree Violet, but I do think the term equality has been drained of its meaning. You have all these MRA’s arguing for “equality” in the family courts, totally ignoring the history there and the still mostly unequal roles of men and women in taking care of kids. Or they use “equality” to argue against hiring women just because they’re women, etc. Like I said I think it depends on the context, but I think even the word equality has been co-opted.
-
Violet Socks says:
Madaha, feminism is the belief in, and principle of, the equality of the sexes. It’s the principle that women are human. That’s all it is. Which is huge, actually. Enormous.
The things you mentioned as part of the “traditional feminist platform” are, I would point out, the traditional platform of mainstream feminists in late 20th century America. It is a mistake to conflate that with feminism itself, which spans centuries and continents.
I personally totally agree with the agenda you laid out, but I also personally know some feminists who are liberatarians and “fiscal conservatives” and who hate social programs. They just want to, I don’t know, live in the woods and fight it out I guess. But they’re really feminists.
-
madaha says:
yes, I agree with the generalities, and I study ancient civilizations by trade, so the wider picture is familiar to me. But I suppose I thought this post was about contemporary American politicians and the issue as to whether feminists should feel comfortable with the appellation used for conservative politicians?
Maybe I was wrong in that. (disclosure: I am 37 like anglofille, so am gen X, also learned about feminism totally on my own – my mother is not one, wouldn’t say so, either…)
But I don’t see how any conservative/libertarian platform jibes with the idea that women are humans, and should be allowed equal opportunity to pursue said humanity. A libertarian “fight it out in the woods, everyone for themselves”, idea seems to deny that the patriarchy is real, and we’re all equal, bootstraps, etc., so a fight like that is inherently fair. We know that’s not true.
I don’t see how anyone who denies that the patriarchy exists (in practical or philosohical sense, …either one), and is a problem we have to deal with…I don’t see how that person is a feminist.
Maybe the truth is still out there with these conservo-feminists – let me know when they acknowledge the patriarchy.
To believe we are equal philosophically, and that we need to continue to fight for the implementation of it, is one thing. Which is feminism.
To believe we ALREADY ARE EQUAL *in practice*, is not feminism. The people who think both precepts are already in operation are in denial, and not helping us.
excluding the social programs, what about equal pay? And enforcing it? What about the ERA? How is a person a feminist, if they don’t actually support ACTUAL equality? That needs to be explained to me.
Again, if they personally regard themselves as a feminist, fine. People can think what they want about themselves. But to run as a feminist in a campaign, without acquainting yourself as to what that means, historically and currently, is problematic. And also suggests a politician who will get themselves into trouble, saying stuff they don’t know much about, not knowing the ramifications of what they’re talking about. That’s not someone I would vote for. I would have thought we’d have had enough of that with “bring ‘em on” Bush. If you’re going to label yourself as a member of a political movement, you’d best know what that movement stands for.
And being attacked by misogynists does not make you a feminist.
-
madaha says:
I’m not sure that made sense. I guess I mean that if everyone’s already equal, then feminism doesn’t need to exist. Feminism is about the *fight* for equality.
If the “conservative feminists” don’t acknowledge that there’s a system of oppression on women called the patriarchy, then they’re not fighting for anything. Everything’s solved already, in their view. Therefore they cannot be called feminists.
I hope that makes sense.
-
Violet Socks says:
Madaha, the libertarian/conservative feminists I was referring to (the ones I personally know) don’t deny that patriarchy exists or that women are oppressed. Not at all. They just have a profoundly different philosophy of government. Not one that I agree with or find even remotely realistic, but whatever. But they’re definitely feminists.
As for Sarah Palin, does she deny that sexism exists, or that we have inherited a historical system of sexism? I don’t think so. None of her statements seem to me to indicate that.
I do agree with you that self-described “feminists” who insist that the fight is over and we’re already equal raise alarm bells. That is the tactic of people like the IWF, whose entire mission is to argue that feminism isn’t necessary because we’re already equal. That’s why I call them anti-feminists. They’ve been doing it for years, so I don’t think it’s a mistake.
Obviously some people can be genuinely mistaken about that — imagining that everything’s just peachy — but that’s usually a form of youthful naivete.
