Why oh why do people think they get to make up their own definitions?
Posted: January 5, 2011 Filed under: U.S. Politics, Violence against women, Women's Rights | Tags: feminism, Feminists 62 Comments
I’m opening up Pandora’s box. Why?
I’ve been in one of those long-winded Facebook discussions all day. I’ve gotten to the point now where I think no one under a certain age appears to understand that there is a mutually agreed upon definition of feminism. It’s been expounded on by a lot of folks for centuries now and to conveniently forget their contributions or to ignore them is a very bad thing. Feminism doesn’t mean you move through a cafeteria of ‘women’s rights’, check a few off, and if you agree on a high percentage of them you pass and get to call yourself a feminist . The tweet on the left demonstrates that the P woman appears to think–and I use that word loosely and in the most rudimentary form–the only thing separating her from radical feminists is her view on abortion.
I thought that her mistake would be self-evident as wrong to most women calling themselves feminists. I’m evidently very wrong about that. I’ve was told that being a feminist is the same as being female is the same as being feminine and that just being a man means you don’t get to be a feminist. (I’m sure Phylliss Schafly herself would shriek at that definition.) That’s just one of the creative definitions I’m seeing. There’s more to it than physiology and there’s more to it then saying you believe in equality for women.
There’s been a long rich history of feminist philosophy that’s worked towards a theory of Feminism. The P woman and her cohorts are hijacking the ‘term’ because it’s not strictly nor never has been strictly identified with just a cafeteria choice of women’s rights. She evidently hasn’t read feminist works. She assumes the definition. That appears to be the problem as far as I can see.
Feminism is a specific way of approaching things. Just like you don’t get to make up a definition for existentialism or rationalism or communism or socialism or any ism, you don’t get to make up a definition for Feminism. Simple as that. You don’t get to make up definitions for the words eggplant, rock or stupid either. You can argue if something or some one meets a definition. But, you don’t get to pull a definition out of your ass that suits you. You work with the definition that has come up through disciplines that reflect the philosophy. You may recognize this is the same argument I make when people pull some definition of fascism, marxism or socialism out of their asses too. Marx got to define Marxism. You can critique it. You can compare what exists to what he called Marxism and say, yes, that’s it or no, that’s not it but you don’t get to shift the grounds of a debate by creating a unique definition for a term that the entire world recognizes and defines a particular way. In other words, it might be Dakinkatism, but it’s not necessarily any thing else but that.
Mary Wollstonecraft is considered to be a founding feminist philosopher. She was the first to systematically take up the political questions of women’s rights and place in society and craft that into a feminist philosophy. In fact, because she was married, many feminist philosophers of the 60s and 70s questioned her position as founding philosopher. They argued that because she came from within a male-centric system, she could not adequately critique it. I remember that time well because I was told that I was not a feminist for that basic reason. I was enmeshed with patriarchy, so I could not adequately examine feminism. That argument I understood and disagreed with for me. I was not, however, raised in a particularly patriarchal religion or home so I defer to women to decide for themselves if they need to get out of the environment or not. For example, I understand Mary Daley’s decisions because they reflected her experience and her experience was not mine at all. As I’ve said, back in the day when I was about to deliver oldest daughter, Kate Millet and I had these conversations. Betty Friedan saw me as the archetype Second Stage Feminist. They obviously disagreed on how far you have to go to truly adopt a feminist viewpoint.
I definitely could not be considered a radical feminist at all. You can read the works of Mary Daley or Kate Millet to rehash those arguments. Kate’s ‘Sexual Politics’ is the absolute classic on this. There are plenty of them. My feminist philosophy professor was a Daley student. She’s still publishing stuff today. You can read some alternative arguments in Betty Friedan’s ‘Feminine Mystique’ and ‘The Second Stage’.
That’s the deal. I don’t have to recreate this for you and you don’t have to recreate this for yourself. Feminist philosophy represents a huge body of work. You just have to read it. You can read the classics like Simone de Beauvoir and her 1949 “The Second Sex’. You can read Mary Daley who writes on being a woman within the patriarchal theology framework. Her seminal work is “Gyn/Ecology”. Most of the women I know that grew up Catholic find her work very compelling.
