Thanks are due to Inside Higher Ed for kindly linking to last week’s post on clothing, class, and the community college. It’s good for a tripling of my normal traffic for this hour of the morning.
The summer session is almost over. In my women’s studies class yesterday, we were talking about obstacles to identifying as feminists. I have two discussions of the "F" word, one at the beginning and one at the end of the term. I’m always eager to see how students views of feminism, and their sense of themselves as potential feminists, shifts over that time frame as a result of exposure to the material.
Early on in the semester, we "get real" about all of the stereotypes of feminism that they may have heard. I ask them to list every imaginable negative image they’re learned from the culture; I write what they say on the chalkboard. I end up with long lists of terms like "angry", "man-haters", "hairy", "humorless", "ugly" "feminazis". These are phrases they’ve picked up from family members, from the media, from (in a surprising number of cases) from Rush Limbaugh. (Who listens to him anymore?) I tell the students not to be shy — we need to name the stereotypes that race through our heads before we can systematically demolish them.
But students also list positive images of feminists: "strong", "bold", "determined", "passionate", "activists", "committed", "fearless", "sexually confident", "politically involved." And not surprisingly, by the time we come to the end of the term, the students are much more willing to see the positive images as more accurate. That’s neither a surprising nor an unwanted result.
It’s axiomatic that many young women say "I’m not a feminist, but…" For years, I assumed that the key to getting young women — and budding male allies — to identify as feminists was to overcome the negative stereotypes our culture has about feminism. Once they saw that feminists were not the unkempt, humorless harpies of popular lore, they would surely be more willing to claim the feminist label proudly for themselves. And of course, for many young women, that’s true.
Yet time and again — and yesterday as well — I notice that some of my students still use the "I’m not a feminist, but…" phrase. They do so not out of fear of the negative stereotypes but out of a sense of awe at the positive ones! In the eagerness that so many of us have to ensure that feminism has a positive public image, we end up describing feminists as being super women: invariably independent, strong, decisive, bold, outspoken, compassionate, self-accepting, sexually confident, and politically active. Relatively few young people are in an emotional space to be all of those things at once! Many of my students talk about becoming feminists as a future aspiration, when they’ve "got it together" a bit more. One of my young women put it nicely yesterday:
"I still live at home, and I don’t like to confront my traditional parents. I don’t think I can call myself a feminist until I challenge them to their faces, and I’m not ready to do that, so I’m not ready to call myself a feminist."
Though I took considerable and perhaps justified heat for it, I’m a great believer in the "swimming pool" image of feminism. (Original post here.) The basic notion is that some will dive into feminism, while others will climb in, step by step, covering first their feet, then their knees, then their hips. For many, becoming a feminist is a process, not an event.
I think it’s vital to emphasize this "process" aspect of becoming a feminist in order to guard against an overly demanding and lofty understanding of what it means to be a feminist. It’s all well and good to demolish ugly stereotypes about feminism, but it’s not very useful to end up defining feminists as being extraordinarily bold superwomen with whom so many doubt-filled young women can’t identify! Few of us, particularly at college age, can be "independent" and "assertive" all the time.
I write all this because I realize that I, like some other feminists I know, am guilty of fostering the very problem I am trying to solve. Too often, I realize, I am tempted to describe what it means to be a feminist as a set of personal characteristics rather than a set of beliefs. Part of this comes, of course, from my own big-tent philosophy of feminism. I’m so eager to make it clear that women of color, and the devoutly religious, and the pro-life, and so on can find room for themselves in feminism that I shy away from framing feminism as a set of specific intellectual and political positions about the world and women’s place within it. It seems more tempting, if not more honest, to position feminism as a set of character traits ("boldness", "assertiveness", "strength") that seem attractive to almost everyone. But while there is some truth to that understanding of feminism, I realize it does a potentially dangerous disservice to the larger struggle.
I’m not ashamed to say I’m always learning, always tinkering, always willing to rethink what I’ve been teaching. And clearly, I’ve got some work to do here.
UPDATE: Amanda kindly sends me this link. It begins:
The definition of feminism does not ask for two forms of photo ID. It does not care what you look like. It does not care what color skin you have, or whether that skin is clear, or how much you weigh, or what you do with your hair. You can bite your nails, or you can get them done once a week. You can spend two hours on your makeup, or five minutes, or the time it takes to find a Chapstick without any lint sticking to it. You can rock a cord mini, or khakis, or a sari, and you can layer all three. The definition of feminism does not include a mandatory leg-hair check; wax on, wax off, whatever you want. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
Yes, you are.
Early on in the semester, we “get real” about all of the stereotypes of feminism that they may have heard. I ask them to list every imaginable negative image they’re learned from the culture; I write what they say on the chalkboard. I end up with long lists of terms like “angry”, “man-haters”, “hairy”, “humorless”, “ugly” “feminazis”.
I think constructing negative stereotypes of feminism and then deconstructing them is just the same as building and then destroying strawmen. It achieves little, other than consolidating your pre-conceived ideas about the critics of feminism. I don’t consider that to be progressive. How about actually asking why some people criticise feminism?
It would be far better to supply them with the hard facts that challenge feminist beliefs, for example - such as evidence that domestic violence is carried out by women just as much as men. I promise I won’t go off thread with this, but it would be so refreshing if feminists were actually willing to have such beliefs challenged.