-
Carmonn says:
“If the women in power prove themselves untrustworthy, then perhaps they are MORE detrimental to our cause, in the long run. I would much rather have a progressive man who will institute actual programs to help women, than have a woman in the same role who doesn’t, but says she does. That sounds WAY too much like Obama to me.”
Okay, but the problem I have is WHERE are these men who willinstitute actual programs to help women? We keep acting like our choices are Phyllis Satan Schlafley vs. Yahweh/Jesus/Allah Delano Roosevelt. In actuality, in a lot of cases, the male Republican challenger and the Democratic opponent are every bit as bad or worse than the frightening Republican woman. Katha Pollitt once said that when we’re dealing with exclusively white men, we can freely agree that most of them are completely inadequate (paraphrasing), but just add women and minorities into the mix and we have to pretend that we live in a Platonic Republic of philosopher kings and every deviation from perfection must be discovered, analyzed, dissected, and magnified 1000 fold. Nobody has to vote for anyone they don’t want to, but if we expended as much energy putting pressure on progressive men (of whom there are so, so many) to institute programs to actually help women as we did freaking out about the 22 (or whatever it is) Republican women in Congress, or blaming the 36 female Democrats much harder than we blame the far more numerous men, we might do better in the long run IMO.
-
octogalore says:
I agree wtih Carmonn. I mean, Meg Whitman, called “Ayn Rand” above, is farther to the left than Obama on choice. So because she wants to cap spending in a going-bankrupt state, she’s antifeminist? It’s certainly an arguable point whether her policies will help or hurt, but I don’t think anyone here has the ability to prove that the motivation or result for these policies is per se antifeminist.
-
madaha says:
“WHERE are these men who willing to institute actual programs to help women? ”
Al Franken’s looking pretty good. I wish some of these female politicians looked as good as he does, feminist-wise.“farther to the left than Obama on choice”??? Talk about your meaningless phrases!!! *snort*
No offense, it’s just… come. on. Obama? Let’s get serious. Nixon was to the left of Obama. Whitman is heinous. She is going to hurt women. Oh wait, she already did! I’m sure you already heard about her physically assaulting that one woman who worked for her…
Palin? What does she really believe? Well, when she starts laying out specifics, then I’ll be able to decide whether I agree with her, or whether we have enough information as far as how she understands what the feminist movement means, but so far, doesn’t look good. Winking and smirking and spouting platitudes didn’t work for me with Bush, doesn’t work for me with her. I know people here want to believe in her, but I think we can do better, as far as serious politicians go who will further our cause.
-
Sameol says:
Octogalore, I keep seeing this meme about Brown, basically “This is what a feminist looks like!” And I understand that Brown’s politics overall are in line with those of liberal feminists, but I’m not seeing a lot of specifics about where his feminism manifests itself and how he’s able to meet these standards that everyone from Coakley to Clinton to Palin to Whitman fail. I keep googling Brown feminism when I get a chance, and all I’ve found so far as these vague declarations about how great his record is, a 20 year old article about how we was willing to play typical politics with abortion (declaring his personal opposition, endorsing anti-choice candidates), and an ad ridiculing Palin. Plus wasn’t there some controversy about him declining to prosecute some of the kids who gang raped that girl outside the prom last year or the year before? I have a hard time believing a female Brown wouldn’t be getting a lot of heat from a feminist standpoint for some of this (Coakley and the sex abuse case of her predecessor’s she was only tangentially involved it), forget being the first woman in history to be awarded actual feminist status.
-
madaha says:
Brown???? what universe is this??????? come. oooon!!!!
Sady, rightly, calls all this the backlash.
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/.....-feminism/
which it is.
-
Sameol says:
Thanks, madaha, that certainly helped to clarify Brown’s feminist credentials.
Now, to further the discussion of whether we should forget representation and trust these guys to do right by us–Franken. He cast the same vote on the hc that Coakley pledged, and that negated anything she’s done in her life to promote equality and turned her into a never to be forgiven anti-feminist hack. On the plus side, he sponsored an amendment to allow rape victims to sue defense contractors. Anything else in his amazing resume that puts all women to shame?
-
Sharon says:
When do we remember that first of all we were all women?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....nist-Razor -
Carmonn says:
“Al Franken’s looking pretty good. I wish some of these female politicians looked as good as he does, feminist-wise.”
Al-Franken-as-feminist-hero is supposed to negate the argument that male politicians are held to grossly different and lesser standards? Based on what? What am I missing here?
No offense, but if that’s the best we’ve got, I am overcome with the desire to go and vaginal vote with a vengeance. It may not help, but it can’t possibly hurt.
-
votermom says:
We keep acting like our choices are Phyllis Satan Schlafley vs. Yahweh/Jesus/Allah Delano Roosevelt.
I love this sentence.
-
votermom says:
argh. messed up the end tag on the quote.
-
Anglofille says:
Then it sounds to me like even the word “equal” has been drained of meaning. When I talk about men and women being situated equally, I mean just that. It is not possible to say that men and women are “equal” if women are still the targets of a deep society-wide roiling festering misogyny.
Violet, I do think it has been drained of meaning in an age where women have widespread equality in terms of legal rights, etc., but there is still, as you put it, “festering misogyny.” As we know, legal rights are hugely important, but giving women rights does not necessarily change the underlying misogynist attitudes that are the bedrock of society. Unfortunately, many people are not interested in examining or even acknowledging those underlying attitudes, which to me is the main struggle we face today. The mainstream mindset is that women in America already have equal rights, especially compared to a country like Saudi Arabia. For me, equality is more of a 70s term and doesn’t reflect where we are today. I agree that there are huge inequalities between men and women as groups, but I just choose to frame the issue differently. When I discuss feminism with men, I never say feminism is about women’s equality because to me that implies I feel I’m not equal with men and fuck that. I almost feel subservient when I’ve said that in the past and sometimes men have laughed too because it just sounds odd. Perhaps it’s a generational thing.
-
Kiuku says:
Well, let’s think about situations of extreme patriarchy where a woman has to be the exception, but if she believes in herself, and her entitlement, her humanity, in her endeavors, that makes her a feminist. Throughout history, “his”tory, I can name several female regents, and “history” is littered with exceptions. I don’t expect any men to be able to name the women who have shaped our humanity, responsible for, for instance, all math, physics, astronomy, books, and general culture.
It’s worthless to discuss what is and isn’t feminist when it comes to individuals. Goals, a different story.
-
Kiuku says:
I love when they compare us to Saudi Arabia. Think about it. Comparing is making an argument, so what are they arguing when they do not, for instance, compare us with Sweden? Certainly the economy could use Sweden’s system.
-
madaha says:
Sameol,
I certainly didn’t say Franken “puts all women to shame” I’m obviously talking about right wingers who call themselves feminists.
Don’t straw-man me. I wrote some long comments up there, feel free to re-read them.
-
madaha says:
by the way, you DID mean Scott Brown, the one who jokingly pimped out his daughters in the most public example of a father humiliating his children ever?
I do stand by the idea that worrying about his “feminist credentials” is absurd. Totally, completely, absurd.
-
votermom says:
I thought they were talking about Jerry Brown, who seems like a good choice for governor, actually.
(Personally, when it comes to governor, I prefer to vote for the candidate that will hurt me less. So like in PA, I will probably vote for the Dem over GOP, but in my state they are both boring white men anyway.)
-
madaha says:
hmm, specificity would help! I assumed Scott Brown, because of the continued mention in opposition to Coakley.
I like Jerry Brown too. He’d help women a lot more than Whitman would, no question about it.
-
madaha says:
oh, wait, no, they HAD to mean Scott Brown, because of the talking about HCR – that isn’t in Jerry Brown’s “jurisdiction”, so to speak.
Violet, sorry to be so chatty. I’ll shut up now, and let others post too. :)
-
Sameol says:
No, I meant Jerry Brown. There’s a bit of a meme developing that he’s the “real” feminist in the race. My point was that this is being asserted without any supporting data to back it up, as if it’s automatically true that liberal man = feminist, no proof necessary. As opposed to the constant denial of every woman’s feminist credentials from Hillary Clinton to Meg Whitman.