There’s also some great modern feminist philosophers. Judith Butler is a contemporary to me. ‘Gender Trouble’ was written in 1990. She really plays with the idea of gender roles and selecting genders and transgenders and cross genders. John Waters is a big fan of hers. Another contemporary of mine is Uma Narayan who writes from an East Indian perspective. Dorothy Eden Smith is a Canadian who takes sociology from a feminist view point. The deal is that all issues can be women’s issues, but to see them as feminist issues and be a feminist, you need to view them within a specific context.
Feminism just isn’t a laundry list of women’s rights that you support or don’t support. It isn’t about any single issue per se although I consider the reproductive rights issue to be the acid test of a true feminist. It goes to the heart of how a society approaches and treats women as moral agents and decision makers. If any one thinks that women are not capable of making a rational, moral decision on any one thing without the input of a religious authority, law, or husband, they cannot claim the feminist mantle. It’s as simple as that.
That’s why I choked on the MS cover with Obama as feminist. He thinks women need to talk to husbands, doctors, clerics, and consult Ouija boards as far as I know. If you think given an information set, that women some how come out with a less than perfect decision than a court of law, a pope, a husband, or a legislator for ANY one issue, then, you don’t have to worry about being a feminist. You’re not. You may support a plethora of women’s rights without carrying the label feminist. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy doesn’t have to worry about being a feminist. He thinks women can’t understand ultrasounds and fetal development on their own. They need state sanctioned lectures, special audio visual materials, and time to ‘really’ think about it.
See how reproductive rights is the acid test? If these folks genuinely thought that abortion was contemplated and premeditated murder, then every woman that has had one should be on death row for first degree murder. If they really buy the most literal view of it, then men who masturbate should join them there. It’s not about the idea that abortion is murder or you’d bring it to this logical conclusion. It’s that they believe no rational woman can make a moral choice under any circumstance without extra help. It puts women in the permanent special needs category. They “periodically get down”. They’re “hysterical” and overwrought by their biological equipment and hormones. They’re placed in permanent child status since they are “too emotional” to make rational decisions. These words are all symptoms of a misogynist mind. It doesn’t make any difference if you say you support equal work for equal pay. If your mind thinks like that, you CANNOT be a feminist.
Here’s the Merriam Webster definition:
Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
Okay, look at number one where it says the “theory of the …”. That’s the clue that there’s a body of work out there that’s arrived at a generally accepted understanding of feminism. The debate then becomes is this idea within the precepts of feminism or not? Is this a feminist act or not? Is this thing influenced by something or coming from a system or institution that works against women? Feminism entails the political, the economic, and the social equality of the sexes but at its heart, the most defining thing is the belief that woman is a moral agent, she has a valid, adult way of making decisions. Now again, radical feminists say that woman is highly influenced by living within institutions and systems set up to benefit men and needs to removed from that. Hence, separatists say a woman needs to completely detach from this to become an authentically free decision maker.
The basic thing is that a woman’s decision on what to do is as good as any man’s. It doesn’t make any difference if it’s a decision on working outside the home or inside the home, or dressing her daughters in pink or not pink, or being intimate with men or women or herself, or carrying a pregnancy to term or not. It’s that she’s the one that gets to make the decision. Society should not shame her into a decision or a status. So, what’s reproductive choice but the ultimate decision about control of a woman’s self-hood? She can be a feminist and not choose abortion as a moral agent FOR herself. The deal is she doesn’t get to make that decision for others, cast shame on others or insist others talk to some one else.
Now, I can imagine you can substitute a bunch of things in there and accept that it’s a woman’s choice. But until you can put every possible combination of things in there and say it’s none of my damned business and that woman is a moral agent and therefore has made a moral choice on her terms, then you need to examine the definition of feminism and decide if you embrace it. That’s the deal with abortion. That’s the deal with slut slamming. It’s also the deal with calling other women a cackle (sick) of rads (sic). If a woman is a moral agent and can make moral decisions, she cannot be a slut. Slut is the patriarchy and misogyny defining her choice. Chomp on that example.
