Conservative Feminism is an oxymoron straight out of Orwellian Newspeak!
3
Well of course it's a myth. The interests of women have been totally disregarded all over the world and, most hypocritically of all, in the US. Conservatives want to keep the power structure and societal arrangement as they have been. So they are not acting in the interests of women.
Feminists are opposed to the status quo. The societal arrangements that feminism wants to see are based on equal rights, freedom and opportunity for each individual and would be for the benefit of anyone not a healthy, white, wealthy.heterosexual male
15
"The good news is that real feminism is doing better than ever. Millions of women marched across the country in response to Mr. Trump’s election".
So only women are real feminist? The hundreds of thousands men who joined the march were fake feminist?
10
"Feminism isn’t about blind support for any woman who rises to power."
And yet self-proclaimed feminists supported Hillary when she made accusations of "bimbo eruptions." What gives?
23
"You cannot be a feminist and support an immigration policy of taking children away from undocumented immigrant mothers."
Meanwhile, a poorly educated black woman can no longer get work as a domestic because illegals have taken her job at a lower salary. What about the black woman's children, Jessica? You're pontificating from your while privilege pulpit.
22
What does Ms Valenti have to say about a woman who poorly treats her husbands victims?
16
Haspel is a torturer. I don't believe that feminism includes torturing people. She has only succeeded because she believes in and advocates what the men around her believe and advocate. She is not a feminist; at best, she is a criminal!
15
I would not support a woman who had the same values of a man I would not support.
Of course, we all think we have the perfect values.
Less than me is not enough.
More than me is too much.
4
When it comes to candidates for political office, be they elected or appointed, it should be their brains which are the decisive factor, not their genitalia. I certainly have no objection to qualified women in office; the first candidate I worked for was a female back in the late 1960's and I have supported, campaigned for, and voted for many more since then.
What I have never done, and never will do, is to allow the fact that a person sits or stands to urinate make the slightest bit of difference in my selection of that person. That should be the goal of feminists, and everyone else as well; making gender irrelevant in the selection of an individual for any job.
20
Seems the truth sometimes emerges.
Feminists are against equal treatment and pro-women. That’s mysandry and just as wrong as misogyny.
Thanks for the honesty - now please take your corrupt, anti-egalitarian theories with you as you leave the stage.
13
Thank you Ms. Valenti for trying to define what feminism is. As you write, it most does not mean "anything a woman does," although people have indeed become confused and think this is what it means. Yes, it's necessary to say what feminism is not. Anyone, whatever their sex, who wants to limit or stop women from determining the courses of their lives, who treats women unequally, is not a feminist.
15
The essence of this article is found in the thought that just because women have benefited from the gains feminists have made doesn't necessarily make them a feminist. We see this in the fact that many women have been able to rise to heights never before possible because feminists have raised the consciousness of a nation regarding the glass ceilings and restraints that have held women back. However, in history we know that many women opposed a woman's right to vote and yet when voting was possible they voted. Being the beneficiary of something someone else has fought for doesn't necessarily make you a philosophical fellow traveler with those who fight the fight. It's an important distinction that is made very well by Jessica Valenti. Powerful women who try and stifle the progress of women as a whole are not feminists even if they got to their high position because feminists broke down the walls and made their rise possible.
13
Feminism, true feminism, does not dictate ideology. I know this as I was there at its inception in the 60s. It's very simple: women should be treated equally under the law, equally in the work place, and equally in American culture, including marriage, education, finances, and entertainment. And above all, women should be 'allowed' to own their own bodies, to not allow their bodies to be commodified, used, abused, or exploited. In other words, human rights. It all seemed like pretty basic stuff 50+ years ago.
23
I am a strong feminist who believes that abortion should be limited post-viability. So I am kicked out of the club?
You know what, Jessica? It's not your club to kick anyone out of. "Feminism" does not belong only to people who hold the exact same views that you do about policy issues such as abortion and prostitution and transgender entrance into women-only spaces. You are doing to other women what men have done to us from time immemorial--"if you are not like me, I'm excluding you."
That's not only wrong, I'd say it's anti-feminist. Why? Feminism is opposed to totalitarianism, period. Please mature in your feminism and realize feminists are fully capable of disagreeing on policy issues, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
28
So why do you insist that the law enforce your exact same views on us all? Do you not you understand yourself?
14
Bravo, Good Reason! And I’m a pro-choice radical feminist!
3
Conservatism as defined by William Buckley is standing athwart the bow of the ship of history and yelling Stop! So how exactly is such a philosophy compatible with women's or minorities' rights?
7
Why not just summarize this column by saying that only liberals can be feminists. An independent accomplished woman with conservative values could better be described as someone to respect.
16
To say that only liberals can be feminists makes sense only if you believe that conservatives can't be feminists.
I would define a feminist as someone who broadly supports women's rights (allowing for some disagreement on specific issues).
I don't assume that a conservative by definition can't broadly support women's rights. But I read Ms. Valenti as saying that she sees little sign that many of today's conservatives actually do.
16
Is Feminism now a religion, i.e., with claims of orthodoxy and heresy? This is exactly the dysfunction of our current social and political milieu. One must adhere to the belief system on all points or one is an outcast. Jessica Valenti and her followers need to break out of the tunnel.
24
Are you asking whether feminism is like the right to life movement or the Republican Party?
3
I agree with entire article, BUT believe we should start using term, humanist, more often. Why? Because greatest influence on EACH of us is how we were raised. That broadens in teen years to include lots of societal influences. It doesn't mean we can't change, but don't we all know that it is much easier to form our opinions versus change them, especially if we deem we've given any topic lots of thought? Lots of clichés apply such as "experience is the best teacher." Also, as JKRowling said in her 2008 Harvard commencement speech when she referenced serious issues- "They can refuse to know."
Also, consider when media reported about a seemingly rabid anti abortionist who requested his mistress to have an abortion. Consider when a video went viral last June re a FL female judge angrily ordering a petrified mom to a few days jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify in front of her soon-to-be ex about his abuse. The judge was reprimanded, though lightly. Wasn't it her job to know that such women have high rate of being stalked, abused more, or murdered by an angry ex? Isn't it also indicative of her anti female bias?
Now consider that most known female groups including #MeToo, other assorted organizations, mainstream media, & gov't officials keep "refusing to know" about July 24,'17 bill (already law in Europe) H.Con.Res.72 re safety 1st of children of divorce if abuse alleged, despite data - 1M+ have been court-ordered to abusive custody/visits over 2 decades!
2
Of course conservatives/Republicans are taking this approach because it worked so well to put Justice Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS. Not only did this country place a self-hating black man on the highest court of the land, but an anti-feminist as well. Now we have a woman in charge of the CIA who was/is ambitious enough to be party to torturing the other.
The skill with which the wealthy conservatives are co-opting and twisting the progressive message is a pointed lesson in how the power of money is being used to distort reality and remake this country. What is also stunning is how easy it is for these folks to find folks that will sell out and deny what these folks have been doing to their brothers and sisters for centuries.
8
Following Sarah Huckabee Sanders' own logic (if such a thing is possible), she herself is either a hypocrite for supporting the civil rights movement but twice voting against Barack Obama or she does not support the civil rights movement.
4
My advice is to not waste your time trying analyze Sarah Huckabee's logic.
She has almost the same lack of values and morals as her boss, Trump.
8
When some feminists exclude others based on identity politics and political correctness, the word is diminished.
When women like Kim Kardashian and Ivanka Trump claim affiliation, it becomes a joke.
13
It seems the implication of Valenti's version of "feminism" is that feminists should stop saying they advocate for all women, since she lays out beliefs, actions and ambitions that women have taken that run counter to her use of the term. Valenti's version isn't too different from how it's commonly understood. Most women don't consider themselves to be feminists - it's 22-35% depending on the poll. Feminists believe it's higher: the poll below is "Among those who identified themselves as either feminists or strong feminists, though, 43 percent said they thought most women are feminists."
Yet the ideal of social, political, and economic equality regardless of gender is embraced by 80% of US adults - it hardly varies from poll-to-poll. The broad majority doesn't use "feminism" to mean equal rights regardless of gender - they just believe in gender equality.
One poll:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html
4
As far as I understand it, "feminism" is simply the belief that women should enjoy equal liberties and options as men.
10
If instead of ordering the separation of small children from their mothers, the Trump administration had ordered that these children be branded with hot irons, I daresay that the outcry would be deafening from those on all sides of the immigration issue, as well as across the divide that separates social conservatives from liberals. (Personally, I am not certain which would actually be more painful and damaging to a child, the physical torture or the psychological).
That said, I wish that Ms. Valenti had spelled out the argument for her claim that you cannot be a feminist and support a policy of taking children from undocumented immigrant mothers. Opposition to torturing children does not seem to me especially 'feminist.'
2
There is nothing inconsistent about capitalist feminism, which celebrates those women like Suzanne Scott who succeed in getting to positions of power by profiting from the suffering of others. Over the centuries, there have been powerful women who have been as unscrupulous in getting to the top as any man. Power is genderless, race-less, neuter. A woman can wield it as skillfully as a man, but not necessarily to good ends.
Women should be judged by the same standards as men in this regard. If their motives are self-serving, if they lack empathy for those who are less fortunate than they, if their ambition is bought with the blood and sweat of others without giving anything in return - then they are tyrants. There's nothing else to be said.
7
Once again the right wing has done what it does so well - redefined the meaning of a word. They totally destroyed the meaning of the term liberal and now have done the same with feminist. I support equality of opportunity for all women and men. I support social and economic justice for all. I support a clean and safe environment for everyone. I support a society that provides a mechanism by which everyone has access to decent, affordable shelter, food, and health care. I support high quality public education for all. I support a system of government which values all citizens equally and acts in ways that preserve our resources for future generations. I support a society which reveres and respects the rule of law and where the law applies to every citizen equally. I admire and support the women and men who share my values. I vote for female and male candidates who share my values -- labels are easily manipulated and thus are meaningless.
4
"Conservation" requires that something exist beforehand to be conserved. Feminism provides yet another distinction between conservatism as it is understood by educated people, and the reactionary politics that dominates the US today, which strives to return women to barefoot lives of pregnancy.
5
This is a fine and important editorial, but I take issue with one assumption of the author's: the notion that being anti-abortion is necessarily an anti-feminist position. I'm pro-choice myself, but I'm pretty sure there's a group called Feminists for Life, and I don't think their stance is hypocritical. Surely one can argue that protecting the life of the unborn is a feminist idea, given women's intimate connection with the basic processes of reproduction. That anti-abortion group should have been allowed to join the Women's March. Feminists should be debating the complex issue of abortion among themselves, not excluding women who disagree with them.
14
Completely agree! And I’m a pro-choice feminist as well! The Women’s March is political advocacy, not a feminist movement!
7
Who has any right to be "anti-abortion" for anyone else?
7
As an old guy I have been a supporter of women’s equality since my college days in the 60’s.
Back then there was an assumption that as women obtained
More positions of power it would result in a kinder gentler society. I fully believed that to be true.
In retrospect, I think that assumption was based largely on the limited roles most women had had to play. The nurturing mother.
The supportive spouse.
As women have obtained more power we find, like men, they are simply human. Equality makes for a better society as it is just.
The kinder and gentler women and men still have to work together to make a kinder and gentler society.
16
I'm a liberal (not a radical) who has written letters of recommendation for several dozen young women in decades of college teaching. Yet the left alienates people like me (and helps me understand how so many college educated people could have voted for Trump) when it speaks of empowering women without distinguishing between decisions based on raw political preferences and those governed by law.
To illustrate, we are free to vote for any candidate for public office we want, for any reason we want, including the candidate's gender, when we go into the voting booth. This is a political decision. Likewise, when the President nominates people to the federal courts, he can do so largely based on gender if he wants. This too is a political decision (as is the Senate's decision whether to confirm that nominee).
By contrast, decisions about whom to hire, e.g., at public universities like the one where I teach, are governed by law, specifically the civil rights laws which expressly command nondiscrimination against "any person" based on gender. Yet many "feminists" simply ignore this distinction, demanding that we must do whatever we can to empower women by any means necessary, including gender discrimination in hiring behind closed doors. In this, they conveniently toss aside not just the rule of law (on which they have often depended) but also the golden rule. They can thus not be surprised that they alienate people like me and inspire others to vote for someone like Trump.
14
The feminist movement began during the era of the black equality movements and the Vietnam anti-war movements. Feminism had enormous promise for transforming America. Women were supposed to be the wise, gentle, communitarian peace loving gender.
Next thing we knew, women were in the Army, fighting for the same right to kill foreigners on behalf of he American empire, including women and children, that men had. Now women boxers compete to see who's best at beating each other's brains out. (While others compete for the privilege of torturing our "enemies.")
Women need to decide — do they just want to right to become as violent and disgusting as they say men are? Or, do they stand for something different, new, and potentially transformative?
4
People don't all have to think the same, act the same, or speak with the same voice. One does not have to support their world view in order to acknowledge that they are groundbreaking.
As a Black, working-class woman, I've long been wary of feminism. I was an enthusiastic supporter in my youth, but as a working class woman who spent many years as a secretary, I felt that feminists looked down on people like me and had little to offer but contempt.
Things are different now, but I felt the same level of contempt for those who don't tow the line in this op-ed.
