Identity politics is an area of social discussion that is often ripe with contradictions and absolutist views. In feminism in particular, many women are inherently at odds when it comes to defining the nature of ‘the feminist’ as an identity, and what being a feminist entails.
For example, an argument that has been occurring for years now is that of whether or not men can be feminists – short answer (in my opinion)? – Yes. If a man believes in equal rights for both genders, then of course he is a feminist. And as a movement, I believe feminism should welcome male feminists with open arms.
Isn’t the purpose of minority movements such as feminism, which are based around specific values and ideologies, to make their viewpoints the norm? Should we be glad for every extra person who believes in the cause, regardless of their gender, or any other facet of their identity?
It gets even murkier, however, when the argument is about other women defining themselves as feminists, when they possess some viewpoints that are considered innately in conflict with the core values of feminism.
Recently, Sarah Palin has been featured in many a culture article after she wrote a rather effusive Facebook note endorsing several female candidates for the state elections in America, during which she also took the time to berate left-wing feminists for their support of abortion, and their more traditional feminist views and actions (you know, little things like women having the right to choose how they treat their own bodies, or when they bear children).
Palin also claims to be bringing feminism ‘back to its roots’, by highlighting the importance of mothers protecting their children, and actively supporting the pro-life movement. Now, Palin and her supporters are free to believe anything they choose, but historically speaking, the ‘roots’ of feminism were certainly not planted in soil fresh from conservative America, where abortion is considered murder and women are locked into the role of mother and wife.
Certainly, second and third wave feminism have been focused on the exact opposite of Palin’s goals – on reproductive and contraceptive rights for women, on creating pay equity and lowering the wage gap between genders, and on widening the fields of employment available to women. There is something troubling about the co-opting of a movement to promote ideas and values that are in conflict with those in which the movement was founded on.
I understand why feminists have rejected Palin’s claims to feminism, and derided her support of the pro-life movement, as it is inherently at odds with what are commonly considered to be feminist values. And yet, as a feminist myself, I find it deeply unsettling whenever anyone uses the phrase, ‘But they’re not a real feminist!’
Who are these ‘real’ feminists? Where are they, and what do they look like? For me, feminism has always been about being at liberty to choose how you express your own gender identity, and not forcing people to conform to labels based around their sex. However, I often feel as though contemporary feminism merely creates an entirely new set of boundaries and rules with which to define gender, and is rigid in the upholding of these new norms. I often get criticized for being a ‘bad feminist’ because I really enjoy baking, wearing floral dresses, and I regularly have to ask someone stronger than me to help with household tasks. However, I still actively campaign for women’s rights, am the editor of a feminist magazine, am the Women’s Officer at my university and have been entrenched in feminist discourse since my tender teenage years.
Does the ‘good’ outweigh the ‘bad’ then?
One of my favourite feminist catchphrases is ‘feminism is the radical notion that women are people’, and I think it deals with the issue of who can adopt the label of ‘feminist’ really well. People are different, and hence they deal with their ideas and viewpoints differently from each other. One person’s freedom of choice is not necessarily the same as another’s.
I would not say that Sarah Palin is necessarily a feminist pioneer, and I certainly think she needs to articulate her views in more depth, and attempt to engage with other feminists on issues rather than ridiculing them for their unorthodox lifestyles. However, I would never claim to be an authority on feminist identity to the point where I could discern the ‘real’ feminists from the nasty ‘fake’ ones.
Feminism is as feminism does – and what feminism does is whatever the hell she wants!
But what is a feminist?
Feminists are resentful, belligerent and quarrelsome women. They are also usually ignorant and misinformed with weak self control. Feminists use to be called ‘men haters’ and ‘troublemakers’. They have always been around throughout human history and their main intent is to create ill will, bad feeling, and malice between men and women. The term to describe them is ‘misandrists’, who have an attitude of ‘misandry’.
The cause is the maternal instinct which regards men as either a mating object when in lust, or a potential danger to the family unit to be driven away when not, by making life as difficult as possible. The male equivalent – male aggression – is the pack hunting instinct. Throughout history this has resulted in armies and wars.