Here’s another feminist issue you can chomp on …
Naomi Wolfe says that Julian Assange’s sex-crime accusers should be named …
The convention of shielding rape accusers is a relic of the Victorian era, when rape and other sex crimes were being codified in what descended to us as modern law. Rape was seen as “the fate worse than death”, rendering women – supposed to be virgins until marriage – “damaged goods”. The practice of not naming rape victims took hold for this reason.
Melissa at Shakesville calls it Feminist Rape Apoligia.
I’ll simply note that her premise is intrinsically flawed as it’s based on the erroneous assumption that we shield accusers because of some antiquated notion that rape is shameful. We do not. We shield accusers because survivors are routinely revictimized by rape apologists.
If Wolf’s got a problem with the fact that we need to protect the anonymity of people (not just women, by the way) who allege sexual violence, then she needs to take it up with the jackbooted enforcers of the rape culture who pour out of the woodwork to try to silence rape victims every time one of them has the temerity to speak.
And as for her contention that treating rape as shameful and its survivors as “damaged goods” has gone the way of whalebone, I encourage Wolf to spend some time speaking to raped daughters of Good Christians (just for a start) and see how many of them, of us, feel the shame of parents’ silence—and, fuck, visible disappointment—wrapped tight around their midsections like a whalebone corset that will never go away.
Have at it! Just remember the basic rules. Defend your ideas without attacking others. I’m expecting some level of disagreement here with me and with others.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Maybe a lot of people simply are feminist in some ways and not others. Like Palin – she’s a feminist in that she thinks women should be able to do any job a man can do and she’s not a feminist in that she’s antichoice.
You’re either in or out. You can support women’s rights without being a feminist. Didn’t you read Daley? Also, did you read my post at all or just view the picture?
Supporting women’s rights would seem to make one a feminist by definition, whether or not one self identifies as one. Yes, I’ve read both your post and Daly.
So, what’s the context of women’s rights within in that definition?
Self determination in every area of a woman’s life. The more areas one agrees with that in, the more feminist one is.
Is that what you meant by context?
that’s clearer …
So, tell me where is Sarah Palin’s position statement on abortion rights? All I ever remember hearing from her is that she believed the Federal Government should stay out of it and let any lawmaking be done at the state level.
Her personal choice for herself is her own right to choose. And I think a true feminist would respect that.
Brava, Dak!
Loved this part, which I see as the crux: “…they believe no rational woman can make a moral choice under any circumstance without extra help. It puts women in the permanent special needs category.” Obama does also, since he believes that “women need to talk to husbands, doctors, clerics.”
Anyone who thinks a clump of cells that can’t live on its own is worthy of adoration, but thinks that a human female shouldn’t have control over her own body, has no rational evidence for that view. It’s simply arguing based on a particular myth/religion, and not even all of the world’s religions.
In the US we are supposed to be free of religion sticking it’s patriarchal nose into our civil affairs.
Obama uses anti-feminist language all the time. That’s why I couldn’t understand the MS. magazine cover in any context what-so-ever. Either a woman has an equal right to complete self determination or she doesn’t. He doesn’t get to frame our decision making.
That MS cover was Donna Brazile’s fantasy. She also thought he was the reincarnation of MLK, if not Christ, himself. Oblabla is outright Muslim in his attitude towards women.
Wow. What does “Muslim in his attitude towards women” even mean?
He’s more of a Christian traditionalist in his attitude towards women… or in another sense, you could say he’s a nonbeliever specifically on the issue of women’s rights since he doesn’t really seem to believe in those rights.
Are you asking about how I perceive Muslim attitudes towards women or how I think Obama’s is similar?
Mostly asking what you mean by Obama’s is similar, but also not really clear what you mean by singling out as “Muslim” in attitude toward women since the extremists of all religions tend to have a commonality of oppressing women. Or maybe it just seems that way.
I really don’t want Islamophobic stereotypes thrown about here. Obama has shown himself to be a hesitant supporter of women’s rights. He’s not a feminist. It’s probably deeply rooted in some of the Abrahmic patriarchy. I’m not sure it’s all that relevant to slice and dice into the roots of which patriarchal particular offshoot of Abrahamic tradition is most misogynistic. I also don’t want to promote out and out broad-brushed cultural practices emanate from tribal practices v. actual religious texts. I don’t think any one here is a research theology. So, my thought is just to not go into at this point and agree that he’s not the feminist many felt him to be.