16
"Conservative Feminism" is a contradiction in terms. Feminism implies an evolving dynamic, a reality that must keep up with an ever-changing society. It means progression in our equality rather that "conserving" what has not and will not work for us women. Just as with its embracement of neo-Christianity, our right-leaning counterparts are artists of the "spin." As this article points out, "breaking a glass ceiling" is meaningless if the woman involved is not true to the nature of our very being as well as to a universal moral code. It is not okay for anyone to even in the slightest endorse torture. It is not okay to exaggerate and manipulate the truth, the realities of our present social and political paradigms, via a public forum for the sake of maintaining corruption, greed, and undeserved power. Feminism means humanism. It means our individual right to choose what is best for our minds and bodies. It means to live by a timeless universal code of compassion, honesty, justice, and respect for all humanity, no matter the color of skin, ethnicity, religion, or sexual identity.
5
'Conservative feminist' is an oxymoron.
6
No ideology has ever had all the answers, nor has any ideology ever been without lots of flaws. However, Conservatism has some very unique flaws:
1) Conservatives want to push the world backward in time, according to physicists an impossibility;
2) Conservatives want to return to an idyllic world of the past...that never existed. So that even if time travel to the past is possible, conservatives will never be able to return to their non-existent Shangra-La.
American conservatism is particularly odious on many other levels as well. Take the Tea Party, e.g., which wants to return to 1773, when white terrorists dressed as Native Americans destroyed the property of others because they didn't want to pay their taxes. Other attributes of the Tea Party era were:
1) A handful of wealthy white men controlled everything;
2) White women were the de facto property of their husbands.
3) Black people were the actual property of white people, and the mulatto children of white married Christian slave owners were not their father's children but his property.
3) Red people could be shot on sight and their lands stolen from them with recompense.
4) The average life expectancy of all people was about 30 years as scientists, today despised and reviled by conservatives today, had not discovered the antibiotics or invented the vaccines that has extended average life expectancy to 80 years.
I am glad I will be dead within ~20 years. The grave is a kinder place than is conservative America.
6
Jay David,
Well said.
I’ll add, I’m glad I never had children. I no longer recognize this country. Men and women died fighting for equality. Now conservatives are throwing us all under the bus so they can realize a great moral Christian State that is neither moral nor Christian.
While they rant and rave about Starbucks’ holiday cups it is Christian Fundamentalists themselves who have removed Christ from Christianity.
When they ridiculed Michelle Obama’s sleeveless dresses as disrespectful to her role of First Lady, yet embrace Melania Trump’s nude photos as art their hypocrisy is on full display.
When they claim it’s immoral for a woman to have an abortion then deny that same woman social services to help support the child their hypocrisy is on full display.
When Pat Robertson told a woman she owes her husband sex because he did the dishes he devalued both her and her husband. Only the basest of men would expect this arrangement.
Whether one believes in the Bible or not, you’ll never find a single sentence where Jesus indorses any particular Christian sect or disparages women.
Any woman who aids and abets this agenda betrays her fellow women.
5
Does feminism mean the freedom to act like a man? Or does feminism mean the obligation to act better than a man? A survey of women CEOs, heads of state, military generals, CIA officers, etc. implies the answer is the former.
5
Can you be a feminist who supports mothers putting their families at risk by illegally smuggling their own children into a foreign country?
9
This column is nothing more than an attempt to ensure that women all toe the line. Embarrassing.
13
These women on the right who claim feminists disregard them clearly belong to the Aunt Lydia class of women as portrayed in Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale". They seek power so that they may weild it against other women and maintain the status quo. They like the thought of forcing women to follow their morality codes.
For those dear readers who don't know of her, Margaret Fuller's 1843 essay "The Great Lawsuit" lays out exactly this conflict between progressive women and regressive Aunt Lydias. Fuller posits that conformist women are the greatest enemy of feminist progress, vis-a-vis social peer pressure to conform to the "good woman" model. Clearly, these Republican women with power are conformist women who wish to impose their control on "nasty women" who destabilize their pathways (male behavior) to power. The Aunt Lydias of the world want the power to take away autonomy from strong progressive women. They are the mean girls we've known and despised all our lives. They are our worst enemies.
5
Excellent eye opening article!
1
Thanks for this column. I for one am sick of the "women will make it all better" comments often posted in the NYT.
2
At some point we may come to recognize that on this little planet, 3/10,000 the volume of Jupiter, there is only one race in our species, the Human race, and there is only one tribe. Our tribe was separated and differentiated in the out-of-Africa diaspora, and is now being rejoined by fast transportation and communication and cultural exchange.
We need to recognize as Cynthia, PhD points out, that we are not ideological clones. We each have many kinds of identity - gender, 'race', family, culture, education, work and life experiences. Being a woman does not make you a feminist any more than being a man automatically makes me a male chauvinist pig. Insofar as I ever was one, I am working to wipe out the traces. Likewise, being a woman who wants equal treatment for women citizens in the USA does not mean she automatically wants equal treatment for women, citizens of Mexico or Honduras, who are in the USA without a visa. She may want preferred treatment for black women, or to keep white privilege. She may want women to choose their reproduction or to prevent women from making 'wrong choices'.
Every woman I know is a complex person, in particular, the feminists.
5
great op-ed. Well said, Jessica!
1
Feminism and equal opportunity have to include the possibility that women get to disagree with one another, as do men, as do people of color.
13
It should come as no surprise that the women who are promoted in the workplace are too often those who "go along to get along" with powerful men. That usually includes embracing sexist attitudes and policies that shore up male authority and power. These women are singled out for praise and promotion, and then get to work holding other women down.
6
As I understand it, the equality that feminism seeks means that men and women should be judged by the same standards. If something (such as torture) is wrong if a man does it, it is also wrong if a woman does it. However, we also need to recognize that life is complicated. For example, in Taiwan, enough female fetuses are aborted to affect the birth ratio. This results from a continuing preference for sons to continue the family line, a preference enforced by mothers-in-law. What a feminist stance should be in a situation like this is complicated, and it is really up to women to resolve it, because they have the real power in this instance. Finally, human beings are complicated, and espousing liberal ideas in the abstract is by itself no guarantee that one will follow those ideas in dealing with other women in real life. For that, self awareness is required.
7
Perhaps being a feminist is like being a poet. Only others can call you that. To yourself, you are simply a writer of verse.
And let’s remember that if feminism has any value as an “ism”, then men’s opinions on feminists and feminism are just as valid as women’s.
4
Supporting women who are corrupt, who are complicit in the oppression of women, in stripping women of their rights, and in torture, is not feminism.
Anyone who thinks it is, doesn't know the meaning of the word.
11
cir·cu·lar fir·ing squad
noun US
used in reference to a situation in which a group of people are engaged in self-destructive internal conflicts and mutual recriminations
5
Anyone who judges an individual's qualifications on the basis of his or her genitalia is not a feminist but a sexist and an idiot to boot. Those who pretend to make judgments on that basis to advance a political agenda or as a cover for misogyny are contemptible hypocrites.
10
So a feminist is NOT a woman who overcomes sexism to achieve a position of power and prominence.
It IS a person who agrees with your political views.
Got it!
19
Well said.
I have encountered these "phony feminists" my entire Baby Boomer life. They want the benefits without the work and sacrifice and the courage to speak out to uplift their own gender. In fact many deliberately undermine other women--whether friends, relatives, or colleagues.
Selfish traitors.
7
I disagree with Ms. Valenti argument. I know many conservative women who support feminist causes, such as breaking the so-called glass ceiling, equal pay, and regrettably, the abhorrent right to an abortion. But on the other hand, they support conservative causes such as protection of second amendment rights, limited government, the abolition of the administrative state, lower taxes, curbing unrestricted immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, especially those who commit crimes, enforcing the law, and maintaining order.
Feminism is opposed to of all of the issues listed above because at its heart is radical liberalism, which is built on the premise of disrupting the natural order of society and overthrowing tradition. Replace the ethic of personal responsibility with that of “doing your own thing.” If it feels good, do it! The origins of feminism can be traced back to medieval times but took a cohesive shape during the free love movement of the 18th century, utopian-socialism of the 19th century, anarchists of the early 20th century, and the counter-culture of the mid-20th century, reaching full maturity under the Clintonism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
The rise of Gina Haspel to Director the CIA is an achievement that must and should be celebrated by all women. If women are to ultimate succeed, emasculating and replacing men along the way, they must put aside petty political ideologies and stand together in gender solidarity. Thank you.
10
Southern Boy,
I agree with some things you’ve said and disagree with others. Instead of going point by point I’ll say this.
Feminism means equality for all, men and women. My husband is a feminist as am I. Feminism means women must have full and equal rights by law. This includes reproductive rights such as birth control and abortion but it is so much larger than that.
Sometimes people confuse feminism with misandry which is the hatred of men. It’s opposite is misogyny the hatred of women.
As a woman I don’t despise Gina Haspel because she is a woman. I believe torture is morally wrong, she engaged in it and I find her sudden conversion to decrying it to be politically expedient. Time will time whether I right or wrong.
3
@BMUSNSOIL,
Fair enough. Thank you.
If feminists must align themselves with the left, then they're embracing platforms that -- at best -- are indifferent to female agency and -- at worst -- undermine it entirely. Linda Sarsour leading the women's march is a good example. Is there Sharia feminism?
14
So, now we have gate-keepers for feminism, some who pass judgement on the thoughts and actions of others. Who died and made them Pope? Since when do some, who are not qualified in any sense other than they are authors of hysterical screeching blatherfests, have the right to pass judgement on others? Answer: They do not. I am fighting this in Unitarianism, in which UUs are not considered "correct" unless they are self-hating white liberals. It's ridiculous.
10
Let's deconflate things...It isn't the ambiguous and abstract feminism that grates - it’s the obnoxious one-note of mob progressivism...
First - am all for the rights to...
> Choose - especially based on insight as to the prospective baby's well-being, and well beyond what's settled law today...
> Have a workplace environment that - to the point that it's practically and physically possible - lets folks start and raise families without it being held against either of them...
A call center employee has a phone and a couple of screens and can be five thousand miles away...Why does a trader (or junior reporter) have to be on an open floor down below - except for overlings to have a sense they're in a lead role in a Glengarry Glen Ross revival...
In shark-tank or toxic workplace environments - dissing pregnant women or someone tending to a sick child is categorically just one more slur either gender can toss around while clawing their way to the top...
And - there's a sort of cliquish and exclusionary behavior that women are demonstrably more facile at...
I and you get to sleep comfortably tonight - not because Gina Haspel isn't going to waterboard anyone somewhere in the world where they're awake while we're asleep...
It's because - if numbers are any guide - she's going to sign off on a drone kill before the first day of summer for someone who'd kill us first if they only had a pressure cooker and bus fare to their name...
3
Conservatism should not be about blind support for the liar Trump.
Evangelicals bet the farm on their "mulligans." No more respect for religion. Time to tax them all.
9
"Feminism isn’t about blind support for any woman who rises to power. "
No, it is about supporting a liberal Democratic agenda and pretending that women who do not are in false consciousness. Which means that it is one big ball of hypocrisy, just as conservative blacks are "Uncle Toms" and conservative Hispanics "traitors" to Latinos.
It's time we exposed this duplicity for what it's worth (not very much).
15
Here is another thing feminism, which belongs to who exactly?, is not about.
White women.
Who voted for pig Trump over whatever you want to call Hillary.
On planet earth that is what happened.
But go on lecturing about what is and isn’t feminism and who and who is not a feminist as if women preferred Hillary over the pig. It’s a living. Intellectual gibberish sure but aren’t most hustles?
1
If women and blacks turn out to be too blind or stupid to vote en masse for Democrats in the 2018 elections then the whole kit-and-caboodle of us -- women and blacks included -- are surely lost.
2
If you keep calling anyone who disagrees with you “stupid”, Trump will surely win in 2020.
3
Collaborators have always been among us. We all know women who are willing to sell out the rights of other women, in order to advance themselves personally. Phyllis Schlafly is their totem.
I am not talking about conservative women in general, or Gina Haspel. I am talking about women who advance their own interests by hurting the interests of all other women, and these traitors know who they are.
10
Feminism cannot be appropriated by conservatives no matter how hard they try because they are against everything that is actually feminist. They try to do this all the time, sell themselves as the party that is ______(fill in the blank) when their actual behavior and the words that come out of their mouths demonstrate the exact opposite. Many conservatives/Republicans are simply too ignorant to comprehend that their conservatism clearly shows they are not capable of actually being feminist or egalitarian in terms of any other social inequality. People intelligent to comprehend this (most of us who are progressive/anti-conservative) just roll our eyes at their sheer ignorance and demonstrated stupidity. This is a common problem with conservatives, that they routinely lie about false solutions (like lowering taxes for the wealthy) and how that's supposed to help the 99%. Vote in November like your life depends on it--because it does.
4
Sorry, Ms. Valentis blurs the line between progressive ideologue and feminism. The tell? First, she assumes a highly defensive position against conservatives and, second, dismisses their words as "rhetoric". This is neither the behavior of an intellect nor a feminist, but rather a partisan ideologue.
This is why so many feminists are considered hypocrites.
12
Haspel is not a feminist nor does she have a shred of integrity. Destroying evidence that would incriminate you of the heinous crime of torture is....vile!
4
Ah, another leftist telling us which words we may, and may not, use, and how.
The rest of us will use whatever words we please, and think however we please, whether bullies like Jessica Valenti like it or not.
15
So unless your #1 issue and stance is pro-abortion, you are not a "real" feminist and your success doesn't matter. That's too bad. The author seems to suggest you can't be Republican and be a feminist. Republican feminists don't count. The author seems to find them...deplorable.
14
Torture is a human rights violation.
Hillary Clinton was right when she said that human rights are women's rights, and vice-versa.
But a woman who disregards human rights doesn't deserve power.
Gina Haspel's political success is nothing to applaud.
3
How can you want equal opportunity for everyone if you use your power to prove you are in control? Thank you for this clear statement of feminism.
4
well-behaved women rarely make history just ask Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin or Betsy DeVos.
this is why bumper sticker feminism was never really a good idea. just like the car magnets for people who fancy themselves Patriots, as long as nothing is ever really expected of them except buying a car magnet.
3
I only support women who I agree with politically. I only hire liberal women and fire those women I find to vote Republican or don’t vote Democrat. It’s the only way to achieve equality.
7
This is a strange opinion piece. It seems to pretty overtly state that being a REAL feminist requires agreeing with the author on all major political and cultural issues of the day. If “feminist” is just another way of saying “liberal Democrat” then perhaps the term isn’t very useful any longer and can best just be discarded.
18
Feminism is no myth. There are conservative feminists and liberal feminists. But many liberal feminists despise conservative feminists, whether they serve as a business leader, Secretary of State, head of the CIA, member of congress, member of the judiciary, or simply vote Republican.
Look closely and you will discover that many liberal feminists are fine with sex-selective abortion, leading to the unequal number of girls being aborted. They give continuing accolades to President Bill Clinton, despite his many transgressions against women. In short, liberal feminists are selective feminists, who seek to exclude from their feminist ranks any woman who doesn’t follow their extremist party line. Conservative feminists support the idea of women achieving in all fields and in all ways, including motherhood and marriage.
8
If all of Ms Valenti’s books are like this article I won’t read any of them. What do you say about the women who follow science that says unequivocally life begins at conception and thus abortion is murder? Because of their scientific belief they are Not feminists? Hog wash.
13
The ignorance of people who politically support anybody just because of physical attributes i.e. gender, color, sexual orientation, etc. is equal to the ignorance of people who discriminate against these individuals. Both approaches demonstrate a shallowness of thought and actually degrade our national dialogue.
4
More women in office “is ground breaking in a literal sense.” No it isn’t.
4
Hilary Clinton, Hilary Clinton... the gray feminist right? Publicly shamed the women who went after her husband and you call out these women? Please. Look at your own glass ceiling breaker before pointing fingers.
9
If the "tough . . . decisions . . .Scott needed to make . . . to emerge at the helm of a major network" included towing in to the toxic sexually harassing environment fostered by Ailes, O'Reilly et al.--as suggested by this piece and others--you would be hard pressed to convince most women of her "commitment to gender justice."
2
So you're saying a woman who is anti-abortion cannot consider herself -- "self identify" to use the lingo... -- as a feminist who supports equal rights for females?
Who are you again to think you make the definitions and determines who is in and out of the club? Six books on feminism, eh? How does that match up against a pro-life feminist with six children? Six daughters? One of whom has Downs Syndrome, say?
Your ideas are very simplistic, and fall down easily when challenged. (Is such personal criticism allowed?)
11
Feminists are pro-choice. “Choice” is critical to the content of this discussion. You can be pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion—a person who is anti-abortion is opposed to abortion for all women - feminists see this as overreach.
If you want six children, that’s your choice and feminism supports your choice ( although an intersection of environmentalists may question that choice). I am not sure why you would think feminism or legitimate ( by which I mean women who understand what the term means) feminists would have any opinion on your child. If you think that because feminists support the right of women to choose to have an abortion if their fetus has problems, they would condemn your choice to continue your pregnancy and raise your ( undoubtedly delightful and much-loved) child with Downs, you would simply be wrong. Feminists support your CHOICE- we support women’s autonomy over their OWN bodies.
4
The unborn child’s right to life supersedes a woman’s right to remove it from her body.
Midway, it is you who do not respect your fellow women. You have no right to deny them their own decision making regarding their body.
I'm sure you believe in equality, just midway.
“Feminists” throwing women overboard because they aren’t liberals proves it’s not about women, it’s about being liberals.
Liberals’ dishonesty and hypocrisy irrefutably proven.
12
There seems to be a syllogism here: only feminists are good; only my views qualify as feminism: only my views are good. It is a very narrow and not a very convincing view of the world.
10
Apparently, sore-loser Valenti continues to not get her way. If so-called 'anti-feminists' were truly "appropriating feminist rhetoric" they would be compromising personal integrity.
You have to study rhetoric and logic and the techniques of propaganda if you are to understand how feminism succeeds. “Oh, we don’t hate men,” the feminists will protest, when called out for their anti-male rhetoric, insisting that it is only “misogyny” or “patriarchy” or “rape culture” that is the object of their criticism. Yet all of these jargon phrases are merely synonyms for male evil. The very foundation of feminist theory is that males are perpetrators and beneficiaries of an unjust system of oppression of which all women are victims. The feminist promotes atrocity narratives that demonize males, while pretending not to be a man-hater.
What should offend every intelligent and literate reader, is the insulting presumption that we are too stupid to see through such abracadabra tricks. What feminists are good at (beyond sabotaging everything decent and wholesome in society) is playing 'intellectual' word-games to obscure the destructive purposes of their movement.
7
No, The number one issue for Feminists is abortion.
If a female is pro life, she can never be a feminist ( according to Liberals ).
That's not a myth.
3
You are mistaken. A true feminist honors a woman's CHOICE. A pro-life woman who seeks to impose her morality on other women is not a feminist.
I'm a feminist who is also a mother of two sons. Anti-choice women would call me a baby-killer, because I'm pro-choice. Clearly, however, I'm not a baby-killer as evidenced by my two giant, healthy, smart, and feminist sons.
4
This is nothing about real feminism, in which ALL women can have an opportunity to live and grow as they wish. This is about the Socialist agenda where women who hold conservative values and beliefs are summarily dismissed as being stupid, abused women controlled by evil men.
I find it amusing that that these left wingers proudly strut around claiming about how important freedom of choice until those choices are not what they believe in. This is the typical rhetoric which has done so much damage to and contributed to the decline of rational conversation in the country.
8
Feminism is very much about supporting choice---and this is why conservatives -specifically social conservatives - cannot call themselves feminists. While it IS consistent for women who hold very traditional views for themselves to be feminists, by seeking to impose their views and their social mores on other women as social conservatives do, they fail as feminists. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp or why there is such a desire among social conservatives to claim that they are something they clearly are not.
5
When you set up a series of liberal litmus tests for women to qualify as feminists you significantly reduce the universe of people who qualify or wish to qualify for the title. Insisting on ideological purity is a mistake whether on the left or right.
10
Conservatives do not innovate. Conservatives appropriate...
3
Sadly, the women who should be reading your excellent thesis are watching Fox and Friends.
1
Excellent? Give me a break. With every OpEd I read I wonder if the Times has any idea on how it comes across. At all.
9
Too often among Republican Congress people or in Trump meetings, there is a token woman prominently positioned in the camera shot. But the policy or action being trumpeted is in fact an anti-woman one.
Separating immigrant children from their families comes straight from the Nazi playbook, traumatizing those children for life. Denying women the right to make their own healthcare decisions, to be covered by insurance with a full range of reproductive health options, to have access to women's clinics, to even have honest medical options from their doctors and healthcare providers reduces them to children or to mentally incapable adults over whom politicians and religious extremists get to dictate their health choices. Their own religious views do not count. Their health circumstances or life circumstances don't matter.
Having token women at the podium, in executive offices, or as appointees within an administration is deeply dishonest. The women who let themselves be used like this are political prostitutes or window dressing.
4
This article should be titled "The Myth of Tolerant Feminism".
13
Feminism is about actions, not anatomy.
4
As a radical feminist, I argue loudly that you’re claim is the antithesis of feminism. The core of feminism is based on female anatomy
1
are any of you people happy about anything, ever? it could be raining rainbow unicorns with giant 100 dollar bills strapped to the wonderful beings saddle and you would be finding a way to moan about it. and the earth and the planet and the humanity ohhhhhhhhhhh
4
Rather famously. Justice Thurgood Marshall remarked " Doing wrong. I mean for picking the wrong Negro and saying I'm picking him because he's a Negro. I'm opposed to that."
The same applies to 'conservative feminist' women.
2
If you want to find things wrong with Suzanne Scott and Gina Haspel, you certainly can, but it seems trite and catty, which is exactly what people see in the feminist movement. "You can't call yourself a feminist and this is why..." Does that bring women together? Is that inclusive? You should be included in the feminist movement if you have a vagina.
53% of white women voted for Trump. If you don't start including white women in the feminist movement, instead of insisting you must be queer, transgender, African-American, Latina, then there will be no movement at all.
8
I guess it boils down to whether you prefer dogmatic purity or a messy broad church.
1
Let me get this straight...
Only liberals can be feminists? Feminists must be Democrats?
Is this how we are building the big tent? If so, I fear the blue wave could morph into a red trickle.
9
Until women halt the backwards dash to pre 1963 they have nothing.
Women have been successfully pitted against each other and millennials are passive. Rise.
3
Jessica Valenti is correct in asserting that feminism, in trying to be more populist in its approach, opened itself up to conservative co-option but it goes beyond that. The “liberal” feminism can be just a bourgeois and exclusionary as the conservative feminism. Lean-in Sheryl Sandberg feminism does nothing for the largely female dominated workers in home healthcare industry. Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness did not improve the lives of Libyan women who lost family, lives, jobs, and stability. And what of selections of anti-choice running mates like Tim Kaine or telling young women that having an independent difference of political opinion reserves them “a special place in hell”...is that feminism? Feminism concerned with glass ceilings and not safety nets, feminism that celebrates individual achievements for rich white women but is less concerned with total human liberation, that is a feminism open to conservative co-option.
1
The Women’s March disinvited an anti-abortion organization; fine, but where was the consistency?
Having allowed Sharia defending Linda Sarsour left a bitter, bitter aftertaste. So, no, not only conservatives misunderstand.
10
That's interesting about the "miniskirt rule" on Fox News. Now that American news has become entertainment, I guess that's not so surprising. I'll take a stodgy BBC any day. The women newsreaders on Fox, or CNN for that matter, with their short skirts and spike heals always seemed like moveable Barbie dolls that would be just as happy selling scented candles and plus sizes on HSN. We're into the news-tart age where our icons (Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Sanders, Judge Pirro) will say anything to keep their jobs. And so will a lot of men.
2
Feminism isn't monolithic. I follow this article up until the writer starts to paint all of the feminisms out there by her own feminist ideology and overlooks her own situatedness. She mistakenly writes: "You cannot be a feminism and support an immigration taking children away from undocumented immigrant mothers." There are feminisms, not a single absolute feminism: there are Marxist feminism; liberal feminism; postmodern feminism; critical feminism; radical feminism; eco-feminism. The undocumented alien who is illegally entering a country has certain rights but it is only one brand of feminism that would privilege her rights before the rights of a working class woman whose job the illegal alien might be replacing. The author needs to put her own feminist ideology into the broader context of feminisms and recognize her situatedness. There should be limits on who is and who is not considered one of these feminisms, but there is not one absolute monolithic "feminist" sets of beliefs as the author is professing.
104
Cynthia; I completely disagree with you.
47
Wonderful answer. Thank you! I recoil at women judging who and who is not a feminist, because it divides us. In my inclusive view, if you have a vagina, you are a feminist.
9
Cynthia, I was about to write almost the same thing as you except without the detail. There are certainly many interpretations of feminism, even of Marxist feminism and also of liberal feminism, just taking the first two in your incomplete list.
Practically speaking, I don't see how everyone can either agree on what feminism is, or on what kinds of feminism are ethically or morally admirable. Instead of arguing about what is feminism, let's go directly to the question of what is right or wrong, or better or worse (however you wish to put it).
Just so it's clear, I believe it is right to support women's rights to autonomy and oppose subservience. I'd rather argue about that directly, than about whether "feminism" requires it.
22
Excellent piece. Keep up the good work!
2
This debate seems to stem from the (con)fusion of 'woman' and 'feminist', identity and ideology. Feminists can rejoice in the fact that a woman has broken a corner of the glass ceiling, while disagreeing with her positions. By the same token, breaking a corner of the glass ceiling does not automatically make a woman a feminist.
7
This article is logically muddled. The author seems to want feminism to mean supporting "virtuous women", but that, at the least, would mean some mixture of supporting virtue and supporting women. Worse, the author feels empowered to identify feminist virtue based on her subjective values (with which I generally agree, but that's besides the point) and then declare them to be 'truly' femini[st], as opposed to the other virtues enjoyed by, for example, Ms. Haspel, which would include ambition, determination, drive, patriotism, and many others, though presumably neither empathy nor kindness, given Haspel's history with torture, nor any preference for Jessica Valenti-style feminists in positions of authority.
