September 05, 2003

The F-word

Feminism, of course. What else could I possibly be thinking of?

Boy, oh boy, I really do not embrace Diana's definition of feminism: "Feminism as we know it is a radical re-ordering of the relations between the sexes based upon the writings of certain thinkers, published mostly in the late 60s and early 70s."

She, like Dean, is free to equate radical feminism with feminism, but I just do not see it that way.

Diana thinks that people like me, who embrace the wider definition of feminism I found when I Googled are merely fooling ourselves.

Here's what I found on Google. First, the short and simple definition: "a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women/"

And now the longer version: "What is feminism? By general definition, feminism is a philosophy in which women and their contributions are valued. It is based on social, political and economical equality for women. Feminists can be anyone in the population, men, women, girl or boys. Feminism can also be described as a movement. A revolution that includes women and men who wish the world to be equal without boundaries. These boundaries or blockades are better known as discrimination and biases against gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status and economic status. Everyone views the world with his or her own sense of gender and equality. Feminists view the world as being unequal. They wish to see the gender gap and the idea that men are superior to women decreased or even abolished."

Please take note: Nothing about man-hating. Nothing about opposition to the concept of pregnancy and motherhood. Nothing about required lesbianism. Nothing about advocating the right to abortion under any and every circumstance.

Diana claims:

"The point is: definitions matter. Yes, labels matter. Taxonomy matters. "I'm a feminist and I love to have men look at me." Sorry: that's not feminism. Feminism is a harsh code, as harsh as Islam in its way, and it says that no woman can enjoy having men look at her and call herself a feminist. And sorry, it also says that no woman can enjoy being a married woman, a mother, defining herself by her family associations, and call herself a feminist. That is stretching a definition beyond recognition. It's dishonesty. Sorry, but no woman who stays at home with her kids is a feminist. Sorry to ruffle feathers but you might as well call a person who eats meat but feels guilty about it a vegetarian."

Gee, that reminds me of another form of extreme Orthodoxy. The kind that says I can't even contemplate wearing jeans, walking into a church, driving on Saturday, or eating a cheeseburger and still call myself a member of the Jewish people.

Must every movement or affiliation be defined by and limited to its most extreme manifestations? I don't think so.

Yes, I read feminist literature in the 1970's. My mom -- my stay-at-home suburban Jewish wife of a doctor -- subscribed to Ms. Magazine.

Yes, some of what I read was out there. But when you are fermenting a social revolution, often the founding fathers -- or mothers -- as the case may be -- push the envelope further than it need be pushed. I'm still incredibly grateful for what this movement has accomplished on a personal level and on a wider scale.

No, it hasn't been perfect. Yes, mistakes have been made. And my generation of women is still figuring it all out (would you believe that all of my friends from Wesleyan class of 1986, all steeped in the most lefty campus PC forms of feminism -- taught by the kind of academics that Diana despises -- have ended up -- gasp -- married with children?)

Currently, my feminist heroines are blogosphere warriorettes Judith and Meryl for defending feminism way more eloquently and linking far more prolifically than I am.

While I'm praising feminist commentary, Dean was urging all of us misguided feminists to read a certain article that he thought would help us see the light

An astute blogger named Lesley gave it the onceover. Dean, for the record, I agree with Lesley's critique of the piece. (I was happy to discover Lesley in Dean's comments section, and she's my latest blogroll addition. Thanks, Dean, for helping me find her.)

Posted by allisonks at September 5, 2003 09:30 PM
Comments

Thank you for the kind words, Allison! I have a few comments over at Plum.

Posted by: Yehudit at September 6, 2003 04:08 AM

Go girl! Yes, your suburban Mom was a proud founding subscriber to Ms magazine way when she was still home raising three young children and reading literature like "The Women's Room". I am now happy to know that there was another female in the house reading about the importance of leveling the playing fields for women and preparing to take advantage of the new opportunities. Three careers and six grandchildren later I still consider myself a feminist and hope that even more options will be available to my grand-daughters.

Posted by: Allison at September 7, 2003 06:43 AM

Allison, the previous comment was written by me, your Mom. Obviously, I don't know how to post properly. Sorry.

Posted by: Allison at September 7, 2003 06:47 AM

Allison, I just realized that I was posting comments in your name because you had posted from my computer while you were in the U.S. Hope I've fixed it.

Posted by: Marilyn at September 7, 2003 07:08 AM

She, like Dean, is free to equate radical feminism with feminism, but I just do not see it that way.

I would like to, once again, point out that I do not equate radical feminism with feminism. In fact, I have continually, and repeatedly, tried to point out that I think there is a difference.

You can disagree with me, but at least let's be clear on what we disagree with. I have problems with a certain subset of angry, shrill, resentful feminists. They exist, I've encountered them. I have problems with the ones who distort history, too, and that happens too.

But as I have said in public, quite a few times now, by the dictionary definition I am a feminist--but I note that the number of women willing to call themselves that is continually shrinking, is down to barely 1 in 4 now, and I do not believe that this is entirely due to what feminist critics have said. If feminists can't be honest that some in their own ranks are part of the problem, then the problem won't go away.

I'll otherwise recommend Christina Hoff-Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism? as an excellent primer on this. And I ask once again: should the message of such women be belittled and ignored, just because it raises difficult questions?

Now, I'll repeat one more time that I do not equate radical feminism with all feminism, and I'll hope--hope sincerely--not to be told again that I said something I did not say, and do not believe.

Peace.

Dean

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 7, 2003 08:47 AM

Oh, and by the way, I've recommended more than the Hymowitz piece. And will recommend still more--all written by feminist women--to anyone who wants a list. ;-)

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 7, 2003 08:50 AM

And yet, you called both Judith and me "resentful feminists."

Neither Judith nor I are radical feminists. Make up your mind, Dean, and perhaps people won't misquote you.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at September 9, 2003 03:12 AM
Support This Blog



Blogroll





Hosted by Blogmosis