Hugo, what about this: tell your students to prove their theories based on non-partisan research. Play Devil’s advocate. Tell them feminism is based on a load of outdated and unproven theories and give them homework to prove you wrong.
A hypothesis should be re-examined and tested out thoroughly. Feminism is constructed almost completely on a set of theories. These should be examined and re-examined by the students of feminism to give it the intellectual kudos/merit that feminism so badly needs. Sadly I think there’s become too much investment in these theories, that any criticism of them is shutdown immediately.
Reminds me of the unproven hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. There’s way too much investment into this hypothesis for any criticism of it to be taken seriously.
But students also list positive images of feminists: “strong”, “bold”, “determined”, “passionate”, “activists”, “committed”, “fearless”, “sexually confident”, “politically involved.” And not surprisingly, by the time we come to the end of the term, the students are much more willing to see the positive images as more accurate.
If I go to a website like xxxxx, I see a negative, mocking hatred there from many posters of anything that falls outside of what feminists stand for. Is this really positive? What does that achieve? Are these typical opinions from modern feminists? If so, I find it rather depressing the way they set their targets on anything outside a tightly defined set of beliefs. Not only that, but they generalise an awful lot. I don’t see much positivity - just re-treading of old arguments against anything traditional. To be fair, I see much of the same at SYG. None of it is really positive.
Slandering other feminist websites is a no-go here. I’ve edited your comment accordingly. Please don’t do it again.
This thread is not for discussing the merits of contemporary feminism. It’s for talking about one issue: how do we frame what it means to be a feminist — as an issue primarily of beliefs or behaviors, of political positions or character attributes? Or both? Let’s stay on that topic. For the sake of this thread, the essential tenets of feminism are not on trial. Thread drift will be enforced.
I am struck by, according to Hugo’s testimony, the link between the idea of traditional femininity and feminism. Indeed the class, according to the description, seems to be one which enforces or supports traditional views of femininity.
The words used to negatively describe feminists: “angry”, “man-haters”, “hairy”, “humorless”, “ugly” - are ones which are traditional negative stereotypes of lesbians. With oddly similar views, Exodus International’s “solution” to same sex attraction is a “makeover” - that with some leg shaving and learning that guys are good too - you don’t have to be “ugly” to men anymore; you can be pretty, desirable and thus, okay with yourself.
And while who could not want women to be bold and assertive it does seem odd that women who have rejected what they see as a male defined construct of beauty and place of women still remain in Hugo’s and the PCC feminist junkheap. Is feminism suppose to be a self help style course where one is assured that being a feminist won’t stop you from being “pretty”?
It seems that feminists, as shown here, are only women who stay within the bounds, however expanded, of traditional femininity. Women are told, be sexually confidant but not too sexually active (or wear t-shirts that imply you are); be assertive, not agressive.
I am saddened to find the implied message hasn’t appeared to have changed from the 70’s and the creation of the lavender menace - that lesbians (or lesbian stereotypes), political lesbians or woman who are just “too outside” are bringing down the image, and the effectiveness of feminism.
It would be nice if what is taught as feminism could include the message that you don’t always have to be pretty, but you’ll always share the power and exploration of being a woman.
Elizabeth, we can’t teach feminism until we first expose the myths about who feminists are. One way to do that is by offering a counter-story. “You’ve been told that feminists are x,y, z; we’ll see that feminists can also be a, b, and c.” That’s a basic way of deconstructing myths, and it’s vital work. Lord knows, I’m not teaching “lipstick feminism”, suggesting that women focus solely on their personal attributes. I am suggesting that the longing for the feminine is not incompatible with feminism. Different thing.
Part of decontructing myths is also going back and validating the demonized. It is all very good to say; “You’ve been told that feminists are x,y, z; we’ll see that feminists can also be a, b, and c.” But unless you actually go back and show that x, y, and z are not the negative attributes that stereotypes make them out to be, you are only altering the scare tactic from “Don’t be a feminists because feminists are x, y, z” to “Feminists don’t have to be x, y, z” - which still does a disservice to the women who in society fall into those catagories. To break down the mental barriers which deride or exclude a women based on her chosen appearance, sexual orientation or attitude toward men would seem to me also “vital work” - one, which, as yet, you haven’t mentioned participating in.
Slandering other feminist websites is a no-go here. I’ve edited your comment accordingly. Please don’t do it again.
Fair enough Hugo - I appreciate you leaving the comment in though, because the name of the website is irrelevant - I just took that site to be fairly typical of feminist commentary. I’m wondering if these are the same types of feminists graduating from your classes.
Except that perplexed makes a very good point re. the ability of feminism to defend itself against scrutiny, which is after all why the students you discuss are hesitant to identfy as feminists. They’ve taken a women’s studies course or three, considered and scrutinized what they’ve been presented and still can’t determine exactly what feminism is and thus what you’re asking them to embrace. No wonder they hesitate to identify as feminists, especially when the stereotypes the see are shown to be accurate and valid in many cases and thus contradict the dogma presented to them in women’s studies courses.