I think he’s more than not a feminist but I also think his misogyny isn’t consistent. But some of the things he said about Hillary were not just “not a feminist,” it was hostile about women.
Luna, I loved that quote too! Yes, “permanent special needs category” indeed.
I also tend to feel that women should be supportive of other women, and whatever decisions she makes, appreciate that she has made that decision on her own. That includes staying home and having kids, deciding not to have kids, deciding to abort, whether you name yourself as a rape victim, or stay an anonymous victim, whether you choose to wear pants or a dress, I think it applies to anything really. But I do agree with the idea that a woman must be able to be her own person, and make her own decisions without the consult or assistance of any one else. When you start to take this fundamental right away from women, you have stepped out of a feminist mindset. To me this is a very straightforward description of what a feminist is. Whether you are a male or female, as long as you have this firm notion that a woman makes up her own mind, and must decide on a life direction on her own, and you support that woman whatever her decision may be…then you are a feminist.
Yup. That’s what it boils down to when you read through it all.
OK, here is a shocker and I always get hell from the church going ladies, to the point where I don’t even bring it up anymore or avoid it if possible. I figure VOTE and let that settle it, because it gets too muddy and some can’t understand the concept of women making their own decisions.
I think about the molested 10 year old or was it 8 year old and that the ‘church’ folks thought she should die…trying to deliver twins. So, in reality the story about when the mother’s life is in danger is like reading tea leafs, because the truth is they don’t care about a women’s life, they don’t even care about a child’s life. Do I want some man or ‘moral’ committee that doesn’t have a say in what kind of cheese I buy to have control over me, my body…NOOOO!
So, in the end, I trust the women, I trust that they will make their choice and that they will live with their choice given all the options. For so long we have not been allowed to make choices, not been allowed to vote, not been allowed to own property, and not been allowed to even have rights over our own children, that I am just plain tired…women should control their bodies. To deny a woman the right over her body is to enslave her, to impose legal shackles, and slowing she will begin to die.
That’s the entire issue. Who makes any decision. If you told men that any decision they make has to be passed on by a panel, subject to a state lecture with pre-approved AVs, discussed with a spouse, a cleric, and a set of authority figures, they’d be outraged. They want separate rules for their decision making. They want women to be seen as too emotional and childlike and weak to make a decision on their own. Then, if they do, you start the SHAME process … scarlet As, slut label, whore, murderess, temptress … etc.
Scalia’s statement about women not having rights has had me upset since I read it. I think I am getting cranky and need to go to bed, maybe the world will look a little more woman friendly in the morning as to day it seems as though Scalia and his minions think we aren’t fully human.
Upon giving birth to Lucy in 1818, her mother said, “I am sorry it is a girl. A woman’s life is so hard!” Who would have thought that a feminist was born
on 13 Aug 1818.
A true feminist believes in a woman’s right to control her own body without ouside interference. The rest is secondary.
I count myself as a member of the “second wave” of feminism but have watched the younger generation of women take this so much for granted that they are unable to envision a time when those rights would ever face extinction.
IMHO, a woman should not be able to, or consider herself a feminist, unless and until she agrees that reproductive rights are a private issue and should not be beholden to government or religious policies that would deny her choice.
It’s the acid test to me. You can’t really say you respect a woman’s autonomy or decisions otherwise. It’s not just about saying things like equal pay for equal work. It’s about respecting women’s autonomy.
Amen, when you respect women’s choices, you improve their lives.
I agree with you Dak. I always thought, though I’ve not read any feminist book, that feminism is about freedom. It’s about having the freedom to choose, be it career, stay at home, marry, live together without the paper, and reproductive choice. Without total control over her body, I can’t see how a woman can be free.
You should read Uma’s works. I think you’d find her interesting.