Mature and well balanced people recognise the problems and control their instincts and emotions using basic social skills and practical common sense, something the selfish feminist is very lacking in.
Zoya: Awesome article! Very well articulated.
Commenter Dave: Are you a cave troll, a bridge troll or just in severe need of a club to the face? Either way, UM, NO.
Foz – your abusive reply fulfils my expectations of a feminist.
Thank you.
Dave: Your misogynistic attitude fulfils my expectations of a complete asshat.
Foz – your abusive reply and foul language fulfils my expectations of a misandrist feminist.
Dave – The fact that you see nothing abusive in referring to an entire section of the population as “resentful, belligerent and quarrelsome” lays you open to similar comments. And, for the record, it doesn’t take a feminist to think your views are obnoxious. It just takes a rational human being.
“in severe need of a club to the face” – this is abusive.
“a complete asshat” – this is foul language.
My post just simply described the characteristics of a small but vocal group of women who have, and are, causing a great deal of trouble in society with no justification for it. I see nothing obnoxious about it.
It is also my personal opinion that is widely held now days.
Right:
1 – No matter that you view it as your opinion, and therefore objective, calling an entire group of people “ignorant and misinformed with weak self control” is still offensive. The fact that I insulted you back does not confer any moral highground.
2 – Feminists are not a small group. Neither are they all women. My husband is a feminist. So is my father; so is my godfather; so was my grandfather. Your description was therefore both inaccurate and offensive. Abuse isn’t solely a product of language; it’s also a product of intent. Your intent, insofar as I cant tell, is to deliberately misunderstand an entire group.
3 – Read the following article – http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html – and tell me the world has no use for feminism.
4 – Yes, that’s an extreme article. That doesn’t make it any less real. And if feminism didn’t exist in the rest of the world, nobody would be arguing against such crimes. In fact, their widespread acceptance in earlier eras – or the acceptance of similar practices – is what spawned feminism in the first place.
5 – I reacted the way I did initially because I had difficulty comprehending that you are a real person. To me, your initial statement made about as much sense as if I were listening to someone claim that Jews have horns, or that all black people are lazy. Speaking to you is like having an internet connection to the 1800s. From where I sit, I can gauge your gender, but not your age. My grandfather, a lifelong Liberal voter and right-wing conservative born in the 1920s, would have had difficulty relating to you. How do I know this? Because he loved and supported my feminist grandmother, to whom he was happily married for 60 years.
6 – Any woman who disagrees with you isn’t automatically a man-hater or misandrist. I love my husband, and most of my friends are male. But your views are obnoxious and ignorant. That just means I dislike *you*.
7 – Actually, I don’t know why I’m bothering with any of this. I have about as much of a chance as changing your mind as I do of willing my cat to speak. But I find the extent of your wrongheadedness somehow compelling. That’s the curse and burden of the internet. Unlike in a real life situation, I can’t just walk away, calm down and forget about it. Because you’re still here when I come back. And you’re still wrong. And it still makes me angry. So here I am, wasting my time, yelling at a misogynist I’ve never met.
8 – Are you so bold with your views about feminism in real life, or is it just anonymity that gives you the courage? I can’t help but feel that must be the case, if you think your views are anywhere near commonplace. What was your mother like? Are you married? Do you have any sisters, daughters, female friends? Because from where I’m sitting, you’re just a faceless voice in the dark, angry, ignorant and unloved.
I afraid the whole tone and content of your last comment just simply support my original comment – which begins with “Feminists are resentful, belligerent and quarrelsome women.” I could add abusive as your personal abusive of me in your last comment has nothing to do with the article above or my original comment.
If you wish to dispute and disagree with me that is fair enough, but the rant above is just pure rubbish.`
For example I referred to feminists as mis-informed, but you make no attempt to challenge or refute that. And your linking to a wild newspaper article that has no reputable evidence or research organisation to check it wild claims is pathetic, and supports my comment of “their main intent is to create ill will, bad feeling, and malice between men and women.”