Hugo said: “I think it’s vital to emphasize this “process” aspect of becoming a feminist in order to guard against an overly demanding and lofty understanding of what it means to be a feminist. It’s all well and good to demolish ugly stereotypes about feminism, but it’s not very useful to end up defining feminists as being extraordinarily bold superwomen with whom so many doubt-filled young women can’t identify! Few of us, particularly at college age, can be “independent” and “assertive” all the time.”
and
“How do we frame what it means to be a feminist — as an issue primarily of beliefs or behaviors, of political positions or character attributes? Or both? Let’s stay on that topic. For the sake of this thread, the essential tenets of feminism are not on trial.”
I really don’t think that we can discuss this until we have an understanding of what exactly feminism is. Wikipedia’s definition (which I believe is fairly accurate) states: “Feminism is a diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerning the experiences of women. Most feminists are especially concerned with social, political, and economic inequality between men and women; some have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as “man” and “woman,” are socially constructed. Feminists differ over the sources of inequality, how to attain equality, and the extent to which gender and sexual identities should be questioned and critiqued.”
However, further down it states “Most feminists believe discrimination against women still exists in North American and European nations, as well as worldwide. But there are many ideas within the movement regarding the severity of current problems, what the problems are, and how best to confront them.
Extremes on the one hand include some radical feminists such as Gloria Allred and also Mary Daly who argues that human society would be better off with dramatically fewer men. There are also dissidents, such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia, who identify themselves as feminist but who accuse the movement of anti-male prejudice.
Many feminists question the use of the term feminist to groups or people who fail to recognize a fundamental equality between the sexes. Some feminists, like Katha Pollitt (see her book Reasonable Creatures) or Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU and author of Defending Pornography [a treatise on freedom of speech]), consider feminism to be, solely, the view that “women are people.” Views that separate the sexes rather than unite them are considered by these people to be sexist rather than feminist.”
So there it is: People have trouble identifying as feminists because feminists themselves can’t even agree on a definition for themselves. You got feminists as diverse as Mary Daly and Christina Hoff Sommers defining what feminism is; in essence, it’s anything that (mostly) women say it is. Thus, if it’s anything and everything, then it’s nothing.
So Hugo, please tell me: What the hell is feminism? You can’t expect to indoctrinate people into the fold unless you can tell them in concrete terms what it is you’re asking them to embrace.
I believe that unless you do a much better job of defining feminism and then defending the validity of the definition, young women (and men) are going to base their judgements and identities on what they see in real life on the streets, i.e., the (mostly negative) stereotypes that play themselves out every single day, especially on college campuses.
Hi Hugo,
I would think that part of the resistance is to the actual “being”, that is, being a feminist as opposed to believing in feminism or adhering to some principles that are feminist in nature. I think that younger generations (X and Y) are less comfortable than their predecessors to become affixed with a label of any kind. I relate that with my own dislike for the label of “Christian.” I believe in Christ, I apply Biblical principles to my lifestyle, but the label of Christianity is pretty much a repellant. I believe in strong, evolved femininity. I sure as heck stand for equity in the workplace, social settings, and in the home. But there is something not quite comfortable in the fit of the label feminist. I’m thinking however that it’s the existence of a label rather than the specificity of the label itself that I’m opposed to. Does that make sense or are two coffees and a diet coke talking?
Blackkoffeeblues
Apologies if this turns out to be thread drift.
I must admit that I thought I was essentially pro-feminist in my outlook, in that I’m pro-choice, pro-maternity leave policies, support efforts to fight the gender wage gap, believe contraceptives should be at every convenience store next to the Snickers bars, etc. … until I started frequenting the feminist blogosphere. If anything, I find myself slightly _more_ in agreement with the image of the intolerant hairy-legged humorless man-hating feminist, which I previously regarded as a silly straw men but now regard as … well, a little less of one. When I look at the feminist discussion around the Net, I do find a lot of extremely vicious hyperbole and automatic, unqualified rejection of everyone who doesn’t agree with some predefined party line as a “troll” or a misogynist.
Remember your discussion of that student of yours who was uncertain as to whether being a feminist would get in the way of his success with women? I really don’t want to dredge up that whole debate all over again, but I thought the over-the-top nastiness with which you and him were assaulted with was, for example, pretty representative of that. The guy may have been wrong, but I don’t think his concerns or your response were stupid, nor did they deserve the level of entirely unsympathetic beratement they brought up. It’s that kind of reflexive, unqualified rage and finger-waggling that I think a lot of people associate with the stereotype.
None of this has not changed my views on political matters, or the belief that gender equality is a general principle worth aspiring to, but these discussions often make me wonder more as to whether I actually have any business calling myself pro-feminist at all.
Mr. Bad, if I could come up with a succinct definition of feminism, I would. I can provide partial definitions — and the Wikipedia entry you cite does provide an example. But I can’t distill a semester’s worth of material into a blog post. Defining Christianity isn’t always easy, either.
TSM, I disagreed with a lot of my critics on the issue you cite. But for the most part, the challenges were thouughtful and reasonable. I don’t get troubled much by the righteous anger of others, directed at me, when they are challenging me and holding me accountable. That doesn’t mean I rush to placate, only that I’ll listen. My colleagues in the feminist blogosphere praise me when I’m right, rebuke me when I’m wrong, and they don’t baby me. I like that level of candor.
As someone relatively new to the world of feminism, I find that both blackcoffeeblues’ and tsm’s comments make a lot of sense to me. (FWIW, I have similar feelings about the label “Christian,” bcb!)