Too often, women let others define them. But I think it is more than the philosophy but a serious crisis in progress that demands the inclusion of women. The liberals and conservatives want to argue about their political philosophy and the amount of government, avoiding the issue of the quality of the government as the real problem.
The main reason the quality in government is lacking is that there is insufficient inclusion of women.
Womankind will not succeed by trying to be better men than men. We are half of the whole and any socioeconomic system that excludes us is going to fail.
From what I read here, it seems that in order to BE a feminist one must believe that “a woman’s decision on what to do is as good as any man’s”. I think that is very easy to believe. Equality between the sexes.
My question is this: Does a feminist believe that “a woman’s decision on what to do is as good as any woman’s”? Are you willing to give equality to each other?
Example: “the P woman”; “appears to think..and i use that term loosely”. Why the insults? Why is she excluded from the definition? Surely she is a woman who’s “decision on what to do is as good as any man’s”.
You got me on the example. I look at Sarah Palin in the same way I look at Barrack Obama. Neither of them appear to do their homework which is an example of lazy thinking. That’s one of the reasons I don’t consider him an intellectual at all. He doesn’t seem to read up on anything. He crimps from others. She, on the other hand, doesn’t crimp from others. She just lets her opinions stand as alternate facts. Hence, I question the quality of their answers on important issues. Both, however can make decisions for themselves. I just don’t want them making them for me. Believe me, I REALLY don’t want them making decisions for me.
The way I understand it is that feminism equals freedom to choose. Palin doesn’t believe a woman should have the right to choose in one very important area, her body, hence Palin is not a feminist. That she calls herself a feminist is a contradiction. In this case the contradiction shows Palin is not a logical thinker.
Agreed Dario, yes she made her own decision to keep her Down baby. That is her choice and I support that decision. But when she wants to keep me from aborting that Down baby, that steps over the line of feminist thought in my opinion. Who the hell is she, or anyone for that matter, to step in and say I cannot make the choice on my own.
Has Palin said she doesn’t believe women should have the right to choose? Or, has she simply said she is “pro-life”, meaning for herself personally?
Yup. It’s inconsistent. And again, if you truly believe abortion is premeditated murder, all women which have had abortions which is something like 1 in 3 should be on death row sitting next to men that masturbate. That’s the logical conclusion of those beliefs too.
I agree with you there. But I have still never seen any position from Palin that she supports making abortion illegal. I suspect it is part of the misogynistic dogma spread about her and would be reluctant to propagate it.
She has written books and done alot of speaking. Has she ever stated that she believes abortion should be against the law? Or that she would support such law making?
Palin isn’t a wonk and has even less substance than Obama, so it’s hard to get any structured policy position out of her. That said…
October 2008:
April 2009:
October 2010:
If it was Obama saying the words above, it would read just as poorly as Palin saying it does. That’s her prerogative of course, to be prolife… at least she’s upfront about it unlike Dems who pretend to be for choice but aren’t.
I’m not even getting into whether she’s a feminist or not– just saying let’s not pretend she’s a moderate on abortion just because she hasn’t come out and said explicitly that we should make abortion illegal.
At some point she has to answer for her own words and statements and implications same as Obama or anyone else.
She’s a rightwinger. Her base is rightwing. She’s speaking the rhetoric of social conservatives who think there is only one choice and talk a lot of bs about culture of life, all while condemning Murphy Brown on the one hand and propping up Juno on the other. It’s just patently ridiculous.
Her decision, FOR HERSELF, is as good as any man’s. Her denying that same right to a decision to me, means I’m angry at her. Just like I’m angry at men who do the same.
Dang it…I have started reading this post at least 5 times, but interruptions are a drag…let’s see if I can get through it now.
I was thinking about he changing of definitions when it comes to politics and women.
Maybe you were not thinking along the same lines as I was back in November, when Jerry Brown’s campaign gave us whoregate. In my way of thinking calling out Meg as a whore, meant to me, a public woman. You can quarrel with me on this point, but this was nothing more than a sharp knife being pitched in order to hurt another woman.
If I am right, it was said that it was Jerry’s wife, who cried out whoregate. Today, we are informed that Jerry’s wife will be appointed as special council to Jerry, and without pay. Got whoregate? In other words, women make less and less, and now nothing.