You also make wild assertion (lies) about me in order to discredit me.
You are indeed a true and genuine Real Feminist.
Dave is a troll. Don’t feed the trolls. Only comment I need make, because any further comment or attempt to reason with a troll will only feed the troll. Being right doesn’t matter when dealing with a troll. Being insulted by a troll is no reason for recourse, because obvious troll is obvious. Discuss.
On a more real note, Dave says “ALL” feminists. I am male, but believe in many things feminists do, and also disagree strongly with a few extreme standpoints taken by women who try and label themselves feminist. I also believe that male rights have been under attack by a fringe group of women, who have tried assigning themselves that same label of feminist.
Just because a sect branched off a certain group of people are bad, doesn’t mean the real group is.
I am not a troll, I am a serious commentator with something relevant to say, unlike either the abusive and foul mouthed Foz, and the patronising James, neither of whom have anything to contribute to the subject, and appear to be idle chat room chatters who just block serious comment and discussion by attacking serious commentators.
But to bring the comments back on subject, I repeat my edited view –
Ah yes, but what is a feminist?
This is the view of most ordinary people, a view that I have to agree with -
Feminists are resentful, belligerent and quarrelsome women. They are also usually ignorant and misinformed with weak self control. Feminists use to be called ‘men haters’ and ‘troublemakers’. They have always been around throughout human history and their main intent is to create ill will, bad feeling, and malice between men and women, usually by unfounded assertions – even lies. The term to describe them is ‘misandrists’, who have an attitude of ‘misandry’.
The cause is the maternal instinct which regards men as either a mating object when in lust, or a potential danger to the family unit to be driven away when not, by making life as difficult as possible. The male equivalent – male aggression – is the pack hunting instinct. Throughout history this has resulted in armies and wars.
Mature and well balanced people recognise the problems and control their instincts and emotions using basic social skills and practical common sense, something the selfish feminist is very lacking in.
If you reply to this please keep it relevant to the above article by Zoya.
Oh man, Dave, you are such a nutter! Seriously, I’d be laughing my arse off right now if it weren’t for the fact that you probably voted for Stephen Fielding. Yes, I use swear words, and yes, I think you’re a trogloditic wanker with the IQ of a gluestick, but what’s REALLY hilarious is your misguided belief that you – and you alone – are being on-topic and non-abusive, when *in fact* you aggressively chose a post about striving for equinamity within the feminist movement to grandstand about how how all feminists are, in fact, crazy bitches who hate men.
It must be so tough for you, living in a day and age where feminism has achieved votes for women, a female prime minister, the widespread distribution of commercial prophylactics (feel free to look that word up), paid maternity leave, sexual harrassment legislation and a higher education system that turns out more female graduates than male while still clinging to the belief that all women are either clingy, maternal harridans or tempestuous, homewrecking jezebels. You’re like a caveman unfrozen from the ice and wondering where all the mammoths went. Perhaps there’s a support group you can join? Though if you plan on staging any anti-feminist rallies in the near future, I can’t vouch for your positive crowd attendance.
I mean, come on: your opening gambit was to call us all selfish, misinformed and belligerent – which opinion you supported with, oh, wait, absolutely nothing whatsoever – and then act indignant when I retaliated. So, what – you’re a fan of self-fulfilling prophecies? Insult someone, and then look shocked when they take offense? I bet you were the kind of kid who went round whacking wasp nests with a stick and then crying when you got stung. But then, you probably didn’t pay attention when they were teaching cause and effect at high school. It might have involved *thinking*.
I love how you’re all wrapped up in self-righteousness, lashing out at men and women alike. I’m almost prepared to upgrade you from misogynist to misanthrope. Are you happy, Dave? Because given the vast gulf of dissimilarity between your views on women and the functioning of the real world, your observations of daily life must be a form of torment. I bet you find yourself glowering at female shop employees, wondering why they’re not at home with their children, or grumbling about the form-fitting skirts of your female colleagues even as you struggle to comprehend why every woman you meet thinks you’re an arrogant bastard. Here’s a challenge: next date you go on, take a copy of your views on feminism from this post and read them out to your prospective housefrau-to-be, and see how far in you get before she throws her wine in your face. It’ll be fun! For the rest of the restaraunt, anyway.