As bcb said, I’ve found embracing “feminism” much easier than saying to someone “I’m a feminist.” If I’m doing the work — raising my daughter to value herself, rooting out any unconscious gender biases in myself, etc. — then, I’m not too entirely concerned about whether I call myself the “F word” or not.
TSM, I think my outlook might mirror yours closely, at least as far as you’ve described it. When I first started browsing some of the more popular feminist blogs, I found the tone very off-putting, and walked away. In time, I came back, because I realized that they pointed me toward news stories that I might not have noticed on my own. From there, I could form my own opinion about them. But, you’re right that some of the bloggers out there make the x,y,z of the strawfeminist to seem more tangible. I s’pose that’s why, for commentary, I enjoy reading the more down-to-earth bloggers such as Hugo, Happy, and Bitch PhD.
Hugo, I wish I were local to take your gender studies course. Every day (almost) I find new ways in which I unconsciously perpetuate gender stereotypes. At least I’m becoming more conscious of them, right?
Hugo said: “Mr. Bad, if I could come up with a succinct definition of feminism, I would. I can provide partial definitions — and the Wikipedia entry you cite does provide an example. But I can’t distill a semester’s worth of material into a blog post.”
Well there you go, that’s the problem. If it takes an entire semester of proselytizing to provide a partial definition of feminism and ‘evidence’ supporting it, then perhaps this is why people are hesitant to identify as such. Especially when the material you teach is often so completely different from the everyday words and deeds of feminists and the ordinary experiences of everyday people vis-a-vis alleged “discrimination against women,” etc. Therefore, I propose that the main barrier to widespread acceptance of modern post-Third Wave feminism by the masses is the disconnect between the rhetoric of those feminists and the reality of ordinary people’s lives. The dogma and rhetoric don’t match our personal experiences, thus we go with our experiences instead of the dog and pony show.
I must admit that I thought I was essentially pro-feminist in my outlook, in that I’m pro-choice, pro-maternity leave policies, support efforts to fight the gender wage gap, believe contraceptives should be at every convenience store next to the Snickers bars, etc. … until I started frequenting the feminist blogosphere.
Me too….this is one reason why I prefer to frequent Hugo’s blog - I give Hugo credit here for instilling a fairly congenial atmosphere here. I’ve tried a number of other feminist messageboards, but have not had good experiences - there’s a lot of know-all, snarkiness that often overspills into rather hate-filled diatribes. Nobody from those boards knows my personal life, but because I put forward an opposing view on many feminist issues, suddenly I’m called ‘a loser’, a ‘misogynist’, a ‘nutter’ etc. Is this the language of feminists? Is this the way they’re taught to debate? And this is me just putting forward my opinion in polite English backed up with evidence and sources! I rarely see cogent responses - it’s just shouting and insults. Honestly, feminists would improve their image a whole lot by starting to lead by being more civil.
Perplexed, I hear that you are frustrated. But using my thread to vent your spleen at my feminist colleagues will get you banned. PLEASE stay on topic. And back-handed compliments about how I’m not like other feminists just uses me to lash out at them — and I’m not interested in providing a forum for that.
Mr. Bad: I hope I’m not going off topic here, but Hugo did briefly address the issue you brought up. Namely, if feminism cannot be distilled to some simple definition then it cannot be meaningful. Well, I’m not a feminist nor have I studied much of feminism, but I do think it would be next to impossible to have a single college course that gave a broad overview of feminism while doing any justice to the individual scholars, writers, philosophers, etc. who have contributed to the overall movement.
I’m going to make an analogy here which might be completely false, but what if feminism is anything like my chosen undergraduate field of study, that being Existentialism? Well, you can certainly take an intro course on the subject, but you’ll still know basically nothing on the subject other than a very basic overview. There are many different writers and philosophers who contriobuted to the thoughts of a fairly broad number of people who themselves are considered to be contributors to existential thought.
In that case, let’s start at the beginning; pre-Socratic philosophers who may be been major influences, like Protagoras and Heraclitus. Then, we need to have a look at the Socratic Dialogues. It might be helpful to have a look at Stocisim, a dramatically different philsophy which, nonetheless, did influcnes a lot of existentialist. So, perhaps we should read Zeno of Citium, Epictetus and the Meditations of Marus Aurelius.
Also, we need to study some aspects of Christian philosophy which heavily influenced existentialism. The Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, in particular, have powerful messages about the role of what seems to be fate or divine providence on the role of the individual. Then, perhaps we need a quick grounding on early Christian philosophers who also had existentialist leanings, St. Augustine in particular.
Moving right along we come to more modern philosophers who were not existentialists, but heavily influenced the movement. Here, we have Nietzsche, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, among others. Then, let’s fast forward to the truly modern existentialists, Sarte, de Beauvior and (in some circles) Camus.
But wait, we’ve come so far and missed the entire literary side of the movement. We have to read a whole host of depressing novelists. Kafka, Doestoevsky and Hesse all had influences, along with the fictional works of the aforementioned Camus and Sarte.
In other words, you could spend half your credit hours just taking courses on philosophy and literature and still have only a vauge idea of what generalized existential thought is like. Hell, that’s what I did, and with the exception of Camus’ novels I never got to the literary side of existentialism. Sure, I can boil down a few bullet points on what existentialism stands for, but that doesn’t really say anything. Different existentialists will argue for different aspects of the subject, and against others. To really get a grounding in the subject you need to pour over at least two dozen books. I strongly suspect feminism is the same way. The differences between such diverse feminists as MacKinnon, Bright, Dworkin, Steinem and Wolfe are pronounced. While they may all contribute to a greater feminist body of thought and literary work, they don’t necessarily have much in common with each other. I rather doubt, for instance, that Dworkin and Wolfe had much in common, from what I’ve read of both. Yet both a considered feminists, despite the fact the a common definition for the term would probably exclude one or the other.
tsm, as interesting as the feminist blogosphere is, I wouldn’t use it as any kind of meterstick for actual, intellectual feminism. There are lots of idiots on the internet, regardless of their politics.
Mr. Bad, your criticism of feminism, that it cannot be neatly categorized and placed in a box, could easily be made a criticism of any political movement or liberal art. Ask an anthropologist what culture is and he won’t respond with a one sentence definition. What is nationalism? What is society? Etc. Liberal arts are not easily definable.
Hugo, how do we frame what it means to be a feminist — as an issue primarily of beliefs or behaviors, of political positions or character attributes? Or both?
This is an interesting question*, and could be an interesting discussion, but despite you saying no thread drift we have so far mostly got the usual antifeminist tripe: “blah blah but feminists are mean and horrible and stupid blah blah” “what about the men ?” “what about the meeeenn?” This sort of stuff does spoil the discussion, as it is just not constructive and doesn’t move the ideas forward.
I think by trying to provide a platform for all, you are in danger of only having a platform for the trolls and bigots. Poor boundaries lead to vandalism, not freedom, and most genuine people will feel increasingly disinclined to post in that atmosphere.
Anyway, for now, to get back to the actual topic.
I would frame feminism in terms of
1) recognising and understanding the power structures and practices in the world that demean and dehumanise women
2) recognising that these structures and practices are intrinsically unjust and unacceptable
3) recognising and understanding that social structures and myths need to change in order for women to be acknowledged as fully human in the world
4) actually personally and collectively doing something about it
The different “varieties” of feminism tend to manifest partly as a result of differing interpretations and understanding of these points, and partly as a result of limiting the problems to a more personal immediate experience.
The latter is the worse problem. Not so much if it is just a result of lacking the information, but when it arises from wanting to shy away from hard-hitting feminist analysis (don’t want to be labelled as one of those old-fashioned evilhairydykeprudes) and a blinkered attitude to the problems that feminists usefully need to address in the world, which are actually bigger than my sex life, my boyfriend, my career.
This is what gives us the relatively modern (yet in my opinion ultimately ineffectual) “choice” feminism: to whit – I like living in a world where I can “choose” to vote, go to school, drive a car, access contraception etc etc (but I want to sweep all the struggles and politics that enable me to do that under the carpet. I want to ignore all the feminist analysis and work that makes this all possible, I want to continue in my reasonably comfortable life without acknowledging how easily I could lose these “choices” that have been conferred, and I don’t want to really, really examine the harsh realities of the underlying anti-woman structures and prejudices not just of this society but of the wider world we live in).
Then at the other end (with all sorts in between) the hard-core evilhairydykeprude not-the-fun-kind variety feminists banging-on about examining choices, and fundamental rights, and oppression, and privilege, and misogyny, and how insidious the whole big picture degradation of the female half of humanity is. And how sitting back and simply enjoying the limited freedoms that some of us benefit from, or only complaining about injustice when it jumps up and bites us personally, is just not good enough. (And it’s why the more obviously political feminists get so much more flak than anyone else, because they challenge people to look at the bigger picture and engage with what’s going on. People don’t like it because it’s not so easy to deal with).
The reluctance of younger women to self-label is probably connected to this split, where they want the life-enhancing results of feminist activism, perhaps with some agreement on some of the more “acceptable” theories, but they’re not willing to engage and be active (and face the threat of possible social outcast) in order to secure those benefits. They do know that the deeper politics exists but they shy away from the label that goes with it – kind of like the difference between caring about the environment and getting stuck in and being an environmentalist.
None of these differences however, despite claims otherwise, actually invalidate the concepts or basic ideas of feminism. Nor do they make women who are learning all this less worthy of calling themselves feminist if they want, nor do they mean we can’t discuss, criticise and educate. Women will find themselves in different places on this depending on age, experience, information and circumstance. Some will call themselves feminists some not. At the end of it all, it is attitude and behaviour that counts, not labels anyway.
*this comment was written after only the first few posts were up, so read it in that context.
The reluctance of younger women to self-label is probably connected to this split, where they want the life-enhancing results of feminist activism, perhaps with some agreement on some of the more “acceptable” theories, but they’re not willing to engage and be active (and face the threat of possible social outcast) in order to secure those benefits. They do know that the deeper politics exists but they shy away from the label that goes with it – kind of like the difference between caring about the environment and getting stuck in and being an environmentalist.
That’s very well put, and I agree.
Hugo said:
Early on in the semester, we “get real” about all of the stereotypes of feminism that they may have heard. I ask them to list every imaginable negative image they’re learned from the culture; I write what they say on the chalkboard. I end up with long lists of terms like “angry”, “man-haters”, “hairy”, “humorless”, “ugly” “feminazis”.
My professor in my Intro to Feminist Studies class did the same thing. When the negative list was complete, she said “feminism really isn’t about those things.” I found this to be a total dodge.
It’s true that most feminists don’t quite “hate” men. Hate is a very strong word. Yet many feminists do espouse extremely negative caricatures of men, and advocate sexism against men. See Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry by Nathanson and Young. Even other feminists who are not in the “equity feminist” camp, such as Martha Nussbaum, criticize the attitude some feminists hold towards men (see her critique of Dworkin in Sex and Social Justice), yet we didn’t hear anything about this kind of critique in the class.
Instead of my teacher basically saying “feminist don’t hate men! feminists don’t hate men!”, I would have preferred that she said something like “some feminists sound very negative towards men and have been criticized for it, so we will examine the content of those criticisms so you can decide how much weight they hold.” That way the students will be about to decide which criticisms of feminism are unreasonable and wrong, reasonable but wrong, or reasonable and right.
For some reason, this post reminds me of Sarah Bunting’s “Yes, You Are”: If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml
Hi, Laura -
There’s a good reason it sounds like that post. In the final updated area, the italicized portion is a direct quote. (The attribution is above.) :)
Instead of my teacher basically saying “feminist don’t hate men! feminists don’t hate men!”, I would have preferred that she said something like “some feminists sound very negative towards men and have been criticized for it, so we will examine the content of those criticisms so you can decide how much weight they hold.” That way the students will be about to decide which criticisms of feminism are unreasonable and wrong, reasonable but wrong, or reasonable and right.
Very good point, Aegis.
Perplexed, I hear that you are frustrated. But using my thread to vent your spleen at my feminist colleagues will get you banned. PLEASE stay on topic. And back-handed compliments about how I’m not like other feminists just uses me to lash out at them — and I’m not interested in providing a forum for that.
No problem Hugo - I will leave these boards of my own accord after this post. Ban my IP to make sure if you like. Your blog entry is partly about your lecture where you dispell the negative stereotypes of feminists. I was saying I have first-hand experience of these negative stereotypes of feminists and I am saying they are not myths, in fact these stereotypes are fairly accurate - it’s extremely rare I ever see from feminist blogs/messageboards a welcoming atmosphere of alternate views that opens up discussion - they’re always shouted down at the first opportunity, no matter how polite I or other posters are, or how much sources I/they provide to back up my/their points. Are you saying online feminists aren’t representative of womens studies students? If they are, then I’m addressing your post directly and saying you’re wrong about these negative stereotypes being myths. Thread drift? As Mr Bad says, people will weigh up your words with their own experiences anyway. And by the way, my experience involves often merely being a lurker to many boards where a poor soul has been insulted and ‘piled-on’ by feminists for dare questioning their theories. I must have visited over 50 major feminist sites in the last 6 years or so.
I think your constant micro-management of threads is getting very tiring. I do like the more tolerant atmosphere of your blog, but I don’t want to be constantly badgered about ‘thread drift’ when I’m actually answering directly to the points you make in your post. Whether it’s being shouted down for having an opposing view (other messageboards), or being constantly accused of ‘thread drift’(your blog), both tactics promote a boring echo-chamber of a site where people are afraid to incur the wrath of the editor or the ‘herd insults’.
Amanda wrote: “If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.”
However, as therealUK so succinctly demonstrated, feminism is most definitely not about equality of the sexes, it’s about women and women only (so shut up and stop being such trolls you big, mean men). As s/he so clearly demonstrates, there’s no room or tolerance in feminism for discussions about men, except in the context of shaming, dismissing legitimate topics, and generally leaving men’s issues out of the discussion except when it’s time for them to apologize and grovel for simply having the bad luck to be born male.
In any honest discussion about “equality of the sexes,” men and their perspective must be included; after all, men are slightly less than half of the stakeholders in these discussions. But hey, we all know that “equality of the sexes” is not the real issue - power, control and achieving it is what contemporary feminism is all about, thus, reasonable people are wary of being associated with such a group and so most choose to avoid it. And well they should.
I don’t think it’s accurate here to accuse Mr. Bad and Perplexed of thread drift. You asked “why do some women hesitate to call themselves feminists” and these guys said, “maybe because they see a lot of feminists being closed-minded and mean.” That is a legitimate argument. I get the same thing from my non-Christian friends: “Christianity sounds good in theory, but most of the actual Christians I see are intolerant and smug, or at least no better than anyone else.” That is a failing on our part as Christians, not something to be swept under the rug, and admitting it humbly can be the only way to make these people take a second look.
For my part, I avoid the label “feminist” because (1) it would make people assume I have more liberal sexual views than I do, and (2) gender isn’t the primary lens through which I see social problems. I share the views on women’s equality from the “yes you are” essay, but I don’t feel the need to squeeze myself into the feminist definition. Why does every right-thinking person have to fall within a single category? As CS Lewis said, I might call a devout Buddhist a saint, but I wouldn’t call him a “true Christian” because “Christian” means someone who holds certain theological beliefs; once we make it a generic word for “really good person,” it becomes far less useful as a descriptive term.
Sorry, Perplexed and Jendi, I’ve been used this way too many times. Here’s what happens: I post about an issue related to feminism. MRAs come on and begin to bash other feminist sites, either in general or specifically. They then offer lukewarm praise to me for allowing an “open conversation”, which in practice means permitting them to bash my friends on my blog. Look, I’ve defended Glenn Sacks here time and again, at no small cost. I have tried to stake out a moderate position.
The reason young women aren’t identifying as feminists has damn all to do with the blogosphere. My students don’t read feminist blogs. Dragging feminist blogs into the discussion is, IMHO, thread drift.
Jendi, as someone who calls himself a feminist and a Christian, I am eager to counteract both stereotypes. My private sexual ethics are quite conservative — and I am a left-wing evangelical. Calling myself a feminist doesn’t mean I see everything through the prism of gender, it means I am committed to radical equality between men and women, something I believe to be entirely congruent with Scripture. Calling myself a Christian doesn’t mean I share Pat Robertson’s views, either. Only by embracing a label can I counter unjust stereotypes.
I didn’t read feminist blogs either in college, because there was no such thing! But the flaws that Perplexed, etc. see in these blogs sound similar to the intolerance and reverse sexism of many of the self-styled feminists I encountered in academia. That is why it seemed relevant to me.
Why is it important to you, Hugo, that everyone who believes in gender equality call themselves a “feminist”? I admire your willingness to explode stereotypes, but is it incumbent upon everyone to expand the definition of every label that might apply to them? For me, there are enough points of difference, as well as commonality, that it just doesn’t feel like a good fit, and I don’t want to spend my life saying “I’m a feminist BUT…” which does more harm to the image of feminism, IMHO, than simply not using the word.
Jendi, if it doesn’t feel like a good fit because you genuinely reject the essential tenets of feminism, then don’t use the term — that’s fine. My problem is with those who say “I like what feminism has to say about most issues, but I’m not comfortable calling myself a feminist because of popular misconceptions about what a feminist is.”
Maybe the problem is that no one knows what the “essential tenets” are. I could probably sign on to Hugo’s minimalist definition, but “popular misconception” is relevant in that I’m not really sure what other people will assume when I say “feminist”. For instance, many will probably assume “pro-choice”. Others will wrongly attribute certain views to me about career versus motherhood, or the oppressiveness of traditional gender roles within marriage. For these people, such views are also essential tenets of feminism, and there is no Pope of feminism to say what the one true creed is. That’s why I prefer to articulate my positions issue by issue, rather than choose a label.
Jendi, I hear you. But trying be a progressive evangelical Christian in liberal Los Angeles. When I say I’m an evangelical, I have to deal with people’s misconceptions all the time. “All evangelicals are Republicans.” “All evangelicals are anti-gay marriage.” “All evangelicals support the Iraq war.” I fight those stereotypes every day, and I fight them most effectively by embracing rather than rejecting the evangelical label.
There is no pope of evangelicalism either (Pace, Billy Graham). It’s as widely debated a term as feminism, if you think about it! (Jendi, I don’t know if you identify as an evangelical or not, of course!)
Jendi, would you have a problem with saying “I’m a Christian but that doesn’t mean I think XYZ?” People stereotype others all the time. Sometimes you have to redefine things for them (or yourself) in order to really communicate, and often that redefinition helps both sides. What makes it problematic to do that with feminism?
But unless you actually go back and show that x, y, and z are not the negative attributes that stereotypes make them out to be, you are only altering the scare tactic from “Don’t be a feminists because feminists are x, y, z” to “Feminists don’t have to be x, y, z” - which still does a disservice to the women who in society fall into those catagories.
this is way late, but i just want to chime in and say that i think elizabeth makes a good, thought-provoking point here.
that is all.
Vacula said: “Jendi, would you have a problem with saying “I’m a Christian but that doesn’t mean I think XYZ?”
I won’t speak for Jendi, but what I got from her post is that rather than qualifying her identity she finds it easier to skip the group identity - and the whole milieu of associated issues that go with it, what you call “XYZ,” and cut right to the chase by dealing with XYZ individually. And this makes sense to me.
I probably hold more feminist beliefs than not (e.g., I’m pro-choice, pro-ERA, pro-equal opportunity, consider women “fully human” [which BTW suggesting that most non-feminists don’t is frankly insane], etc.) but it’s the reverse sexism, advocacy of discrimination against men, and general misandry that are deal-breakers for me vis-a-vis identifying as a feminist. All it takes is a few severe negatives to make the general good aspects of a given ideology unaccepatble to most people.
Jendi makes some very good points, including Maybe the problem is that no one knows what the “essential tenets” are.
Yet Hugo, rather than take Jendi’s points on face value, you attempt to somewhat defend your current approach. If you want a variety of answers and a way forward, surly this is accomplished by asking supplementary questions such as, ‘and what leads you to that position’, ‘what would take you from where you are to actually using the term ‘feminist’? Jendi and others do give clues to the first and part answers the second. These answers would go some way to understanding why a student would not use the label or indeed use the label with an added ‘but’.
Comment on…
If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
I agree with the sentiment expressed. My starting position is one of equality from the outset rather than ‘working towards’ and along with others believe social issues are best addressed in the round.
west
I’m not certain that “Christian” and “feminist” are good analogues–most people know that there are significant differences in belief and practice within the Christian world, and most people (IMO) don’t know that there are significant differences within feminism. It seems to me that identifying as “feminist” is more like identifying as “Baptist” or “evangelical”–many people think of those identities as much more unified than they are, and have a badly distorted picture of what they mean. And so I’m like Jendi–I find it easier to explain “I’m a Christian” and what I believe on particular issues as it becomes relevant, than to say “I’m a Baptist” and have everyone assume that I agree with Jerry Falwell.