What is one to make of this confusion? That, as with critics and works of art, clergy with faith and judges with pornography, Ms. Valenti knows feminism when she sees it, and she sees it in particular when women with whom she feels affinity express views she shares.
This is wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of logic and is facile legitimization as a search for virtue what is in truth an impulse for raw political power. Democracy is built in part on a free-for-all competition for the latter, but let's not dissemble about what is in fact going on, nor lose sight of the obvious fact that there are an enormous number of women in the world, and they naturally have the wide range of views on every topic that one would expect from their numbers. And thank goodness for that.
10
The much more convincing analysis of logical confusion is provided by the poster “Stitch”. The version of feminism under attack in this piece is a feminism that must simply endorse everything any woman does or wishes to do. The alternative feminism advocated by the author is focused on the advancement of the cause of social justice for women in general. Under the latter understanding, it is perfectly possible to believe that the advancement of particular women may, on the whole, set back the cause of women in general. This is not a conflation of ‘feminist’ and ‘virtuous’ but a distinction between ‘woman’ and ‘feminist’, between a victory for a particular woman and a victory for all women.
1
I don't know, NLG, but I find your own comment a bit muddled. Valenti's feminism is hardly akin to the definition of porn: "she knows feminism when she sees it."
As I read her column, Valenti states clearly that "amassing professional power at the expense of other women isn’t feminism — it’s self-interest."
Certainly, we can agree that Gina Haspel is problematic: while we can celebrate her appointment as the first female CIA director, we can also be deeply troubled by her stand on torture. That's true whether one is an avowed feminist or not.
And, yes, we can celebrate what you refer to as Haspel's "ambition, determination, drive, patriotism...empathy [and] kindness." Simply because those virtues go unmentioned in Valenti's column doesn't mean that she and all feminists ignore them.
Valenti's point is that attaining a position of power does not automatically guarantee a woman the support of feminists. Nor should it: a wide range of values comes into play--the same as it does for a man.
1
The idea that a feminist must support the actions of all women is just as repressive as the idea that a woman must support the actions of all men.
13
Gina Haspel "oversaw a site where detainees were tortured" and "refuses to say whether she believes torture is immoral."
Suzanne Scott "enforced a mini-skirt rule for female on-air talent" and "was cited in two lawsuits for contributing to a toxic work environment and retaliating against a sexual harassment victim."
Seems like sometimes, when we look at the top rungs of corporations and government, we can't tell the boys from the girls, can we?
2
I am a corporate librarian. I have worked for women who were bullies, who ridiculed my degree because it wasn't an MBA, who lied to my face and who took my managerial position and salary and gave it to a younger man because "analytics (a mostly male profession) was the way to go, not libraries". None of those women were feminists. "Amassing professional power at the expense of other women isn’t feminism — it’s self-interest."
5
The huge problem with this piece is that she never defines what true feminism is except to say who are not true feminists. Just define the term and then take on the pretenders and appropriators. The author might have something to say about it worth considering but we needed first or at least eventually her definition of who counts to be called so.
2
But defining a thing by specifying what it is not is just as good a definition as specifying what that thing is.
1
Who is the real progressive Democrat nowadays? Not Bill Nelson, not Hillary Clinton, not Joe Biden. Ok, maybe that helped a little but it's clearly not enough unless I say exactly why and offer a clear definition to assist further...
For much of my life I considered myself a feminist. I was wrong.
I'm a Humanist.
7
Exactly why I could not support Hillary Clinton. Just because someone is a woman does not mean that they share values you support.
8
Conservative feminists are the Clarences Thomases of the women's movement. They take advantage of all the hard fought rights that feminists have fought for and then advocate for policies and positions that would harm other women's lives and aspirations.
11
Based on your definitions of what a feminist is, I've never seen one. In the article you mention that self-interest isn't a feminist quality. If it's not then why do you selectively uphold justice for women rather than justice for all? I suggest you work on your own shadow issues rather than telling others how to think or behave. For every male that feels he's superior to females there's a Mother that's supported such an attitude.
3
"...why do you selectively uphold justice for women rather than justice for all?"
Upholding justice for women is precisely upholding justice for all, given that, historically, women have been excluded from justice based exclusively on their gender. Feminists don't advocate for a greater level of justice for women over men, but simply a level of it equal to that afforded men. Justice for all is just that: Justice for all.
4
All any woman has to do in order to judge the "feminine" support of today's hard right conservatives is to watch and listen to Mike Pence.
1
Thank you Ms. Valenti. This really needed to be said.
3
Conservatives are experts at commandeering language to disguise their true missions--their faves: "Freedom! Liberty! Family!"
Perhaps it's time for feminists and liberals to appropriate the conservative message:
--Conserve families and reduce crime!: women will have equal opportunities and pay, and control over their bodies, and the economy will improve take-home pay.
--Shrink government and reduce waste!: lobbying and election funding will be banned.
--Boost local economies!: invest in infrastructure.
--Fight crime!: stabilize families with a respectable incomes, increase educ. opportunities, and punish criminals by providing counseling, social support and job training.
--Reduce business regs!: carefully go through all regs and eliminate the outdated ones. Same for environmental regs.
We need to turn the messaging tables--to our advantage.
4
Don't forget their most hypocritical and phony self-characterization: Pro-life!
1
On a related note, there was little enthusiasm for the milestone of Kellyanne Conway, the first woman to manage a victorious presidential campaign. Indeed feminism would never celebrate a campaign that convinced voters to ignore sexual assault bragging.
2
"Feminism isn’t about blind support for any woman who rises to power. "
The comments and expectations of self-appointed 'leaders' of feminism indicate otherwise. Allow me to correct your statement: "Feminism isn’t about blind support for any woman who rises to power. She also has to agree to and never deviate from the political and social positions we'll tell her are the correct ones."
There you go.
8
As a feminist I can't wait till we get to a point where the gender of Gina Haspel and Suzanne Scott doesn't matter, all that will matter are their qualifications and their beliefs. In that regard, I do not support them but it is still good to see women in these high profile positions. They have as much right as any man to be unsuitable for the job that they hold.
10
Articles like this have quickly supplanted right-wing campus groupthink screeds as new peak cringe. Too many Xs have nudged themselves into the X movement. Quick let’s push them out before it hurts the brand. Inevitably, capitalism is the only winner.
1
This is an interesting article. For years I tried to explain to people why I’m not a feminist and a certain type of woman would always argue with me, saying that because I applauded opportunities for women and general fairness in life then I am a feminist. But it’s more complicated that that.
I’ve always rejected second wave feminism and beyond based on its texts: The Second Sex (which dismisses housewives as “parasites”), The Feminine Mystique (which seems to confuse common existential ennui with upper class white women’s specific roles at the time), The Female Eunuch (which takes all joy out of female beauty and roles), and The Beauty Myth (which denigrates the value of female beauty).
I also wasn’t impressed as a teen with the anger that the women who called themselves feminist experienced. I knew several personally and that anger was destructive, hurting the women themselves more than it seemed to effect any social change in the world.
But then feminism became about pink shirts and Dove soap and loving women and loving yourself. As Jess’s Crispin wrote in “Why I’m not a Feminist” that is utterly meaningless.
I’m still not a feminist, although I believe the likes of Kate Manne in “Down Girl” have some very interesting things to say. But generally speaking I don’t think “the patriarchy” is about oppressing women (it’s about us all surviving efficiently) or that equality of outcome is a good idea.
“Feminism” does mean something, for better or for worse.
6
Feminism is not about getting acceptance for a few elite women into the exclusive "good old boy's club".
Feminism is about justice and fairness. These are qualities NOT embraced by Trumpism.
5
Feminism is not about giving women and men equal access to patriarchal and represses power structures. It is about dismantling them.
5
Conflating equality and achievement with sexual identity is the conservative's tool in this argument. Just because one is a woman clearly does not make her equal to a man, but only so if she is willing to act and speak in a way that guarantees ALL women equality in all areas. In other words, conservatives can't pick and choose their own conservative version of female equality if if only serves them.
1
Yesterday the New York Times published an article on the latest assault on women's reproduction options.
The "star" of the article was a 52-year old woman, a star in Trumpworld because she is in charge of defunding Planned Parenthood if it, or any clinics like it, even dare to mention abortion.
This woman, Marjorie Dannenfelser, is the mother of five children. I assume that was her CHOICE. Yet this woman who was once pro-CHOICE is now dead-set on letting other women decide on their own on how many children they will or will not have.
Marjorie will decide that for them..... well, that is, if they are POOR women. Women of "means" will still be able to do as they decide - but Marjorie and her Republican co-horts will be doing the deciding for poor women and those women will just do as they are told.
As you can see, I am an equalitist.
I don't vote for what is between anyone's legs.
I vote for what is between their ears.
Male? Female? Doesn't matter.
What matters is, what human rights do they believe in?
Their religion to me is irrelevant - but if they do claim a religion, then do the feed the poor? Nurse the sick? Protect a child?
You would be hard-pressed to convince me that ANY Republican cares about anything other than their Master's pocketbook.
Marjorie Dannenfelser CHOSE to have her number of children, but now she is only another "conservative", out to demand that other women breed as she demands.
That is the kind of woman to never support.
Never.
3
Being born female does not make one automatically a feminist. I resent feminism being hijacked by women who want to legislate away the rights of women. If you’re willing to subjugate your fellow women you are not a Feminist.
Feminism embraces equality for all regardless of gender or gender identity.
If you want to legislate away the autonomy of women by allowing government to control all aspects of our lives including reproductive decisions, you are not feminists.
4
Isn’t it the ultimate victory of feminism that we can judge a woman on her accomplishments, words, and character? In short, as a person rather than woman? I would oppose Gina Haspel’s record and testimony if it came from Gene Haspel. Carly Fiorina was a wrecking ball at Hewlett-Packard and would be just as miserable as a senator or president, but I still savor her masterful take down of DJT during the primary debates. I would have laughed at Sam Palin’s banalities as much as at Sarah’s. Feminism is neither liberal or conservative. It is acknowledging that women are equal citizens to men, and as such enjoy a full spectrum of opinions, experiences, and accomplishments.
8
Ms. Valenti's column says explicitly what we have always known: "feminism" is not about women - it is about adhering to a liberal/progressive view of all things. It is that most obnoxious of labels in that it tries to denote some women as more female, more intelligent and more "woke" than women who don't agree with them on certain policy stances - like immigration policy is a feminist issue Jessica? Please...
3
We get it. Feminism (in your view) is not about supporting women. It is about supporting leftist political causes. I'm glad a liberal feminist has finally come out and admitted it.
8
This is more of a question than a comment. Isn't the fundamental claim of feminism that how one is treated should be as gender-neutral as possible? That gender, like race or sexual orientation, should not be a primary or even a significant consideration.
5
In the dog eat dog world of capitalism,we can,brand anything or anyone to grab power or market a concept that is far from realiy.
We as a people need to read research and decide who best will,lead us as a country where we need to go. For the two women referenced in the article it doesn't matter that they are women I don't understand there lack of character. However they have been marketed to be something they are not by powerful men. A sham
2
Not so much a myth as another facet of the same political schism. It might be liberating for women to able to behave the same as men, but liberals should in no way laud women who emulate the behavior we contemn in males, simply because they are female. It's easier to describe the offensive behavior than argue about what is or isn't muliebrity.
1
Bravo! If Jessica Valenti's criteria precludes considering Gina Haspel's appointment as CIA director a "victory for feminism," then it should also prohibit calling Hillary Clinton a feminist. Finally, some honestly and logic in our public discourse!
2
There is a problem at the core of this debate: female agency. The author more than suggests that women who don't adhere to a particular set of political positions are not really feminists. Isn't the ultimate goal of feminism the intellectual, political, social and sexual liberation of all women? Are we really prepared to assert that women who support strict immigration policies, for example, are either anti-feminist or somehow acting in bad faith, or under false consciousness? What about gays, or racial minorities? Are they traitors? Uncle Toms? Would the author really have us go down that road?
7
Ms. Valenti appears to have zero grasp of logic. Liberals don't own feminism, they don't make the rules. "You can't support feminism and support an immigration policy of taking children away from undocumented immigrant mothers." - This isn't a women's rights issue even though you frame it that way. You are making a claim to the identical flawed logic that you reject conservatives for.
You deprive Gina Haspel, Suzanne Scott and other conservative women of the recognition they deserve for their professional accomplishments. You do more to harm true women's rights than any conservative. You are not really for women - you are against free thinkers and those who disagree with you. That is not how you win hearts and minds. People who think like you will continue to lose because you are simply wrong, and most Americans know it, even if many of them are intimidated into silence.
Then again you have had a great role model in Hillary.
3
Ms Haskell's gender has nothing to do with her overseeing a site that specialized in torture. Denying the significance of her being the first woman to lead the CIA because she's guilty of doing something that men were also a part of because you dislike the policy is hypocritical and a form of gender bias. We as feminists should absolutely celebrate her accomplishments. She made it to the top and is well respected in a field that until quite recently was a man's world.
Ms Scott on the other hand promoted policies that made women sexual objects and should absolutely be condemned. Women will never be seen as equal if they are required to use their sex appeal to further their career. In appointing her, Fox news has sent a message that it's business as usual and they didn't learn much from their recent scandals.
If feminists don't do a better job of picking their battles and giving a compelling reason why we shouldn't support certain women they will lose this battle for equality. Women who deny women their rights to choose what's best for their bodies and deny LGBT rights are the ones who are a threat to feminism and they're very good at hijacking the narrative. Never forget that it was women who sunk the equal rights amendment.
81
At this point in American history, any feminist waving the old insertionist banner has lost track of the potential of feminisms to contribute to a more just, compassionate, and equitable world.
To celebrate a woman's rise to power as she acts as a guardian of patriarchy and an apologist for its grotesque abuse of power-over is to undermine the core principles that thread their way through all feminisms but the pragmatically efficient, ultimately inefffective insertionist model (which was some of the ballast that sank HRC's battleship). As long as you're an insertionist, you're complicit in the patriarchy, gifting your energy and talent to it.
If feminism is to deliver on its promise to challenge institutional barriers to equal access to opportunity (and to equal conditions to prepare for opportunity), it must adopt as its new overarching framework the model of Intersectionality: a model that empowers all feminists- women, men, non-cis identified- with strategies to enact feminism's historical, deeply humanistic program to create a systemic model that guarantees that all human beings be recognized as equally worthy of the protections and promise of our Constitution.
Note that this model honors the suffering of ALL who are disenfranchised by the kind of economic and social policies driving straight white men to kill themselves as they too suffer under the aggressively re-ascendant old-school, capitalist patriarchy marketed by Pence and his allies, man and woman alike.
27
@Ami,
For the most part, I agree with your comment. I especially appreciate your remarks about Ms. Scott, the new director of Fox News. I am glad that you have pointed out that women are and have been complicit for a long time in male misogyny and the culture of toxic masculinity. I have made similar remarks, but they were dismissed as "blaming the victim." No, you are not blaming the victim. At any rate, the #MeTooMovement has signaled that some women have had enough and are calling out the men who have taken advantage of them for so long. Yet there will be those who will continue to exploit their "sex appeal" to get ahead, as long as that continues, women will never claim the respect that they deserve.
4
While it is good that a woman could rise to head the CIA, it is also completely fine to disagree with the policies and actions of the particular woman in that position.
41
I just love the confusion that results amongst liberals from a strong, pioneering woman who succeeds, but does not comply with the party line. Women equal, in power, IS feminism.
As we learned in Iowa, the first woman senator and first woman governor, is Republican. Do not tell her how to vote! Do not tell her how to think! She is not an empty shell to be programmed. She is woman! Hear her roar!
I love it! Free thinking! Not for sale! Women in actual power!
77
I'm just a conservative from the lowly state of Iowa, but we currently are living with our first female Governor, our first female House Speaker, and our first female US Senator. All three of these women are pro-life conservative Republicans. Sorry they don't fit your mold, but if you want to make feminism synonymous with "progressive/liberal", then you may as well drop the charade and get rid of the feminist label altogether.
97
What you miss in your thought here is that feminism, as a philosophy, is about social justice for ALL. Not just women. It is fundamentally about race, class and gender; and the social injustices that people face on a day to day as a result of their exterior packaging or economic inheritances (or lack of). Just as these Republican women are voted into office, we can, as "feminists" criticize them. When they do not advocate or present policy that works toward equality, then they will be criticized as such. That's how this works; equality. Not labels...it's about action and words. That is what makes them "not feminists" (their actions and words) and why we don't want to support them, just because they are a woman.
76
Okay so they are women in power. That does not make them feminists. The mold you speak of is not accidental and it's not partisan. It is a philosophy that questions the inordinate power held ( traditionally by men, but applying equally to other dichotomise, e.g. race, immigration status, etc) of some members of society over others. So while a feminist supports your right to be against abortion for yourself, he/she would support its continued availability for others. He/she would also support your right to work towards a society in which requests for abortion were rare. It is not at all about partisan politics, but it probably is about what most conservatives would call "progressive" positions on social matters.
55
Enacting policies derived from a patriarchal perspective, particularly one taken from one of the most powerful social institutions to enforce its separate and unequal core beliefs (the conservative, fundamentalist Christianity of the sort espoused by Pence and Drollinger of Capitol Ministries) is not to be a feminist.
It's to be a patriarch in a skirt.
The women you present as feminists have no interest in challenging the fundamental structures that award them power through their relationships to men. (How many of these women cite their adherence to patriarchal definitions of the feminine and their fitness as wives and mothers as central to their claim to office?) These women are entering office as allies to a party whose loyalties are to the power-over structures and asymmetrical gender dynamics that have characterized the institutions, economies, and politics of the patriarchy.
In other words, they're interested in replicating the very family structures, workplace dynamics, and political/economic models that've disenfranchised women for millennia-- one suspects because they know, as female loyalists to patriarchal power have always known, that keeping those structures in place keeps everyone in place. Especially those with the misfortune to be below them so that an enforced inferiority can deliver a false superiority. Think of poor Mayella Ewell going after Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Or Lady Macbeth delivering the blow that puts her Lord in power--
62
Feminism, as a philosophy that promotes social, economic and political equality for men and women, must hold both men and women to consistent behavioral and ethical standards. Yes, it is possible to be a politically conservative feminist - just as it is possible to be a conservative intellectual or a conservative whatever; except to be a feminist, liberal or conservative, one can not buy into an anti-woman agenda. Unfortunately, our politics is all too full of anti-woman (anti-human) agendas and one of our major parties defines itself by these positions. (Not that the other party is perfect, but it at least tries. Sometimes.)
2
Isn’t feminism supporting an individual based on their ability to do a job, while rooting out biases that have clearly worked against women?
Judging an individual women’s qualification for a specific job would seem to have nothing to do with feminism.
9
I hate when men try to mansplain feminism. Feminism is about a whole group of values, not simply the two mentioned here.
2
I hate it when men express an opinion and women jump on them for “mansplaining”. And I’m female.
Thank you for reopening this discussion. Many of us who became ardent feminists in the 1960's and '70's are believers in feminism as a part of a humane and loving philosophy.
The Republicans and the current president can cynically try to shame women into accepting an unrepentant torturer and the female exploiting Fox news head as a step ahead, but this will not fly.
A feminist is someone who is out for more than her own career, her own personal power. Someone who believes we can create a better world for all, inclusive of those who are powerless and for the next generation.
150
A feminist is someone “who believes we can make a better world for all.” As a radical feminist, I disagree. For example, The Women’s March and liberal feminism have platforms of advocacy for specific groups of people, not exclusively for women and girls. They’ve lost sight of women in trying to create a world that appeals to them, with certain groups of people, with certain beliefs. This “feminism” has lost sight of women and girls only, putting the needs of females-only on the back burner. It’s not femiinism.
7
It seem we have paradox here :) Is feminism about empowering all women or just those who subscribe to your ideology?
10
The unrepentant torturer is John Brennan... you know, the guy Obama nominated and all the Democrats who opposed Haspel (including McCain) all supported?
Haspel never tortured anyone and has openly stated she would never take the CIA back there even if Trump ordered her to do it...
and you wonder why we don't take you Resisters seriously...
2
There was a joke back in the 1970s to the effect that if women ran the world, nations would be peaceful, like Golda Meir's Israel; democratic, like Indira Ghandi's India; or compassionate, like Margaret Thatcher's UK. The point is that, once in power, many women (like the current CIA or Fox leaders) would act little differently from men.
Is it possible for a woman to be conservative (e.g., adhering to such notions as small government, lower taxes, and a strong military) and still favor policies that empower women and foster toward greater gender equality in the workplace and society in general? Is a woman by definition not a feminist if she opposes single-payer health care? Is someone who is anti-abortion automatically not a feminist, regardless of her position on a host of other issues? (It appears that Valenti would say yes to the latter and, perhaps, not necessarily to the former.)
In other words, is the only feminism one that shares Valenti's political views? I suspect that is too simplistic a formulation.
18
It is not only too simplistic a formulation, it is also a strawman. Valenti's point is actually pretty simple: If a woman candidate does not support policies that are beneficial to women or, conversely, supports policies that are harmful to women, then she is not a feminist and it is not hypocritical for feminists to decline to support her.
2
Look to Canada where we have (not yet... but there are disturbing signs) become polarized in our notion of conservatism - we have female politicians who are economic “conservatives” but who support humane social policy. Canadians by and large have greater comfort with the state, on our behalf, purchasing and providing services, so no party is electable if they reject social programs. Women serve us at the highest levels of all parties.
You can dislike abortion and still want women to have a right to choose and be a feminist. But you cannot want to dictate what a woman does with her body and be a feminist. Get it?
4
What does Jessica Valenti know about conservative feminism? The examples she offers here are just random women plucked for her purposes and their incongruity. Conservative feminism is a movement centered around female empowerment that integrates and values motherhood and the sanctity of life as central to advancing women and individuals of both sexes. It is an intellectual movement defined by such scholars as the late Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony Foundation and IWF. Ms. Valenti is simply inventing a punching bag instead of demonstrating intellectual integrity by defining this movement in good faith.
16
So, in other words, "conservative feminism" is a movement to contain women in traditional gender roles, slaves to their biology and financially dependent on men. Thank you for clarifying that.
113
Female empowerment includes restricting women's choices about what to do with their own bodies? Not hardly. Conservative feminism is an oxymoron.
13
A brilliant article! It's true, Feminism needs keeping the values of a progressive thought based on values and rights, by gathering different women and with sensitivity to all of them. Congratulations to Jessica Valenti.
10
One does not become feminist by virtue of being a women. Some successful and very powerful women, most notably Ms Thatcher, were criticized for not having done anything in support of women, i.e lacking in female (feminist) solidarity.
Feminism as a movement takes a stand that women's rights are humans rights and that as such, they must guarantee equal rights for women to education, political representation, career opportunities and equal pay. Once achieved, they will enable each and every women to become economically independent and empower her to make her own decisions and choices as to her destiny, her career and, yes, her own body. The latter choice makes it difficult for many conservatives to identify with feminist advocates' goals.
Because torture is the most despicable of crimes against humanity and human rights, I would argue that a person, man or woman, involved and enabling it, does not qualify for high level positions requiring high level of integrity .
33
So … it’ okay for a liberal woman to appropriate feminism but not for a conservative woman to do so. It’s Ms. Valenti who is creating irrational ideological preconditions for believing in and fighting for gender justice.
A commitment to gender justice has nothing necessarily to do with one’s religious views. It has nothing necessarily to do with the tough kinds of operational decisions that a Suzanne Scott needed to make over decades to compete effectively and emerge at the helm of a major network. It has nothing necessarily to do with the kinds of national security decisions that Gina Haspel had to make to protect our nation after the most horrific attack against our people on our soil by a foreign enemy in our history.
Of these two women, one certainly is not a liberal and the other probably is not one. Yet I certainly think of them as feminists, and of the most successful kind, because they didn’t simply talk about gender justice, they lived it by dedicating their entire lives to a toe-to-toe competition with men that they WON, while compelling the respect of everyone around them, women AND men.
And by their accomplishments over those decades, they’ve done every bit as much for the cause of compelling that respect and justice for women as liberal women have. Of course they’re feminists, and they have every right to claim the title.
16
Not one of your better nettlesome arguments Richard. Sparing the rhetoric, you do put together the crucial words, "A commitment to gender justice", to nail the essence of feminism. Success in business or management does not qualify for inclusion. Neither example given, not Haspel nor Scott, has shown a "commitment to gender justice". Without new evidence, of which you provide none, neither are feminists. Your endorsement is founded upon misdirection; purposely confounding competitive success and moral commitment.
4
Answer a simple question, Richard: Does a woman own her own body, or not? If she owns her own body and is able, like men, to make important, life-changing decisions about her body, and you support her sovereignty, then you qualify as a feminist. There are many other facets, of course, but the basic human right of reproductive freedom is bedrock. So my guess, Richard, is that, never mind your gender, you probably don’t qualify.
3
@Richard Luettgen: If the "tough . . . decisions . . . Scott needed to make . . . to emerge at the helm of a major network" included her complicity in the toxic sexually harassing environment fostered by Ailes, O'Reilly et al.--as suggested by this piece and reported by several others--you would be hard pressed to convince most women of her "commitment to gender justice."
2
I think this is an important idea, and one I have tried to articulate to myself.
I identify with people who share my values, who see things as I do. I am female. But not all females share my values. Woman who don't share my values, I have trouble identifying with. (That doesn't mean I don't like them or I don't enjoy their company, BTW) But suppose a woman is dishonest and uses her dishonesty to hurt others (just as an example.) That's a value system I don't share. I can't take her part, I feel.
Some men do share my values. I find it easy to identify with them. I want to take their part, therefore.
But what is feminism? I think it is a system of belief where you take the woman's side. But not every woman, do I want take her side. Sometimes, I strongly feel the woman is wrong. (This happens sometimes in conflicts at work, for example.) From this, can I be a feminist? Or does feminism take the side of the 'ideal woman' who has good values--but not every real woman?
4
In general, women achieving new firsts are worth celebrating. Of course if the woman supports an anti-woman agenda, especially if that's a key aspect of her elevation, there's nothing for a feminist to celebrate. But the case of Gina Haspel is much less clear. I would not have voted to confirm her nomination, but that has nothing to do with feminism. On the other hand, the overwhelming support she has within her own agency and her success in rising to the top of it really are notable. I think she goes in the win column, complete with the troubling aspects of her history.
11
I agree with the article except for this: Because she's been a spy her entire career, we know very little about Haspel. I don't see how overseeing a detention center where people were tortured makes her anti-feminist. The abhorrent practice of waterboarding was mandated at the time. In fact, the number of detainees tortured after her arrival at the facility fell dramatically. Her refusal to answer the question about morality does not make her anti-feminist. It may simply have been the best move for her politically. I don't know if she's a feminist or not. I have not seen any clear indication that she isn't. I hope she is. Let's not make assumptions about her just because she has worked her way to the top of a spy agency.
7
This article deals with the fact that feminism is seen as political. To me, it's being the top technologist where I work and supporting myself. Made my parents proud.
My husband and I don't have children, but that's hardly destroying the family.
So, to my older allies, you did a great job. I don't want to run for political office, but participate in town halls and write.
Thank you.
7
sounds like your position boils down to:
you can't be a Republican or vote Republican or support Republicans and be a feminist.
not very liberating or empowering.
if either of the two major parties has successfully co-opted feminism, then, wouldn't that party be the Democrats?
spoiler alert: I voted for Obama in '08, Romney and '12, and did not vote in '16.
I don't think any part of this comment is uncivil.
("Comments are moderated for civility")
16
I don't think Valenti is saying that you can't be Republican and also a feminist. I thinks she is suggesting you can't be a social conservative--a subset of the GOP that has now taken the reins of power--and also be a feminist, since social conservatives as a bloc hold positions that are antithetical to feminism.
35
I think it's probably more accurate to say you can't treat gender as a significant issue in how people should be treated and be a feminist. If you see feminism as a rejection of one form of discrimination then you can't discriminate and be a feminist.
If Republicanism requires treating some others as less than equal then no, you can't be both a Republican and a feminist.
1
Conservatives made feminism a dirty word--so successfully that many women turned against it, though at its core it's about equality, about being treated as a full human being. And now they want to appropriate feminism when they think it suits them. Women were supposed to stay home and have babies. How can they have it both ways? Oh we didn't really mean it? Or, we like women to be successful when they support our anti-woman agenda? Feminism isn't just celebrating a woman breaking a glass ceiling, it's about working toward justice for all women--in the areas of economic well-being (including fair pay, non-discrimination, good and affordable healthcare and childcare), physical safety, the right to make decisions concerning child-bearing, respect, etc. Personally, I don't think the decision about the CIA director is about feminism as much as it is about humanism. She's wrong for the job, period. Being female has nothing to do with it. Feminism was dragged into it by people who suggested that women, especially feminists, have an obligation to support another woman--thereby muddying the waters.
25
Gendered oppression is a red herring. I am a white male, struggling to get by. A poor Latina has more in common with me than she does with Gina Haspell or Sheryl Sandberg.
That is because the real issues are issues of unequal wealth and power. That will become more and more apparent as more and more women enter into positions of wealth and power, and behave exactly as would have any male in generations prior.
Then and only then, will we move beyond the red herring of identity politics and face up to the real problem, which is not necessarily gendered, nor racial. It is the inequities of how we organize ourselves into classes and positions of power; the gender and racial rubrics by which we have previously done that are passing instruments. Feminism is a necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient of justice.
33
Why does the existence of one set of struggles (class) mean that others do not also exist (gender)? Why either/or? The history of the labor movement shows very different approaches to these issues over time. The Wobblies and the old CIO, for all their radicalism on labor issues, largely told women to be quiet and provide support from the rear. A similar tale could be told about the old civil rights groups like SNCC. Telling some people that their concerns are not the “real” issue has a long history, and it isn’t a happy one. Look for common cause where you can, with the idea that every person has value and dignity.
4
Well, it's complicated, isn't it? A woman does not have to be a feminist to benefit from feminism. We want more women in positions of power, be it corporate or governmental. When we women have been seen and treated as fully adult in this culture we will have to reckon with the fact that women are people, of every political persuasion. We need to keep moving the progressive agenda forward, tune out the ignorance and hypocrisy and accept that the way forward is full of bumps and ruts. We can celebrate that the CIA has its first woman director while being mature enough to realize that Gloria Steinem wasn't gonna get the job.
15
What a courageous statement. Although we do celebrate the fact that women are, finally, accepted as equal with men, if not superior in many cases, it must be for the right reasons. And that demands the exercise of prudence, doing what's right, no matter how difficult...and hazardous. And the "Kellyann Conways' of this world need not apply, as we live in one reality at a time...and not it's 'alternatives'.
6
Who gets to decide what the “right” reasons are? Wouldn’t that press limits on women that differ only in the gender of their source?
1
no surprise. sounds like your position boils down to:
you can't be a Republican or vote Republican or support Republicans and be a feminist. how liberating.
if either of the two major parties has successfully co-opted feminism, then, wouldn't that party be the Democrats?
spoiler alert: I voted for Obama in '08, Romney and '12, and did not vote in '16.
6
Your position boils down to:
You effectively voted for Trump by sitting on your hands in 2016. Mr. Trump is sexist and a racist amongst his many flaws. Republicans for the last 30 to 20 years have voted against women rights consistently. Trump is pushing more laws that will hurt working women, their children and anyone who isn't wealthy. So yes, Republicans do not have the common woman's rights in mind. You can't complain if you're not willing to get the energy to vote.
1
Correct - it is logically inconsistent to claim to be both a feminist and to support the current Republican party because its policies are anti-woman.
No surprise, the Republican position boils down to:
No ERA.
No right to choose for women.
It is established fact that feminists and the Republican party are definitely not on the same page, and never have been in the past five decades.
Steel Magnolia's comments are particularly on point regarding this. She is much more eloquent than I could ever be on this subject, but one last observation:
When Obama said 'Yes we can!' Republicans engaged in the most concerted effort to delegitimize a president seen in my lifetime, an effort that continues to this day. Obama said 'Yes we can!' and Republicans replied emphatically "No you can't!" Such liberation!
Seriously, why would anyone expect liberation from the party that gave us homeland security, non-existent WMD's, frivoulous wars, torture, "Just say NO," The invention of 'chain migration,' 'anchor babies,' and 'alternate truth'?? The Republican party is all about suppression. It has been for the last 70 years.
1
And in 2015-16, Ms Valenti worked to foist another conservative woman into power: Hillary Clinton.
Ms Clinton, who with her vote to allow W. Bush to illegally invade Iraq, and then later with her part in the destruction of Libya, made very clear that she doesn't concern herself with bettering the daily life of women, especially in the Arab world. Women had rights before the law in both Libya and Iraq, not so much now.
Then before I read, "but in the USA, Hillary has fought for women's rights", consider who most Walmart floor workers are.
14
I came of age in the 60s, back when feminism was called "women's liberation," and attended law school back when those doors were opened to women largely because so many men had been drafted to fight in Vietnam.
So I was just getting established in my legal career when conservative activist Phyllis Schafly successfully fought to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It was a defeat she orchestrated largely because by dividing women into two camps--"careerists" and those with "family values"--a division she, a career lawyer herself, apparently did not view with any irony because she always "cancelled speeches whenever [her] husband thought [she] had been away from home too much."
Schafly's rhetoric made me crazy--she denied marital rape, for example, since "[b]y getting married, a woman has consented to sex"--but it did help sharpen my own. So to those asking why feminists do not support socially conservative women, it's the same reason we do not support socially conservative men: they hold gender power values and push political positions at fundamental odds with feminism itself. Feminists believe that women's power should be equal to men's at home as well as work, that women should be free of sexual predation wherever they are and, most fundamentally, that no one--least of all, government--should have the right to deny women power over their own bodies.
Those who claim a woman who doesn't support Ivanka Trump "isn't really a feminist" don't know what feminism really is.
95
I remember Phyllis Schafly's exploits from when I was a kid. I marveled at the hypocrisy of someone who had a career and a separate gig giving national speeches about how women should stay home to support their families.
She functioned as an anti-role model for me, now a successful career woman with a family!
12
Swap Mike Pence for Sarah Palin and we still have a person acting within the old tired rules of a discredited form of domination. The fact is a large minority of women will never stop seeking to self deal within the kinds of power structures that men have abused for millennia.
If women allow feminism to be co-opted by those who seek to join in the benefits of domination then the result will simply be a large minority of women will have won the right and privilege to make all the mistakes of patriarchy.
6
There have always been women who were as heavily invested as men in the conventional homemaker myth. Lest we forget, many women were part of the anti-suffrage movement that fought against a women's right to vote.
Anti-suffragettes had been sufficiently brainwashed to believe that voting rights would 1) threaten the traditional family, 2) contravene God's will and order of the universe (God on top, followed by man, and women and everything else under the dominion of man), and 3) reinforce the idea that women are inherently controlled by their passions (e.g., the Furies, even though the Furies arose to avenge the death of their father Uranus and restore the natural order of the universe) and therefore, could not dispassionately enjoy the rights of suffrage and vote as part of an informed electorate.
Perhaps the anti-suffragettes were right. Hence there are women who would have women, themselves included, remain in chains to protect their right to wifely tranquility.
Of course, I am only a man, master of my increasingly shrinking universe, although I might give up my own mastery for a little tranquility.
Unfortunately, by making the argument for women's essential inferiority, many women of conservative causes undermine the validity of any argument they might make, upholding the second of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Certainly, women can't do any worse than men have, and might do better, even if they have it in themselves to do as bad.
12
And as there were anti-suffragettes 100 years ago, today we have fake feminists supporting patriarchal Islam, and the “right” of women to cover their bodies in The United States, and the rights of males (transgender women) to be in women-only spaces. The Left-leaning all-inclusive “feminism” in many respects is just as bad as conservative feminism.
1
Jessica Valenti is pushing back against the idea of essentialism, which has had an iron grip on way too many thinking people ever since the fight for civil rights disintegrated into identity politics.
It's preposterous to claim all women, by virtue of being women, are feminists. That's an assertion that fails to recognize the basic fact that feminism is culturally invented whereas being a woman is connected to biology.
Only after everyone accepts the basic premise that a man can be a feminist and a woman an anti-feminist can we have a debate what being a feminist means.
42
"[B]eing a woman is connected to biology."
Be careful; that statement would earn you reproach in some "feminist" circles.
Right. Part of Palin's position was that abortion should be illegal because it is "bad for women." So, in her mind women cannot make decisions about what is good and bad for them for themselves, but need conservatives through government to decide for them. Treating women like children is about as far from feminist as one can get.
107
For a powerful woman who was not a feminist:
Phyllis Schlafly was a constitutional lawyer and conservative political activist. She was known for anti-feminism and opposition to legal abortion. She led a successful campaign against ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Power and influence does not make one a feminist.
338
Agreed, she set feminism back decades by her relentless assault on women’s rights.
39
@Anne: Schlafly preached that a woman's place is in the home, barefoot, pregnant and powerless. Except for her, of course. She was willing to make exceptions for Phyllis. This hypocrisy reminds me of the three abortion exceptions "pro-life" conservative women are willing to make: "rape, incest and me."
88
She never claimed to be a feminist. So she has nothing to do with this argument. She was a weirdo even to evangelicals.
1
I think the canary in the coal mine here is capitalism. Capitalism, through its ideas about autonomy, promises women economic independence, especially and sometimes essentially economic independence from men. Yet capitalism is the very same force keeping women down, creating income inequality and the hierarchy that places men above women.
Personally, I think modern feminism is in a bind--to go forward means to continue to embrace female economic progress. Yet this progress means celebrating women like Sheryl Sandberg who are rich, while turning a blind eye to how this wealth exploits other women (and men). The inequality created by capitalism stands in direct opposition to the conceptual arguments of gender equality upon which all modern feminism rests.
Modern feminism, because of this conceptual problem, appears to be profoundly hypocritical. I don't think it is, but I also don't see much of a way out of the bind except by making what many feminists would consider a very difficult choice--become more socialist/communist (for everyone, men included) so that the promise of economic equality and the conceptual equality of the genders weren't working at cross purposes.
18
Agreed. I don't think Sheryl Sandburg is a feminist. "Sandberg went to Harvard, where she majored in economics and took Lawrence Summers’s class in Public Sector Economics. She did not speak or raise her hand, but she received the highest midterm and final grades. "
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/07/11/a-womans-place-ken-auletta
I hate women and men who don't raise their hands. They don't take risks. They don't contribute. They are takers.
She plays it safe.
"Sandberg ... took Lawrence Summers’s class in Public Sector Economics. ... Summers volunteered to serve as her thesis adviser, on how economic inequality contributes to spousal abuse, and he promoted a group called Women in Economics and Government that she co-founded. Nonetheless, Sandberg claims that she was not a feminist. The goal of the group, she says, was just “to get more women to major in government and economics.”
Lean In - sure, and in the process - box someone else out of the view.
2
"But taking advantage of feminist wins does not make someone a feminist. This is doubly true if you’re working toward limiting women’s rights, as the Trump administration does."
Those words say it all. Thank you for reminding us all that feminism means a stand for justice. To the commenter below - feminism is not just about women having equal opportunity with men. That's the "feminism lite" that slides into consumer "feminism." Feminism is - at core - about changing the underlying structure of those power roles structured around patriarchal dominance.
37
But if feminism is to free women from the judgement of others, how do you justify criticism of Sarah Sanders or Sarah Palin? Are only certain, politically approved acts allowed for women? It seems contrary to such freedom for a woman to be allowed to choose her own path but only if it stays within a certain limit, albeit different boundaries than when patriarchy ruled the day.
8
@From where I sit: There is a difference between choosing one's own path and choosing a path that limits choice for other women. If you want to work for the Trump administration and seek to reduce women's access to birth control and abortion, I'm all for your right to do so. Just don't expect me to champion your choice simply because you are a woman.
8
I imagine that feminism does not claim that women should be free from judgement, but that they should be free from judgment based on their being women. Sarah Sanders and Sarah Palin can be criticized for what they do, not for being women, and that they are women does not provide any defense.
Excellent points, all. Not only don't women vote as a bloc, feminists don't even agree among themselves. There will never be a shortage of gals who want to play hardball with the guys and reap the rewards of being on the winning team. Women can be just as cruel as men can be, and I'd like to hear why that isn't a feminist view.
8
I agree wholeheartedly that feminism is and always has been about recognizing, voicing and securing what truly constitutes women's equal position in society - even, or especially, if their needs are different or more complicated.
What I cannot abide is your mis-use of the world "literal," which stopped me for a full minutes of confusion and ire.
Something does not "literally" break ground unless it puncture the earth.
2
an acquaintance (in her mid 40's no less), told me last week that she literally gets a million robo calls a day. When I told her that was close to 12 per second she said that's "not what I meant". I told her if she wanted the attention of hyperbole, go with a billion, even a trillion. Like I said, she's an acquaintance, not a close friend.
2
Funny, I have yet to meet one conservative woman who self-describes as a feminist, or admits any progress she has made might be a result of the feminist movement's actions.
54
I understand and agree with Ms. Valenti's statement that feminists should not blindly support a person simply because she's a woman, if that woman's policies and actions are incongruous with male/female equality.
But, as reprehensible as torture might be, how is it a feminist issue, how is it an equality issue? Isn't it a moral and political issues? If anything, torture has an anti-men bias, as most (all?) of the people our government tortured were men.
If Ms. Valenti has explained this position in her books, someone please correct me, but it does appear that she is basically saying "To be a true feminist one must agree with my world view, even on matters having nothing to do with sex."
18
If you don't see that equality is a moral issue, your gras of both concepts is seriously impaired.
Perhaps Ms. Valenti believes that to be a feminist necessitates that your worldviews fall within certain boundaries. However, keeping in mind the basic tenets of feminism, being a feminist has absolutely nothing to do with your views towards torture. Hence, to say that Ms. Haspel is not a feminist is presumptuous.
Does being a feminist mean you have to believe and adhere to a fixed set of beliefs and behaviours e.g. thou shalt not torture? To torture or not is nothing to do with being a feminist. I agree with the basic premise of what the writer is saying but after equality in all things there are many beliefs and behaviours that feminists disagree on.
13
According to the author, in order to be a feminist, someone has to check yes next to each item in her orthodoxy.
When women assert authority over the thoughts of others, they are attempting to replicate their false narrative that autocracy on the part of the Patriarchy is the root of all evil. If only a new feminist rule could suppress all diversity, the world would be better off.
I do not want to be a member of a group that includes Hillary, that memorable feminist who rode to wealth on the coattails of her popular husband, selling out American interests for personal gain.
11
ebmem, as usual, you cite no facts in your abuse of Hillary.
But you do incorrectly slur this commenter.
9
@ Thomas,
The facts about H. Clinton are well known so need to cite them. What they say about her character is self evident.
3
Yes, the fact are well known and they are possibly not what you think they are. So, it isn't sufficient to say "facts" without saying what you think they are, which I can't guess. Your answer is, at best, lazy.
1
What ever happened to to the noble ideal "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will live in a nation where they will ... be judged...by the content of their character."?
Let us reclaim that.
8
It's true, feminism isn’t about blind support for any woman who rises to power. The identity in identity politics is confined to the blind support for approved identities spouting approved leftist opinions. Really, identity politics isn't about identity at all, but ideology.
8
Donald Trump borrowed brilliantly from this playbook, exploiting a sympathetic and aggrieved electorate that has embraced both victimhood and identity as political ideology. Go figure.
4
I agree it would be harder, but you could be a conservative feminist. You could be a Republican feminist. But you can't take policy positions that subordinate women and stymie women's rights and be a feminist, so a conservative feminist would be out of sync with the Republican party on a variety of issues, especially these days. I wish we had some Republican/conservative feminist women. If there are any of them out there, they are swallowing their principles for their party.
15
I doubt most of the people on the right who spout the argument "a feminist must support any women in position of power" genuinely believe it. It's just what they think is a rhetorical "gotcha." It's a pretty lousy "gotcha," since "support any women in position of power with regard for any other consideration" is not a position I have ever heard from any feminists.
Most arguments from the right-wing pundits these days don't stand up to critical thinking. They are really made for the consumption of people who would believe the Sun rises from the West and 1+1 = 3 if Trump said it.
26
Agree--there arguments don't stand up to critical thinking, so when you attempt to "reach out" and talk with them about the issues, they 1) spew Fox News lines, then 2) revert to "what about when Hillary----, or Obama-----.
Today's conservative views are not popular with the majority of Americans, which is why they must go through the back door and pack the courts, use ALEC to sneak legis. in to the states, and lose any integrity they have to play dirty like McConnell to put an illegitimate justice on the Supreme Court.
2
I have been consciously feminist since 1969. Feminism is not about 'justice' in general. It is about justice for women. It is about being pro-choice, because women, like men, need to have rights over their own bodies - & only women become pregnant. So no, a person who is anti-abortion as an individual choice is not a feminist. A feminist is also a person who thinks that women have a right the same pay for the for the same job, & an equal chance at being hired for any particular job as a man. On most other issues, a person can be a feminist & not agree with the ultra liberal brand, which has given rise to many phony feminist candidates amount both Democrats & Republicans
11
It is about being pro-choice, because women, like men, need to have rights over their own bodies - & only women become pregnant. So no, a person who is anti-abortion as an individual choice is not a feminist.
-----
Both men and women are provided by society with tools and educations to prevent becoming parents. Both have choices to plan, and prevent.
Nature gifts females with the ability to carry a child after conception occurs. The law currently provides women with the unique ability to decide, after conception, whether a child lives or dies, or whether a man will become a parent. That is not equality between the sexes.
You are arguing that being a feminist means denying scientific inequalities natural to biology. You don't have to believe a woman has the unquestioned right to kill her child to be a feminist. The "my body, my choice" rule of medicine is curtailed in many ways by society, if you think about it...
2
Ironically, the act of conception is one of patriarchy and male violence.
"Kill her child" No matter how many times you repeat it, a zygote/embryo or fetus is not a "child." And yes, since a woman is the person who becomes pregnant, the choice on whether to continue that pregnancy must ultimately be hers alone.
I don’t know. Isn’t the whole point of feminism for women to be culturally equal to men? While I am no fan of the Trump Administration, the acceptance of Gina Haspel is a victory for feminism. In fact, her record of torture and abuse is almost ‘masculine’. I think male-female equality should be more than just earning similar pay for similar jobs, it should be the acceptance that there are bad women out there ( an idea that immediately raises the misogynist flag to many feminists). Anyway, maybe my idea of feminism is wrong, but women have achieved equality in pretty much every field- data that shows a lack of that does not take into account the power feminism has had in the last 20 years compared to the last 100. Mark my words, in 50 years I wouldn’t be surprised if the power ‘balance’ shifts in favor of women due to the negligence of sons (a phenomena we are witnessing the beginnings of today!)
4
Data do not show that women have achieved equality in almost every field.
Are you mad?
As a female amateur jazz musician, scientist, and physician, I assure you women are nowhere near equality in ANY of those fields.
7
At 82 years I am tired of labels..and trying to define them..
How about being a person who believes in equality . I don't have to like what someone equal does.
I do not like that woman at the CIA. My late husband worked there and would be unhappy about her for her behavior I am sure.
120
I saw conservatives criticize feminists for voting for Hillary Clinton "just because she's a woman". Now they turn around and ask "how can't you support Nikki Haley or Sarah Sanders? they are women in power!"
This is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of feminism and empowerment that sees power as the goal in itself. Because these conservatives misunderstand feminism and its goals, they're going to be endlessly frustrated at the choice feminists make. While having women in power is a goal, the underlying purpose is to effect policy change. When Haspel or Huckabee Sanders or Joni Ernst doesn't care about women's rights--what larger purpose does their power serve?
193
Are you admitting that "feminism" simply means "women who support Democrat Party policies"?
3
Alexis: I agree. In my opinion, feminism is about fundamentally changing the structures of power that have long contributed to women being paid unequally for the same work, subject to sexual harassment, and unable to attain the same professional levels or influence simply because of their gender. Conservative women seem happy to conform to this patriarchal system and keep the status quo. Feminists seek to transform it. If that makes feminism "liberal", so be it.
36
Why should one confuse two things. What is wrong with acknowledging and applauding the success of a woman candidate and then not voting for her becasue of policy disagreement? I am a republican who actually admires Hillary Clinton as a person and who did not vote for her because I detest progressive policies.
5
Certainly it is not hypocritical for Ms. Valenti to oppose Ms. Haspel, Ms. Scott et al. because she disagree with those women's policy views. That opposition doesn't make Ms. Valenti a misogynist or a participant in a "war on women". It simply means that substantive disagreements exist. It does seem, however, that such ability to oppose women in certain positions is a one-way street. How many times did we hear that misogyny drove much opposition to Hillary Clinton (an assertion that often goes unchallenged)? Independent-thinking women and men are the same in this respect: a vast range of opinions exists regardless of whether you have XX or XY chromosomes. It doesn't mean you're anti-female to oppose a woman because of policy differences. Under Ms. Valenti's paradigm, it seems that "feminism" is more of a political platform with certain planks you must agree with. Through that lens, there is nothing wrong with concluding that Ms. Haspel and others aren't "feminists" (though not everyone agrees with Ms. Valenti's definition of "feminism").
1
I totally agree. A woman in power doesn't really mean that she doesn't support patriarchy.
And by the way, if we want real social progress, how about removing the concept of "power". I didn't study gender studies, but I think that the problem sometimes is not even about gender, but power. It's just an archaic concept.
10
When I'm asked if I'm a feminist, I ask, "Well, first tell me how you define that word." Then, I let the person tell me their definition (which I may or may not agree with), but it's a good starting place to have a real conversation.
28
A rose is a rose is a rose
"You cannot be a feminist and support an immigration policy of taking children away from undocumented immigrant mothers."
But you can be a feminist and support an immigration policy of taking children away from undocumented immigrant fathers?
Really, I don't understand this remark by Ms. Valenti.
24
You're right, that's a problematic statement. As a feminist, children should not be taken from undocumented moms or dads.
4
Really! This comment appears emotive, unfair and based upon a non sequitur: Ms Valenti made no reference to the "rights" of a father in the context of immigration policy. Undoubtedly a father has rights, however a fundamental underpinning tenet in feminism (as I see it) is the identification of the disproportionate role befalling women in procreation: they incubate, bear, sustain and nurture ALL people. And yet, in the "man's world", they appear in a diminutive position, not fully owning their own bodies or fully entitled to life's opportunities — nor inheriting the incipient respect which is their due.
5
Her statement does not mean you can infer that she supports taking children away from fathers, to do that is simply ridiculous. The statement coveys a simple and rational idea--that feminism doesn't mean one can personally benefit from hurting other women, or in taking a broader view of feminism it means all others in general, including fathers. Your assumption is so antiquated and incorrect in suggesting however obliquely that feminists in general and Ms. Valenti in particular are "man-haters."
4
I consider myself libertarian-leaning and a feminist, though Ms. Valenti and many others might think the two are incompatible. And to be sure, I come out on the different side of many issues from my liberal-leaning feminist friends. But I thought the most basic idea of feminism is that women should have equal opportunity to men. I don’t see how conservatism and liberalism inherently clash on that point. Certainly there is room for different camps of feminism, but it doesn’t seem fair or prudent that liberals should reserve the label of “real” feminism only for themselves.
Also, for what it’s worth, though I wouldn’t have voted for Carly Fiorina, I still would have celebrated a presidential win by her as a feminist victory. You don’t have to support a specific candidate to recognize that a glass ceiling has been broken.
22
KDF: May I suggest that you re-read the Libertarian Presidential Platform.
Women do not have any guarentee on reproductive choice. That includes the legal right to abortion. As the Platform says, women will be held to the "community standard". Good luck if your "local boyz" decide to do the deciding for you.
I'll be watching the next platform the Libertarians produce. I was a member once about 20 years ago until I learned that they were absolutely against the Equal Rights Amendment - and fully for gay marriage.
I decided I'd look elsewhere for a party.
I don't need to be beaten over the head on where I'm not wanted.
Good luck to you.
You're going to need it.
10
@KDF: You have a distorted view of conservatism. The social conservatives who now dominate the Republican party believe in "complementarity" between the sexes, not "equality." They think men and women are assigned by God and natural law to separate spheres of life. They think a woman's place is in the home, that access to contraception and abortion should be obstructed by law, that women who indulge in sex should suffer the "consequences" by being forced to give birth against their will. Republicans want to destroy Planned Parenthood because they hate feminism, not because they care about "life." Like all conservatives, they have a hierarchical worldview. They think men are natural leaders, both outside and inside the home, and that women should submissively knuckle under to their leadership. If you believe any of this garbage, you aren't a feminist. And that odious, dishonest anti-abortion crusader Carly Fiorina isn't, either. Conservative women like her and the late, unlamented Phyllis Schlafly are willing to make exceptions for themselves to the gender stereotypes they want to enforce on everyone else. That includes pursuing success in business, running for public office and showing up at Planned Parenthood for abortions.
5
I agree, for the most part. Torture, however, is not a feminist issue. It may be an ethical issue or a humanitarian concern, but not all issues are feminist issues. Whether a woman supports it or not, it has nothing to do with being a woman.
It's tempting to say that whatever issues I find ethically sound are feminist issues because that means any woman that disagrees is on the wrong side of equality. Unfortunately, that in itself is probably not ethical.
27
It's an interesting distinction the author builds on: belief in equal representation (more women in power) vs belief in a political ideology (more leftist feminists in power).
Is Nikki Haley or Sarah Sanders not a feminist proper (and worthy of support) because she doesn't see eye to eye much with Ms. Valenti, even if she is filling the very power roles Ms. Valenti wants women to have?
Who decides which women deserve power? Honest question.
41
Well, part of feminism is honest, full of integrity, belief in equal rights for all people, collaboration, equal pay, good childcare policies and support for women's right to choose, birth control, and freedom from rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, control of their own bodies, the right to be LGBT, freedom of religion (all kinds not just hypocritical christian evangelical so called religion) freedom from religion for atheists, and so many other things. If you don't believe in equal rights and justice for all, you aren't a feminist.
Hayley and Sanders support a so called president that believes in none of these things, and actively lies and works against women and families. By definition these two are NOT feminists, but corrupt lying hateful women who just happened to be ok with this administration's toxic garbage. In fact, they are willing to lie and act as if because they are women they should get a pass. Same with Haspel. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It is not hypocritical to not support these lying cruel women, simply because they are female. They are as sexist and mysogynistic as the absolute abomination in the White House. And feminism doesn't support bad treatment of families, mothers, children, fathers and others. If they want to truly be feminists? Quit this garbage administration and stand up for women truly. Then you can whine all you'd like. Until then we need no more lies from you. Great article as always Jessica!!
10
At this point, with backlash looming on all sides (defunding Planned Parenthood and Jordan Petersen's men's cult are two examples recently detailed in The Times), I would think that real feminists would be looking for ways to unite us, not divide us up into liberal and conservative camps, like the men enjoy doing. Why are we creating hierarchies of "who's a feminist/who isn't a feminist"? That is a divide-and-conquer tactic straight out of the anti-feminist playbook, and we can see the consequences of that in the dysfunctional political climate brought to us courtesy of the Republican party.
I don't agree with every woman I meet. But I do bother to talk to a variety of women from different walks of life, and though I may not agree with them all politically, I am not looking for disagreements. I am looking for ways of working together to accomplish things that will benefit us all. Why are we focusing on what divides us, when we could be building coalitions and consensus among reasonable women to further causes that will help us all? Some things we may not be able to work together on, but there must be common ground in many areas.
If we keep looking for ways to separate ourselves from each other, to build walls and cause misunderstanding, we lose the strength of solidarity. Of course some women are as greedy and selfish as some men, but why bother with them? Look for the women who want to work with each other; leave the rugged individualists to their own devices.
82
Anyone who thinks Jordan Peterson is running a "men's cult" has, very obviously, not looked deeply into his work at all - this publication included. The lack of serious vetting evident in the recent article(s) mentioning his work is enough to make me, an NYT subscriber of 20 years, reconsider if my continued payment is warranted. What a sorry state of affairs to target a genuine intellectual for the positive work he done to improve the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of both men and women. The spotlight aimed at him is totally misguided and belies a complete disinterest in honest discourse and research.
More to the point, the infighting among feminists mentioned here is exactly what makes the feminist movement so unappealing in the eyes of many critics and would-be members. Get 10 self -described feminists in a room, and ask them all to write down their definition of feminism in 100 words or less - how much overlap do you think there'd be? I suspect a lot less than you'd find if you queried 10 random republicans with the same question about their politics. If we on the left want to have any hope of establishing a serious liberal agenda through political power, this agenda must be based on ideas that do not divide people inherently between self-described (and therefor almost arbitrary) identities. Contemporary feminism seems to be a microcosm and case study of the the entire political left devouring itself.
5
Thanks for the very well written and articled rebuttal, Jeff.
As a paid NYT's subscriber, I'm equally appalled by the editorialized hack job and third rate journalism perpetrated against Jordan Peterson. The deliberate misrepresentation and superficial understand of his views is something I would expect at Fox News or MSNBC - not a world-class publication such as the NYTs.
I 100% agree regarding the lack of consistent, well-defined feminist principles and guidelines (manifesto) that are universally understood or communicated . I think the majority of reasonably informed people understand (and mostly agree with) first wave, second wave and third wave feminism. However, fourth wave feminism seems to have gone of the rails in terms of it's coherency, message and goals.
This article, reminded me of recent squabbles between feminists during the Women's March in Washington. First, "white" feminists were chastised for wanting to lead the march alongside other feminist minorities. Second, feminists in support of Palestinian rights (and against Israel apartheid) were not allowed to participate. Insanity.
To me, feminism means being able to make your own life choices, be that to get married or not, to go to college or not, to stay home, be a homemaker, and raise children or not, to work or not. To me it is about respecting eachother's choices even (especially) when we make completely different choices. I would never deny another woman her right to decide to have children anymore than I would deny a woman the right to limit the size of her family or not to have children. I hope that conservative women give me the same respect re making my own life decisions. If they seek to deny me the right to make my own decisions while accepting the freedom I give and wish them, that is when I have a problem with conservative women.
313
the trouble with "choice feminism" is that too often, it stops at the fact that a woman supposedly had a choice. That's what leads to "but you chose to have children" (or have a job, et cetera). Feminism, for me, goes beyond the right to make a choice, and to the factors and culture that affect our choices. If I quit work to stay home because I can't get sick leave and daycare costs are greater than my salary, what kind of choice is that? Choice feminism is appealing because individual women get blamed for the structural factors leading to their decisions, but it's insufficient.
209
I think that's the distinction that matters, not conservative or liberal but where other women are regarding choices and expanding rights.
17
No true feminist is denying women's choices. The point is simply that making choices within the system formed around patriarchy is not feminism. It's a good step towards women's freedoms - but it doesn't change the structures that limit or eliminate choices for most people - not just women - in the favor of a few powerful men.
47
Anyone who claims to be feminist under false pretenses and in order to undermine feminism itself is certainly no friend of the movement. But conservative women who honestly believe that they are feminists because they are independent and are not controlled by men, whether conservative or Tea Party, or Trump supporters, should be welcomed into the fold. Feminism should be inclusive and open-minded and should welcome women across a vast spectrum of political beliefs who are trying their best to be who they are in the face of men who want them to be who they want them to be.
36
It's very difficult to welcome women who support a party and causes antithetical to choice and opportunity for women. I agree with Ms. Valenti - in the efforts to be "open-minded", feminism has become as obsequious and diluted as dishwater. It still has to mean something, not everything.
105
True, feminism should be and is inclusive and open minded. Conservatives are not. I know, I used to be very conservative. My conservative friends and family members do. To see themselves as feminists, they regard feminism "pro-abortion" and "anti-men." No use in arguing, conservatives, I know refuse to listen.
13
Any woman who votes for any woman or man who would deny any woman the right to make her own choices about her body is not and never will be a “feminist.” It’s just not possible. Women have a basic human right to make decisions and choices that affect their bodies. Anything else makes zero sense.
19
While Gina Haspel was given Congressional permission to use torture, she wasn’t given given permission from Congress to destroy tapes of how torture was done. In any event, selecting someone who believes torture to be acceptable regardless of Congressional approval is not what my idea of feminism stands for.
87
When did Congress give anyone permission to use torture? That was an executive decision, from Bush and Cheney on down. No consequences, of course.
13
Torture "continued [under Obama] all the time — for example, the manner in which force feeding was conducted in Guantanamo Bay was clearly torturous,"
"The Army Field Manual … does not explicitly prohibit stress positions, putting detainees into close confinement or environmental manipulation (other than hypothermia and "heat injury"). These omissions open a window of opportunity for abuse."
. ...so the practice of it continued, under Obama:
"In Guantanamo, he is still confined to a 6ft by 8ft windowless cell, forced into solitary confinement – his punishment for being 'noncompliant'" Smith wrote in 2014. "He's been a regular victim of brutal force-feedings, and he has been beaten by the "forcible cell extraction" team more than 300 times."
"Primarily under Obama it was the manner of incarceration — including the solitary confinement and force feeding — rather than more mediaeval methods," Smith told TRT World,
1
There is nothing anti-feminist about a women who oversaw a site where detainees were tortured. Feminism isn’t about being nice, or even about being a morally good person. And it is not about being kind, empathetic, nurturant, or caring. Feminism is a commitment to promoting women’s interests. And as to what that comes to, I’m an old-fashioned feminist: I believe that women’s interests are not served by promoting femininity but by liberating women from it.
64
"Feminism is a commitment to promoting women’s interests."
What are "women's interests?" As bell hooks pointed out, the interests of a white, upper middle class woman in America are quite different from that of women of color, who are - on the whole - lower income. Seems like women who say "promoting women's interests" really mean "MY interests."
28
For me feminism has always meant treating women as full human beings- people who are capable of making their own decisions about their lives.
Yes, indeed: MY interests QUA woman, and the interests other women QUA women, including lower class women, women of color, and other women who are, for a variety of other reasons disadvantaged. I and those other women have other interests which other -isms promote. But whatever other disadvantages we may have, we also have those that are specific to being female and those are the issues that feminism addresses. QUA.
Saying a feminist must support any woman, regardless of her views, is as ridiculous as saying anybody who is black must support the opinions of Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson, or anybody that is rich is hypocritical for calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. And yet, we hear these views expressed all the time. It's almost as if some people read George Orwell and decided to use his writings as playbooks.
306
Eric, I would agree that there is no inconsistency in someone's being a feminist and failing to support Sarah Palin. It does sound to me, though, like the writer of this piece is saying that in order to be a feminist one has to agree with her specific political views, for example, on immigration policy. Each side seems to be saying that feminism implies agreement with their favored politics. Maybe feminism implies neither one side nor the other on certain issues? Just a thought?
18
I agree. We did hear this rationale also from Albright during the presidential race, what really turned me off.
11
How can separating families (i.e. children from their mothers) be considered feminist, no matter where you are on the political spectrum? That is part and parcel of this administration's current stated immigration policy.
The values behind the term "feminism" might be a little unclear to many people, including younger women, who may not be aware of the days when women couldn't obtain their own credit cards.
Achieving a complementary balance between contributions of women and men in the family, community and workplace would be enormously beneficial and what feminism means to me. Many women carry a disproportionate share of the household workload, even while their voices and compensation are often diminished in the workplace.
Some trends are favorable to women today, including higher education levels compared to men and labor shortages in fields requiring higher and specialized education. But there is also huge resistance to greater equity in all areas, not least from the evangelical community and males threatened by greater female participation in all aspects of society.
Because of this, women are going to enjoy more favorable conditions in some parts of the country than others. This could further exacerbate the sorting that is damaging many areas of the country by draining them of talent.
63
Credit cards? The was a time when women couldn't vote, & when any money she earned belonged to her husband. There was a time when men could dictate whether or not their wives could work at all.
6
Just because someone is female doesn't make her automatically a "feminist." There are plenty of women who say they're "feminists" but when you look at their actions, no one would ever classify them as empowering women if they had been done by a man. I feel the ultimate test of who is and isn't a feminist should be--would we, as society, be praising a particular action regardless of who did it? A feminist just wants equality between the sexes so if an action done by a man is deplorable, it would be equally deplorable if it was done by a woman, and vice versa.
154
Should the actions really matter if the underlying point of feminism is to remove any and all barriers, deterrents, obstacles and criticism of any woman’s choices? As I’ve read, in the 60’s there was debate about feminism and military service by women. One school of thought was that it was not okay because a true feminist is against war and military preparation for the same. On the other hand, shouldn’t we all support ANY woman who pursues whatever she chooses. Otherwise, feminism would still be restrictive to women just under a different set of rules.
18
I think you raise valid points. In my opinion, the underlying point of feminism is to free women from being subjugated by men and from being denied equal rights and opportunities. We are still fighting that battle, by the way, and a lot of it revolves around reproductive freedom (non-negotiable) and how our society wants to support the raising of children, which is a necessary function.
But feminism still leaves a lot of room for different viewpoints around specific issues. I don't think we do feminism any favors by trying to claim it includes everything in the Democratic platform.
1
Likewise, when some women chose to not only serve their country but to do so in one of the elite forces, as is their absolute right, other women shouldn't be punished for their breaking of the camouflage ceiling by expanding the Selective Service to include women!