It pains me to know she exploits and is exlploited. I don’t know what issues Mrs. Brown will work on, but I won’t hold my breath when it comes to woman’s issues.
Well I listened to that recording and I’ll be damned if that was a woman’s voice. My theory is that someone floated the notion that Ms. Gust might have said it in order to take the sting out of a man having said it about a woman. Whatever. Dead horse.
Another way to interpret the appointment is that the person Jerry trusts most is woman. Nothing wrong with that.
*****A
Adrienne, about whoregate, the reason I did not vote for governor this year was because of the way Jerry handled this situation. He did apolize, but he didn’t take it one step further, and say there will be no name calling in my campaign, and I will not tolerant it. I worked with Jerry Brown when he was first governor. And yes millions of women voted for him then, and still do today. He knew better.
And as for as appointing his wife, Anne Gust, well there’s something to be said about improving the lives of women around the world, and lest we forget all the
sweatshop issues in those factories that abused labor laws, wages, and safety
violations world wide.
The short order, women have been in upaid labour for centuries, when Jerry
appoints his wife, as unpaid, I resent that image. This just goes on and on in
our society, and it reaks of backwardness.
I failed to mention that Anne Gust cas CEO for Gap, and am referring to the outsourciing and contracts & the violations that were proven behind hidden video cameras throughtout several countries.
It scares me so much, for all the terrible things that are happening as the US empire crumbles, paramount above all that choice will be eradicated. I fear that the line is getting blurry or moving on choice in order to “work together” and “move forward”. I see many blogs stating that women are not one-issue voters, but if I am very true to myself, I have to admit that I AM. That is the line I will not cross. EVER. And I am dismayed at groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood are allowing that line to be smudged and become transparent. I’m not a feminist by the strict definition, but by god, I’m gonna swear right now that they’re going to take that right out of my cold dead hands.
It’s the acid test for me. No one can convince me they’re into small government or anything remotely libertarian even if that don’t see the significance of having control over your own body. I’m viscerally appalled by people that don’t get it.
It’s the line I won’t cross either. I just can’t go there.
I realize that I’ve lived, in respect to Women’s Rights, in a blessed era. Not perfect, by a long shot, but blessed. I always thought we’d continue going forward. I even fought for that. But some of the young women of today bemuse me. It’s like they don’t even know what went before.
I wholeheartedly agree. I am shocked at how freely women accept misogyny in order to be well-liked or get ahead. But then I’ve experienced the blowback from family and friends and most especially employers to even dare to hold any pro-woman ideas. And yes, I do watch with horror the whole creep back to women-as-chattel that happens in the media and our celebrity culture and the women who embrace it for themselves and their daughters.
I can’t believe that we’ve allowed Feminism to become a dirty word the same way I can’t believe with what venom people shout “Liberal”. It’s our own fault for allowing these words to be used against our ideals. We have not supported strongly enough the true definition. Women must recognize their power in sheer numbers and not allow their struggle for autonomy to take a back seat to other issues which they do so readily.
My own hokey analogy is the parable of the Thanksgiving Dinner. To me it illustrates so much. In every house I’ve ever had Thanksgiving Dinner, it was expected that the women would cook and the men would sit on their asses watching sports. The pressure and disapproval that oozed out in nuclear waves was strongest in the women. If you didn’t cook and spend hours cleaning up after, or even dared to sit out on the couch with the men, you were SHAMED, you were outcast. There is such a strong sense that women must serve men, even from the strongest, most accomplished women, that it all gets mixed up. It’s all about sexual approval. And it makes me laugh that women work so hard for it. I guess most women don’t watch enough nature shows to know that in the majority of the animal kingdom, it is the male who must woo and fight for a mate. Hot or Not is the hammer that is held over all our heads. Such a trivial thing, but it is allowing them to erode so much. I even had one mother strongly encourage her son to break up with me because I wouldn’t buy into the slave of Thanksgiving. And I love to cook! I know this is a silly analogy but to me it’s so illustrative. I just didn’t want to do it, didn’t want to be forced. I feel the same way about my body. If some old dude wants to order me to have a baby, I’m perfectly fine going under the knife so the zygote can be extracted and implanted in his body. I expect him to carry it to term, breast feed it, raise it, and pay for its college.
