The definition of Feminism from the dictionary is this
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter
) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.In it's basic form there is no idea of feminists must believe everything a feminist group believes. If we use this basic definition of the word, her argument falls through. I can call myself a feminist based on that definition and not believe everything every feminist or anti-feminist group believes.
And I would argue further with her, that call yourself by such a label does not mean you support everything everyone else does under that label. To be a Republican or Democrat you do not have to support every single bill and idea. If you subscribe to a religion you do not have to support everything the majority of Catholics, Muslims, etc. subscribe to in order to call yourself a part of that group.
My biggest issue with her logic is also on page 12.
"More than any other single issue, support for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion has become the litmus test of feminism. Feminists, must by definition, support the right, and, according to feminists, anti-feminists oppose it. ... Do feminists believe that feminism has no room for pro-life women even if they support equal pay for equal work and related women's issues? Apparently it does."
Then she goes on to tell about the Group Feminists for Life being left out of a protest, etc.
So here it goes:
Problem 1: "Feminists, must by definition..." Who's definition, she's not given us a solid definition. I've given you the dictionaries definition and no where does it say a "Feminists must support abortion"
Problem 2: The long functioning group "Feminists for Life" proves that feminism has room for "pro-life women even....", especially since that group is growing in its popularity and scope today. In fact one of the arguments of FforL is that true feminism, the first wave of the movement, did not support abortive rights.
Problem 3: Mrs. F-G just makes a lot of sweeping generalizations about what a feminists "must" do or be.
So my first reaction was that Mrs. F-G wants to have a singular definition of the word in order to call herself one of them, rather than accepting that the word itself needs to be fluid and allow each person to make it their own. We can accept that a white, middle class mother of four's definition of feminism will be different that of a single woman, a minority, or a woman with disabilities and still give them the opportunity to call them selves feminists under the basic definition of the word. Just because one group or another expands on this basic idea does not mean that all of us have to accept it. By using her logic of what a feminists "must believe" is like saying all Christians MUST believe everything those famous televangelists believe or that all Republicans MUST support every belief of every member the party, and this is not true.
So my response to this chapter is "Since when does feminism have to live in a little box?" It seems that is different peoples attempts to do so (from radical feminists to radical anti-feminists) is what gives the word feminism such a bad taste in their mouths.
"Since when does feminism have to live in a little box?" I like that question.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned politics in comparison to feminism. I think, quite personally, that feminism lives in a box due to the political overtake of the movement.
I really like this post. I agree with you, that "feminism" as an abstract idea (or dictonary defintion) is pretty fluid, as evidenced by the fact that there have been "waves" of feminism in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm not going to pretend like I'm welcomed with open arms by my radical feminist friends once they find out I am pro-life. Also, it's important to know that Feminists for Life was started by two women who were thrown out of NOW for not supporting abortion "rights". So her claim that the feminist elite has a pro-abortion agenda, and that those who don't buy into it are shunned and called anti-feminists, is true.
I can call myself a pro-life feminist all I want (and I do!) and I can be certain that I don't have to support abortion to claim the term of feminist, but the larger and more problematic issue is that the feminist groups who claim to "speak for women" claim that anyone who cares about women will support abortion "rights".
I do think that's problematic.
I also agree with you that its dangerous whenever we put anybody into boxes, whether they be philosophical categories or political or religious or whatever.
Sarah - I see your point on it, those who speak loudest get heard, and this has been why pro-life feminists have been ostracized. I think in the almost 15 years since this book was published the tides might be changing on that particular topic. It's true that it is the topic that the most liberal feminists use as a chopping block of sorts. Though sadly I've noticed the same backlash from conservative feminists and anti-feminists on that topic, it's the extremists in both cases that seem to set the worst examples.
ReplyDeleteKatie - I don't think there's much hope of separating feminism from politics at the moment though. So much of what they've wanted in the past and do/do not want at the moment is completely tied up in politics. I think what's sad is that some many people equate being a feminist with being abashedly liberal, when I think any number of us could prove the opposite (it's like saying there can't be a liberally minded Republican or a conservative Democrat). But as I replied to Sarah, it's the extremists on both sides of the argument that get heard, whereas (and I think the book supports this) that many woman and men just want a calmer, middle ground, basic definition type of feminism.
This issue really stood out for me as well. I was quite surprised to read her complaint that "However bravely and honestly they are wrestling with difficult issues, they tacitly allow others to speak in their name." Um, of course? This is what it means to live in community and to be a part of a group.
ReplyDeleteBy identifying as an American, I "tacitly allow" other Americans to represent me all over the world, even if I do not happen to like McDonald's. As you point out, by identifying as a Christian I "tacitly allow" televangelists to speak in my name.
The argument just does not make sense. Of course many people will not want to identify as "feminists" but it is silly to imply that there is something wrong with those of us who are willing to identify as "feminists" even though we know that there are other vocal feminists with whom we disagree.
I agree that it would have been ideal for EFG to have given an explicit definition of feminism, or perhaps multiple definitions. It seems like she dances around this throughout the chapter.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think she makes a good point in the paragraph above on page 12:
"Many who call themselves feminists will read my criticisms of feminism and say, "But that is not what I believe." More often than not, they will be right. But they have chosen to identify with a movement the ideology, public presence, and consequences of which they do not control."
I agree that there are all different types of feminists, but the "elite" are the ones with the time, money, and desire to define the agenda. That seems to be her point - while many if not all women could agree with certain tenets of equal rights for women, there is some aspect of feminism that prevents them. As Molly points out, it's usually the extremists that do get heard, so I imagine it's one of the radical issues that prevents them from jumping on.
This seems to be reflected in the fact that many women who are feminists that are not radical feel the need to qualify their femininism. So for example, "I'm a pro-life feminist," "I'm a New Feminist," "I'm a feminist but...".
We don't have to like what the word "feminist" has grown to stand for, but I think we need to understand its current connotations. As unfair as it is, most things get boxed and labeled. Those on the inside can see the differences clearly, but those on the outside just lump it all together. I think the televangelist example is a good one. Other Christians probably realize that this guy does not speak for me, and yet to non-Christians they are representative of the whole, as little as we like it.
Finally, I guess I didn't really get the sense that she was telling us we were doing something wrong if we didn't agree with every major tenet and still called ourselves feminists. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think it's more important to try to change something from the inside than to just toss it. (Or maybe I just didn't read it closely enough!)
I thought the same thing as I read through - what is the 'textbook' definition of feminism? It certainly would have made reading through this chapter a little easier to know exactly what she was referring to.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really get the sense she was telling us we were doing something wrong if we didn't agree, but I didn't get the sense that she was telling us we were doing something right - kind of a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation.