Having long identified myself as a feminist, the first chapter of EFG's book got me thinking: what does it mean for me if I identify with a movement whose public image, among other things, I can't control? If supporting abortion rights is really the "limitus test" (12) of feminism, I don't think I would pass their test. If denying my desire to be attached in matrimony to a man and produce a family is intrinsic to their cause, I don't think I would pass. If working for sexual freedom is the test, I don't think I would pass. Now that I step back and think about it hard, perhaps there are only a few ways in which I would truly fit in with EFG's so-called feminists. I passionately believe in feminism, and I don't believe that the areas in which I disagree with them should exclude me from the group; neither do I believe that I should allow my voice to be silenced within that group because I don't fall in hook, line, and sinker.
I think it comes down to how we understand and live the word "feminist." I believe in feminism founded in faith; my Catholicism has a causal relationship with my feminism. This comes from believing that self-sacrifice (not submission) is a central tenant of Christianity: Matthew 16:24 says "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
Working for social justice and the ability to care for my loved ones are part of my feminism—both require Christian self-sacrifice. How do we improve a woman's position in the world? By allowing her to be responsible for herself and her family. A woman, no less than a man, should have this ability if she so chooses. I believe that feminism should support social policies to help women gain social and economic equality so that they may care for themselves and their families. Whether or not I am pro-choice, I don't believe women need sexual freedom to be able to gain these equalities. We should be able to support ourselves and our babies with our wages, regardless of our options to engage in sexual or reproductive "freedom." EFG raises the question of whether modern feminism has really dealt with these issues of social and economic equality. I think the obvious answer is "no." In focusing on providing a few women with the sexual and reproductive "freedom" they desire, we have neglected the needs of many more women to simply care for themselves and their families.
I think the feminism that my generation has been exposed to is a little bit "girl power" and a lot Sex and the City. We were told that we could sleep with anyone we wanted to and look beautiful (read: scantily clad) while doing so. I believe that women would profit far more from strong marriages, families, and communities than from these so-called freedoms. Implementing true social justice would bring us closer to these ideals, which clearly support women respecting themselves rather than being independent agents with the sexual and reproductive freedoms that in reality bring them down.
The truth of the matter is, none of the women EFG interviewed saw themselves as isolated, independent agents. Women have interlocking lives—interlocking with men, children, extended families, their communities, and the larger global community of women to which they belong. In choosing an exclusive idea of "correct" feminism, radical feminists have marginalized themselves and their movement. The word "feminist" has the potential to mean a great deal to a great many people, but falls short of this goal. Women should not feel ostracized from the larger feminist movement because they do not embrace 100% of its causes; instead, it should be a more inclusive term conditioned upon agreement about certain tenants (e.g. social and economic improvement), thereby making it the story of our lives. If feminism is truly about seeking social and economic justice for women, it needs to start making itself accessible as a movement to both the community of women and the communities to which women belong within their marriages, families, and geographic areas. Nobody is going to go in for everything that feminism espouses, but in changing how feminism is perceived and making it less of what EFG calls a "single formula," they could perhaps gain more man power (no pun intended...or was it?) behind their efforts.
Dust it off
5 years ago
I totally agree! This is a really great post. I feel also, that the only way for women's position in the world to improve is to acknowledge that most women *want* to have husbands, families, and meaningful work. And the only feminism that matters is one which understands those things and makes it easier for women to reach their goals.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that especially enrages me about all the discussion about "having it all" is the obvious socio-economic discrimination. None of the upper-middle class women who want to "have it all" seem to care much about if the blue-collar woman who's raising her children is able to "have it all". No one's asking who's raising the children of the woman who's raising ours? Poor women seem to be left out of these conversations, and out of feminist priorities, other than to tell them to breed themselves out of existance with free hormones and abortions.
*rant over*
Again, great post!
Good post!
ReplyDelete"Whether or not I am pro-choice, I don't believe women need sexual freedom to be able to gain these equalities." What a great point!
And you're totally right that our Sex and the City ideas of feminism does not bring along freedom at all.
This is really, really wonderful. I agree with you that feminism should be able to encompass everything that enables women to gain social and economic equality.
ReplyDeleteSo far it is really helping me to replace "feminist" with "NOW-type feminists" when reading the book. I think that current feminists are quite aware that there are many, many types of feminists but that E F-G wrote with the focus on a specific group of her peers.
While those feminists who get the most attention are pro-choice, others of us are equally passionate about the fact that one can ultimately only be pro-woman if one is pro-life. I would laugh at a book that told ecofeminists that they should not call themselves feminists because everyone knows that feminists eat meat. Sure, most do, but that does not mean that the philosophy of feminism is inherently anti-animal any more than it is inherently anti-male or anti-life.
Great post! I admit that I haven't thought much about feminism, and I certainly wouldn't identify myself as a feminist, primarily because of the NOW-feminist stereotype. However, in discussing these things, I become more aware of things in my life as a woman that I owe to the feminist movement in general. Though I disagree in some of the particulars, I certainly feel that great strides have been made and that there are more that still need to be made.