I agree with your assessment of so many Thanksgivings for so long. I’m lucky. My partner (male) does all the holiday cooking and most of the cleaning (and prep) too! He loves it. So do our family and guests. But then, amongst our friends the men like to cook as well as the women. In my family, that wasn’t the case until recently. Dad might be old, but he’s learning new things!
Well, good luck finding a category of anything that’s ever been strictly defined to everyone’s satisfaction. People calling themselves Feminists will no more always agree about exactly what that entails than will Communists, or Democrats, or Economists, or whatever. There are always schisms and schools of thought. And that was true long before Ms. P came along.
Still, I happen to agree with your premise on autonomy. For me, the acid test is (you can do this in your head) a person’s reaction to the bumper sticker:
TRUST WOMEN
If your gut reaction to that phrase is something like “of course,” or “right on,” then you’re a Feminist.
If, on the other hand, you can’t resist listing all those pesky ways women can’t be trusted, you’re not a Feminist.
*****A
That’s an even shorter acid test and a good one.
great post…I have seen the gains of the 70’s under attack since that time . Glad to see a push back
Great discussion! Glad to have found your website, DK.
Although I believe a woman should have the right to make her own choices about her life and body, I do believe that there is no one true definition of feminism, since not all women live in the same circumstances or historical context. I grew up with second wave feminism (thank goodness for that!), but have seen the merits of expanding that view with other ways of looking at feminism (e.g. through a politics of location and transnational feminism, etc.). In 2008, however, all of what I thought feminism was or stood for blew up in my face. I’m still trying to figure it out. In any case, I’m a feminist who is not tied to one issue. I don’t like the way the Left has used the abortion issue to keep women in ideological submission and in a political box.
Palin claiming the feminist mantel is interesting to me. I’m not insulted by it, especially because she lives life on her own terms and in her own way. But I am very much offended by Obama claiming he’s a feminist. I’m very much offended by his sexism and misogyny. Is Palin “hijacking” feminism? I’ll leave that up to all of you to decide. I just don’t see her as a Phyllis Schlaffley (sp?) type though.
This article may be of interest:
“Palin appoints former Planned Parenthood board member to Alaska Supreme Court”
The Alaska Standard ^ | March 5, 2009 | Dan fagan
Posted on Fri Mar 06 2009 09:15:49 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by EternalVigilance
“In a move that should give social conservatives great pause, Governor Sarah Palin has appointed a former board member of Planned Parenthood to the Alaska State Supreme Court.
Palin appointed Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen to the state’s highest court on Wednesday. Along with Christen’s former board member status with Planned Parenthood.
There is no disputing Palin’s appointment of Christen will cause the Alaska Supreme to lean left and will ensure a more activist court when it comes to gay marriage, and abortion. The Christen appointment is key because she replaces justice Warren Mathews, one of the dissenting votes striking down the parental consent legislation. […]”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2200773/posts
I’m actually working on a related piece, though it really wasn’t about P person. More of a response to conservative skewering of feminism in general. Anyhow, I’ll say this much. I think there is a problem with feminism today in that the gatekeepers of feminism (i.e. supposedly liberal) aren’t even using it for women–they used it to prop up Obama, even deploying misogyny and using sexism to tear down his female opponents. When Joan Walsh has to even quibble about how using a gender slur against an opponent doesn’t pack the punch of using a racial slur… etc. Or look how Nikki Haley was treated on a lot of prog blogs. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. And, it seems like too many liberal feminists today have gotten so bogged down in promoting this or that other cause but not really from a feminist perspective or at all. For example, something like Stupakistan should, in their view, take a backseat to HCR.
To the extent that a conservative woman could actually put women first on some issue–I wouldn’t necessarily put a feminist label on that, but at least it’s more than what the so-called feminists who are marking up this exclusive territory for them and their tribe and using it for nothing more than fundraising and declaring Obama is what a feminist looks like or whatever… I mean at least that theoretical conservative woman would be doing something with whatever space she’s carving out, whatever label you want to put on it.