I bet you’re a bureaucrat, Dave. I bet you have an office job that involves processing forms, that you think venemous thoughts about your colleagues while never actually talking to them because you despise them so much. I bet you think that promotion hasn’t been forthcoming because your bosses are prejudiced against you, and that every complaint ever laid at your feet is the fault of the other person. I bet you love the internet because it’s the only place you can speak your mind and tell people like me what you really think. I bet you’re unmarried, middle-aged, bitter and tertiary educated. I bet you’re forgettable at parties. And I bet you either own a gun, or wish you did. But then, I’m a storyteller, me. I like to make up theories about who I’m talking to, about why they say and think what they do. And regardless of whether anything I just said was right or wrong, I’d still lay money on the fact that imagining things from someone else’s perspective is an ability you just don’t have.
So go on, Dave. Tell me I’m wrong. Tell us all about yourself.
Or better yet, tell me I’m right.
You’re wrong. You are also an idiot.
Good bye.
Since Sarah Palin starting calling herself a feminist a lot of people have lost a lot of good breath trying to figure out what this all means. I don’t really know why. Many people seem to suggest that feminism is “whatever it means to you”, which is very obviously total bullshit to me.
While I do agree that calling yourself a feminist openly gets you like 5 points from me, calling yourself one then spouting viewpoints that are against the project of feminism isn’t something that particularly gets my panties in a knot. When a feminist friend makes obviously sizist remarks which reinforce misogynist beauty standards, or when I fail to speak up about someone using the term “rape” as a metaphor, I don’t feel inclined to revoke our feminist label. While in both instances, we have decided to do something that impinges on the freedom of other women, and fails the larger project of feminism, I don’t think that either the hard-line “you’re not a real feminist” or “whatever feminism means to you is ok” methods work very well. How about sizism and silence about sexual assault both serve patriarchal interests and neither is ok? I think it’s pretty fucking important that we hash out what feminist ideals are and strive for them. But sorting out the complexities of our intentions as women who’ve grown up with layers of sexism and self-loathing baked in, is both an unrealistic and divisive project.
Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement are reaching women in a way that is very dangerous to the project of feminism and the eradication of sexism. They are anti-choice, racist, classist, and recently decided to start calling themselves feminist. They are capitalizing on the lack of power that women have in society in general to further subjugate particular groups of women. I think feminism has seen this one before, and an incredible amount of vibrancy and strength came out of confronting it. Opposing women’s control of their own bodies is something we can actually argue about; Whether individual anti-choice women who support the empowerment of women in other ways have enough “girl power” points to use the F-word seems absurd to me.
This author points out, as many young femme feminists have, that they have been criticized for their traditional girly appearance or interests by other feminists. This is something I have always worried about but rarely actually experienced. Could this somehow be rooted in the stereotype of angry, manly feminists, which is conflated with a very few experiences where I felt uncomfortable and judged around other feminists? Being able to challenge ideas without attacking and judging individuals and the corresponding skill of being able to be challenged without feeling judged are invaluable within feminist communities.
I set out to write 4 sentences and wrote 5 paragraphs, so this issue maybe isn’t as simple as we wish it was. All the more reason not to stop at the desperate “it’s ok, let’s just accept and appreciate each other” or the angry “you’re not a real feminist”. The term feminist doesn’t and has never meant “person who knows what is best for women”, and in many ways, means the inverse. It means you are subscribed to life of doublethink where you simultaneously believe that women make the best decisions for themselves, and that systems exist that keep us from making the best decisions for ourselves, or supporting each other to do so. This shit ain’t easy.
“In our world, divide and conquer must become define and empower” -A. Lorde. Amen!