ReplyDeleteThe only point I want to bring up, is looking at "sexual freedom" from a different light. Yes, I agree that too many people have taken "sexual freedom" to mean "it's okay for everyone to be skanky". But I would encourage you to help redefine sexual freedom.
ReplyDeleteI embrace an idea of sexual freedom within the ideas of it meaning that a woman's life is not at risk if she has sex before marriage(whether by choice or not) and that she can't be shunned from her society because of it. That a woman does not have to give in to every desire of her husband, that she has a right to say yes and no to sex even when married. That a woman has a right to be taught and understand how her body works. That a woman has a right to be protected from unprovoked sexual encounters (and that if such a thing as rape occurs she can prosecute it as a crime against her). And as we see too much in the news right now, that a woman has the right to call out her husband when he strays and doesn't have to keep it all buried.
Sadly I agree we've swung too far to one side of the sexuality pendulum, but I would encourage the ladies here not to throw "sexual freedom" out just because of the "sexual freedom" Cosmo and SITC espouses, the "woman can 'have it all' only if they know how to use their bodies" because I would argue that is not sexual freedom at all. Rather we seem to have moved from our sexuality being controlled by others to being controlled by our sexuality and neither is healthy.
Interesting point, Molly - essentially let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I was to redefine it, I'd agree with the things you've written: don't literally stone the woman who did it, husband and wife respect their spouses' desires and lack thereof, no rape or harassment, and adultery's not right for either party. Although after typing all that, it seems to me like we've already got that. (And more, of course - darn pendulum.) When I think of the current definition "sexual freedom," I think of abortion on demand, sex whenever wherever with whomever, and general sluttiness.
ReplyDeleteYour last sentence says it all very well.
Molly, you're absolutely right. I didn't think about sexual freedom in those terms (I remember being horrified as a kid to read a biography about Susan B. Anthony and learn that it was legal for a man to beat his wife as long as the stick was no wider than his thumb). Great point!
ReplyDeleteMolly, I mostly agree with you, but I think that we still have a ways to go in terms of "sexual freedom" that is really empowering for women. In the case of rape EC is usually available. But so many large hospitals do *not* have someone on staff 24 hours who is specially trained for special examinations with a rape kit. So if a woman goes to most emergency rooms for help it is unlikely that she will get help from someone with appropriate training and many women report feeling as if the rape is simply prolonged by seeking medical help. I was also horrified to learn that some women are still billed for the cost of the forensic exam!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.propublica.org/feature/despite-promises-some-rape-victims-stuck-paying-exam-bills-730
And we are still far from the place where girls are taught about their bodies. In college I had discussions with women who went to every type of school in the US who did not know the location of certain anatomical features (!) never mind how their fertility cycle works. And I hate, hate, hate the fact that it is somehow okay to talk about sex, show off almost all of one's body etc., but it is gross to talk about cervical fluid and inappropriate to talk about ovulation publicly?
I really enjoyed your post!
ReplyDelete"I believe that women would profit far more from strong marriages, families, and communities than from these so-called freedoms."
Absolutely! My experience with feminism was one in which i saw Feminism as a main part of the demise of my family. In my post (after yours) I discuss the attacks on my father and brother that I witnessed from my mother. She gathered all of her strength and chutzpah (so to speak) to make these attacks from her study of Feminist ideals.
I absolutely agree with Molly's comment regarding sexual freedom. I only wish that that were the way Feminism with regards to sexual freedom were really perceived. Unfortunately, the perception of Feminism goes far beyond that...to the extent that some Feminist groups would allege that all marital sexual embraces are a rape of some sort...that women must "bear the brunt" of the altercation, in "suffering" through pregnancy and childbirth...oh yeah, and on top of that, she can't have a fast-paced career and move up in the world due to this "burden" of a child.
I will grant that the type of emotional and verbal abuse I suffered at the hands of my mother most definitely shapes my view on this.
Elizabeth - In many we ways "we" do, if the we is just the cross section of women we have in this group (mainly causcasian, middle classes, educated). But, and I think EFG would probably support this to some extent even, it's not the case through out America and definitely through out the world. And sadly the predominant view of what defines "sexual freedom" has less to do with legal rights,etc. and more of a view of cultural acceptability of actions which is unfortunate.
ReplyDeleteMichelle - I've seen that labelling too, though I think it's good to point out that that frame of thinking is still on the extremist scale.
Rae - your last point is why I love NFP/FAM, it actually makes you learn what you're body is doing.
This would normally be the point in a face to face discussion, especially with younger woman, I'd ask them to really evaluate what in our culture they're supporting in relation to "sexual freedom". Oh those books, magazine and TV Shows might seem like harmless fun, but in the end do we really want to support the "Sex and the City" mentality just for borderline entertainment?
What a great post Maggie Mae - you hit so many good points.
ReplyDeleteI too agree that strong marriages, families, and connections would lead to many more benefits for women than some of the 'freedoms' the feminist movement has pushed for.
The pendulum seemingly has swung so far from the days of women not being permitted to show their ankles to the now - more more more attitude that I'd like to think it cannot get worse. But then I spend time with teenagers and I fear what is next.