The kindest that can be said about Mama Grizzlies is that they are moving women forward within their own GOP, which isn’t irrelevant. We need more women in both parties rather than less. More women to disagree with than suits–that’s not a bad thing.
But where the Mama Grizzlies, esp. P-woman, go wrong is that they only support their tribe of women, not all women. And, for that matter the Obama feminists make the same exact error.
It really does all come down to choice and autonomy. I don’t have to agree with or whatever with your choices and you don’t have to agree with or whatever with mine. I respect your right to make them–as you do mine. That’s the acid test to me.
WTV, Excellent as always . I also don’t care for how feminism is used as an excuse to keep us in the wars…women will have it bad if we leave! …like we give a fig about that. It’s only trotted out to shut up women here
Yes, spot on!
Feminism for everybody but women – bogus “feminism”. I look forward to the post.
Yes, and hopefully you can point out how it was when there were so few women, that they did embrace each other, because they were not given a welcome, and they knew that their issues were important and needed to be addressed. The video below is a powerhouse GOP women, and if you take note she worked and supported Dem women and notes how hard it is for women to move forward in the political system. She even mentions the 2008 primaries…
Are There Still Cultural Barriers for Women In Politics?
Yes, Wonk. Just look at organizations such as Emily’s List, National Womens’ Political Caucus, etc. They will only support a woman if she is pro-choice. No difference between that kind of “support” and how the Republican women “support” other women. Thank you for your balanced post.
I think Emily’s List et al politically endorsing/supporting pro-choice women only is their right and I support that. That’s at the politics level. But when it comes to the womanhood of female pols and female voters and supporting their right to make their own choices and be their own women, there needs to be more of a nonpartisan solidarity going on imho. That’s the missing piece, I think.
Believe me, the women who declared Obama feminist were not feminists. No matter what they self label.
I think we can support women in general and we can look at people that support women’s rights in the political sense without employing that term. That is especially true because there’s such a misunderstanding and confusion set up around it. Right Wing women like Concerned Women for American hiss it out like it was poisonous. We need authentic feminists as well as just more women in general on the political scene. Just like we could use a few authentic socialists probably too. But, the problem is, as you’ve said, is basically a tribal thing. Unfortunately, women sell their sex out before a lot of other of their characteristics. If Right Wing women were really excited about women’s rights–especially after Scalia’s comment the last few months–they’d be talking about the ERA. When Sarah and her crew bring that up, I’ll be more interested in reading what they have to say about things.
Oh, and prior to the early 1980s, the Republican Platform stated support for the ERA and for Abortion Rights. Betty Ford was a great supporter of both issues and Women’s issues in general. Betty Ford was proud of the feminist mantle.
I know, and it’s another reason I wish I was born before the early 80s! 😉
I’m not interested in hearing what Sarah and her crew bring up precisely because they are tribal and working against women and keeping women divided. I saw it in a panel on Cspan of conservative women discussing P and the future of conservative women 3 days after the election (the 2008 election, that is). They were saying “have you noticed that this election started out all about Hillary and now it is all about Sarah. Hillary is politically dead, and Sarah is the future…” that Sarah was the future that she’d “ECLIPSED Hillary as the most important woman in American politics” and all this other nonsense, acting like Hillary had not accomplished anything through her historic campaign, and wasting no opportunities to rant at “leftist” women…all the tribal tricks in the book basically and patting each other on the back as great conservative “scholars” to boot. *shudder*
Soon after that Hillary became Sec of State and P resigned her governorship. So much for Hill being out and P being in.
P wasn’t on the panel herself, so I watched her from there and wanted to see how she would go about it. Her first big misstep imho was right after she resigned and TIME mag interviewed her giving her a clear shot to clear up her “perceived whine” remarks. She went tribal on that answer. Then again most recently with her book bashing Hillary, Murphy Brown, liberal women, etc.
I should restate that:
I’m not any more interested in hearing what P and her crew have to say any more than I am interested in hearing what Romney, Obama, etc. have to say. All are empty vessels as far as I’m concerned.
Well said Wonk.
Indeed, HONK!