Agreed, Sam. I think “evangelical” and “feminist”, however, are good analogues. People have widely varying ideas about what they mean, and they are politically and culturally loaded terms.
I have written about this on my blog, but I think feminism is very easy to distill and there are some essential tenets:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/01/feminism_is_not.html
One thing all feminists have in common is that “ensuring women’s freedom, dignity, and equality of opportunity in all spheres of life is a crucial priority.” Feminists tend to reason from this premise. We may come to differing conclusions on various issues but we share the same basic orientation.
Some have claimed that my definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I disagree. A lot of people fall down on the “crucial” part and are willing all too easily to sell women out for ideas and causes they deem more important.
The term “feminist,” is like the term “environmentalist.” It doesn’t convey what the person believes on every single issue but it does convey something about the person’s basic values, starting point, and orientation.
HF, I think your definition of feminism works. Would you grant that the definition of masculism would thus be “ensuring men’s freedom, dignity, and equality of opportunity in all spheres of life is a crucial priority”? Would you also agree that there is no real conflict between the two, in that both seek only equality, and not an advantage? Then we could add “egalitarianism” as “ensuring every human’s freedom, dignity, and equality of opportunity in all spheres of life is a crucial priority.”
My only beef with the term “masculism” is that it is disturbingly close to “masculinism” which Webster’s defines as “belief in the superiority of the male sex.”
But I’ve got no problem with the concept of “ensuring men’s freedom, dignity, and equality of opportunity in all spheres of life is a crucial priority” or having a word describe it, nor do I have a beef with your concept of egalitarianism. Indeed, I have always said that I am BOTH a feminist AND a gender egalitarian.
However, I think it is utterly legitimate to have a movement and a word that stresses women’s rights in particular. The fact that there is a women’s movement need not come at the cost of men’s rights to equality and dignity, as so many people in our society seem to assume. At the risk of linking to myself too much, I have written here about the need for a movement or a space or a word that focuses on women’s rights and interests:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/06/why_feminist_as.html
Jendi:
Why is it important to you, Hugo, that everyone who believes in gender equality call themselves a “feminist”?
I can’t speak for Hugo; for me, the issue is a nuanced one.
I don’t have a big problem with people forgoing labels; I do this myself quite often. I will refer to myself as a feminist, or as a pro-feminist if other are not comfortable with me applying the former term to myself.
I think the distinction is between not saying one is a feminist, and saying one is not a feminist. I have no problem with people not calling themselves feminists, but holding feminist ideas; om fact, I believe “feminist” is a more appropriate label for ideas than people. I get annoyed when people try to define others out of feminism by saying that a particular opinion is a requirement - the goal is to fight patriarchy, not be a Sorting Hat.
However, a direct disavowal of the label is something different - it’s using the label to apply to others, and implies disagreement with feminist positions, with the potential exception of those explicitly acknowledged. A lot of the time, that implicit disagreement is with ideas that aren’t particularly feminist, but are just stereotypes - hence articles like “Yes, You Are” that try to shift the focus back to more “core” ideas.
THF:
My only beef with the term “masculism” is that it is disturbingly close to “masculinism” which Webster’s defines as “belief in the superiority of the male sex.”
I don’t think that’s fair; general dictionaries are horrible at defining complicated philosophical concepts. I’m sure someone can drag up a dictionary that has a definition of feminism as belief in female superiority; that doesn’t make it so. If people are going to call themselves masculists, judge them for what they say and do, not what a third party claims they say and do. If a lot of the people calling themselves “masculists” are arguing for male superiority, point this out; if not, the problem isn’t with the masculists themselves but with the erroneous definition.
I would agree with that jfpbookworm. The people calling themselves masculists or masculinist define what masculism is. I assume that Webster’s had some basis for the definition but whatever — if people want to use masculist or masculinist, it is a-okay by me.
SamChevre’s last comment is a good summary of where I stand. Thanks, Sam.
FWIW, I don’t consider myself an evangelical. I used to call myself Episcopalian, but even that denominational label is starting to feel confining. Where can a pro-gay orthodox Trinitarian feel at home nowadays?
I’m willing to put up with the stereotypes and misunderstandings that come from calling myself a Christian, because right now, my beliefs about Christ have much more impact on my life than gender issues do, so the fight seems worthwhile to me. We all have to choose our battles. Similarly, I’m not *against* environmentalism but don’t call myself an “environmentalist” because I haven’t really earned the label - I don’t make environmental activism a big part of my life. (Probably I should, but that is another story.)
Bottom line - I don’t like much of what “feminist” has come to stand for in popular or academic discourse, and it’s not important enough to me to fight for redefining it.
Any social movement defines itself by what it actually does in the world. Not what it purports to do.
But is feminism a social movement? The suffragist movement, the women’s rights movement of the 60s and 70s, the reproductive rights movement today were/are all social movements. But I think of feminism as more of a value system or basic political orientation than an actual movement. It may feed into or create a movement but it is not in itself a movement.