-
octogalore says:
Sameol, what? I didn’t mention Jerry Brown, I was talking about Meg Whitman. The article I linked discusses her support for public funding of abortion (can anyone say “Stupak”?). We’ve all discussed ad nauseum how our dear leader feels about that issue.
My point was (1) most female conservatives or libertarians do not in fact want to “get rid of” social programs, but instead believe in lesser spending on government programs than their economic liberal counterparts. In some cases, “lesser spending” is a continuation of exisitng spending levels. So, no need to be dramatic. (2) economic policy is far too complicated to be boiled down to “better” or “worse” for women, especially because top economists aren’t even settled on what economic effects stem from various phenomena. So we cannot get inside someone’s head and state that because of various fiscal theories, she isn’t for women’s equality (which as Violet indicated above, encompasses women’s rights not to be oppressed).
-
Sameol says:
I know, octogalore. You mentioned Whitman, and that reminded me of my own observations of this meme that’s going around about Brown’s supposed feminism. My point being that if he were a woman, Democrat OR Republican, he’d be getting a lot more scrutiny/flack over his feminist credentials, I suspect.
-
octogalore says:
Sameol — sorry, I misunderstood. And I agree with your point. Men and women both are harder on women than on men.
As with HRC, there are always ostensible reason why many principled people who would appear to be ideologically on the same page as a female candidate state that they cannot support her. One of my male candidates, who claims to be a fiscal moderate and social liberal, says he doesn’t have a problem with Whitman’s politics, but “I just don’t like the idea of her throwing her money at the election.” I asked him how he felt about Bloomberg and the other countless men who did likewise — some didn’t even make their own money but inherited it. As you can imagine, he didn’t have a great answer to that question.
-
Ciccina says:
Sameol – that was a really good point about Brown vs. Whitman. I’m sure the Dems are readying a parade of well-known women to denounce Whitman as insufficiently committed to women’s issues; meanwhile they’ll tell us not to push Jerry too hard on the feminist agenda – to be happy with whatever crumbs he decides to toss from the table.
-
Violet Socks says:
It is my observation that Democratic men, or maybe just men period, are given the benefit of the doubt and massive feminist credit, out of all proportion to their actual behavior. Barack Obama gets on the cover of Ms. as the new super feminist. Al Franken is now apparently the ultimate feminist on the planet. Jerry Brown is a feminist, of course, and we mustn’t ask him about it either or he might get mad. And of course, we as women always have to vote the D in order to keep our abortion rights (as if).
On the other hand, all women — including self-described feminist Democrats — are subjected to an incredible amount of scrutiny as to whether they are “real” feminists. The usual conclusion is that “she’s going to hurt women,” no matter who “she” is. And “she” almost never measures up as a real live bona fide feminist.
The funny thing is, those liberal men almost never come through for us. Whereas most women legislators and justices (not all) turn out to be fairly steadfast, and even a lot of Republican women have held the line for choice when the chips were down and backed equal pay and so forth.
There seems to be some kind of weird inverse relationship there. It’s almost like men get bonus points and cookies for doing jack shit, while women can’t catch a break. Is there a name for that I wonder?
-
octogalore says:
I wonder!
It is coincident with the watering down of “feminism” among many third wavers to mean “a network of oppressions” or whatever fancy Daily Kosian term they’ve come up with to avoid (gasp) focusing on women. If feminist now = liberal, it neatly removes any responsibility from male libs to actually attend to women’s specific issues.
-
Gramoflanz says:
The thing that troubles me most about the “gate-keeping” is how it is focused on trivialities. Women are not planting a flag to defend the equality of women and men, but to defend their definition of feminism at all costs: all true feminists are atheists, socialists, name your delineation. If anyone dares to suggest that the definition should be broadened to include any who want to fight for equality, they must be flamed down and depicted as failures in their comprehension of the One, True Feminism. I’ve seen this happen, over and over; I was once flamed off of a famous feminist site for mentioning, in an aside, that I had been watching a Led Zeppelin vid on YouTube. Why, I must be the self-same devil to whom Jimmy Page sold his soul at the crossroads! How could I be so ignorant as to have truck with any of those sexist bastards? Well, it’s funny now, but at the time, I couldn’t believe how other feminists were talking to me, especially since the thread was about the use of drugs to enhance public performance/speaking, and to eliminate stage fright. I kid you not. Sadly, the song remains the same, particularly over the feminist blogosphere.
-
votermom says:
Is there a name for that I wonder?
status quo? aka the WoW (the War on Women)
-
Nadai says:
Is there a name for that I wonder?
I’m thinking something that starts with a P…
It drives me crazy. It’s like taking a test where all the men get spotted 40 points and for women, 99 is a failing grade.
One of the first things I learned when I started reading feminist books was that patriarchy wasn’t only something Out There, it was also something in my head. That the feminist fight was waged both internally and externally. That I – yes, I (I know you’re shocked) – had crazy sexist misogynist shit running loose in my brain. I still do. I’m 50 and I’ve been some degree of feminist since at least the fourth grade when I wore pants to school and they called my mother and I’ll never root it all out. It’s like people don’t grasp how culture works.
-
Kiuku says:
right Nadai. First of all the English language itself claims a doer and a receiver. So what happens when men rewrite history, flat out -make it up- to make males always the doer. Because, I know history, the real history. I know what has taken place in culture in civilizations all over the world for the past 6000 years. I know where math came from. I know where ratio came from. I know it came from cooking, weaving, and music. I know it was Theono and her 3 daughters and her school of math that produced all the wonderful things we take for granted in Geometry. I know it wasn’t her husband Pythagoras. I know, for instance, where astronomy came from, the temple of Ishtar, and Aganice of Egypt.
I know all the prime movers in every beautiful thing, and they were all women. Actually I try very hard and I can’t tell you one man that did anything, innovated anything or was hte prime mover in anything, not magnets, not math, not geometry, not physics, not the harmonic principles of the tradesmen, the builders..not anything, not any one beautiful idea or concept or performance.
But look around. All you see are male names. The streets are all male names. Men grow up subconsciously believing this about maleness, and when they grow up enough, they hate women, and justify it as inferior or a subject of their doing, the passive receivers.
-
Simon Kenton says:
Ms Socks wrote:
“There seems to be some kind of weird inverse elationship there. It’s almost like men get bonus points and cookies for doing jack shit, while women can’t catch a break. Is there a name for that I wonder?”
Gullibility? Intellectualism? I told my wife that Ward Churchill, the High Plains Grifter, would not have lasted a week on a framing crew. They might not have collectively matched his IQ, but they count acts, not puffery, and he was all air. We just elected a president based on sonorities, without any deeds, because he had the essentials: vapidities and a baritone to deliver them with.
It’s going to continue as long as women sucker for it.
-
sandra s. says:
Am I on smack or did this dude just blame women for electing Obama?
-
Simon Kenton says:
56% of women voted for Obama. 83% of Clinton supporters voted for Obama. You aren’t on smack.
-
votermom says:
Which explains why Palin must be demonized. Blech.
-
Simon Kenton says:
Votermon, if you drew that idea about demonizing Palin from my post, I’ve lost control of my implications. For choice we had a “present” voter with no record and no deeds who was portrayed by a compliant media as the only virgin from the Chicago whorehouse, who knew — rightly — that he could do anything and get women’s votes, who knew — rightly — his people could screw over the Hillary voters in the caucus states and he’d still get their votes; an old plagiarist and babbler who comes across as Polonious when he isn’t blurting out inconveniences; an incoherent Dem-lite of whom the only positive I could find was that he has never taken an earmark; and a cheery woman who has actually run a small town and a large state. And who sold off the state’s airplane on eBay when she thought it was excess. Far from demonizing Palin, I venerated her. I voted for her and am still irritated that I couldn’t have voted only for her.
-
votermom says:
No, sorry. I meant that’s why it was (and is) necessary for the Demobots to demonize Palin. So women would run away from the she-monster and vote for the Feminist-in-chief.
He wouldn’t have won if women weren’t voting against women. As a result we all got Stupakistaned.
