Feminism’s Controversial History of Throwing Other Issues Under the Bus
In my undergraduate years, I attended a university that highly prided itself on the legacy left behind by two residents of the city: the University of Rochester in Rochester, NY. Those residents are the noted leaders Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony. They are highly promoted by the institution, as they deserve to be, to the point that not one, but two affiliated buildings are named after both (a residence hall and museum for Anthony, as well as a dining hall and institute for African/African-American studies for Douglass). Douglass and Anthony had a lengthy friendship of nearly 45 years, which was not without any issues. (I know that some people will look at this post and go, “Hey, didn’t you say men and women can’t be friends? You sound like a hypocrite and a silly goose!” Those people did not read the blog post that it is referencing and do not deserve an ounce of my attention anymore.)
Douglass and Anthony, along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, debated constantly over who should have the right to vote. Both sides had substantive arguments given the climate of the time: the post-Civil War era of America would not be very receptive to extending voting rights to women or people of color, let alone both, and it would take a lot of work for it to pass. However, their argument would form the first basis on which the fight for women’s rights tried to supersede those of others.
Before I continue, I need to make a note. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fighting for the rights of your group. I don’t even know why I should even say that, but I have learned from experience that if you do not spell out something as clearly as possible over the Internet, you will hear the same damned remarks over and over again. So, I need to clarify that. While that is the case, there should be no excuse for tanking another group’s efforts as a result. Feminism, for all the good that it has done in bringing women’s issues to the forefront to be addressed, has had a noted history of doing so, more prevalent in their past than other rights movements.
After the passage of the 15th Amendment, which granted African-American men the right to vote, it was rightfully time for women to be granted theirs. Some suffragettes, in doing so, also had some choice words about their connections to the passage of the 15th. An article that delved further into the Douglass and Anthony drama showed quotes from two suffrage members who lamented that their connection to the abolitionist movement tainted their plight, one even remarking that attending Douglass’s funeral had cast suspicion on them due to “their relation to the colored question.” Yep, the colored question. I know this was before… you know… but… good God almighty…
This was rooted in the aforementioned debate between Douglass and Anthony from before. Both were founding members of the American Equal Rights Association (AERA), but the tensions between their camps had nearly halted the passage of the 15th Amendment. Sufficed it to say, the passage led to the dissolution of the group, and Black women were left off the table even in consideration for who gets the vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in her opposition to the amendment, said that people who “couldn’t read the Declaration of Independence” shouldn’t make laws for women. She also included racist dog whistles by naming those people who shouldn’t have that influence “Sambo” and “Yung Tung.” Yep. Really.
Douglass, by the way, was an adamant supporter of women’s rights. He addressed their concerns in the historic Seneca Falls convention of 1848 and declared his full backing of women’s suffrage. (By the way, there were no Black women at that conference. Seriously.) So, Stanton’s remarks and hostility to African-American rights are made even worse by her not returning the favor.
Do you want to know how bad the divide was? Stanton, along with Anthony, sided with White Southerners to obstruct the rights of Black people.
If the first proponents of feminism would rather sabotage the progress of a group than work with them to guarantee equality for everyone, that sets a pretty dark undertone that would come back to haunt other marginalized groups for over nearly two centuries.
A common critique of feminism throughout all of its waves is its focus on middle to upper-class women, diverting attention from the issues that plague the majority working class. The more successful women in the movement made great strides only to advance their causes in more high-profile positions, such as government jobs. That is not to say that is completely problematic. After all, those roles offer the power for women to enact change for the less fortunate in society. This would only be concerning if as they made their ascent to the top, they actively suppressed the working class. Speaking of…
An article from a fellow writer on Medium explained this better than I ever could, but to summarize the point relevant to this blog, feminists in Britain around the time of the First World War propped up their interests at the detriment of women who had shared working-class status with men at the time. This included debates over the right to own property — a luxury that you can bet your bottom dollar would never be extended to the working class. There was only one working-class member of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), the leading suffragette movement for women in the United Kingdom: Annie Kenney. The rest were well established in their needs. As the war raged on, the WSPU transformed from a socialist, anti-establishment feminist movement into a supportive branch of the aristocracy, completely turning against the lower-class women who would have benefited from their support. It was then up to those women in order to advance society not only for them but for all of womankind. They were the ones responsible for raising women’s wages and securing more rights, after all.
This has been seen in recent research that shows that while the gap in achievements between men and women is fortunately narrowing, there is an expansive gap between classes. As attention is diverted to identity politics and ensuring that Amber Heard is defended at all costs in her trial against Johnny Depp, the plight of the poor woman working to put food on the table is ignored throughout most of history. More focus is on culture rather than day-to-day struggles.
Remember, the aim of feminism, specifically in its second wave, was to liberate women from their previous roles as the caregiver of the family and turn them from housewives to influential figures in any line of work. That definitely is an important goal, as regardless of gender, anyone should pursue whatever they want in life without restrictions. However, it seems as though in doing so, they completely sabotaged those women who were comfortable remaining in their roles. It was all about raising women into power, so it could be argued that they didn’t care much for those who remained in their positions.
Finally, I wish I could explain this part only by having to write the following term: “TERF.” But, in order to show just how deep this concept runs, I have to delve further…
TERF stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” That is to say, a feminist who does not consider or actively antagonizes the rights of transgender people, specifically women. These people include J.K. Rowling, who for the past few years, seemed to be on a speedrun to eviscerate the goodwill she cultivated with me through Harry Potter with her anti-trans views. The same group of people, whom I must add, was responsible for the rising LGBTQ+ movement, with figures like Martha P. Johnson setting the stage for the issues to be pushed into the mainstream through the historic Stonewall riots. That movement often worked hand-in-hand with feminism in propping up the rights and freedoms of the most marginalized in society at that point (beyond the late 1960s). So to learn that a subset of feminists would be considered TERFs was especially heartbreaking to learn, and it was a driving force for this article.
Ever wonder why trans women specifically are targeted in discussions about participation in women’s sports or entering bathrooms? Well, aside from the lesser scrutinization of women being in men’s spaces, the main reason comes down to the fact that no matter the circumstance, trans women will never be seen as women in the eyes of some feminists (read: TERFs). They are simply just men in drag, hiding in order to prey on young girls as pedophiles and groom kids into accepting them into society.
Did that last sentence read like a prominent conservative talking point to you? If so, that was intentional.
TERFs have had a noted past of working with Republicans in order to trample any progress in transgender rights, not too dissimilar to the feminists of the first wave like Anthony and Stanton colluding with the White Southern Democrats (party switch) to do so to Black rights. They don’t have to be completely aligned with their politics! J.K. Rowling, whom I mentioned earlier, supported the Labour Party in the U.K. and criticized the government of Donald Trump in the U.S. That doesn't stop her from parroting their talking points specifically when it comes to transgender people though. I mean, just look at these quotes from her tweets:
“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?” (This was written in response to the firing of a British woman who stated that there were only two sexes.)
“People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
“The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women — i.e., to male violence — ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences — is a nonsense.”
Lord Voldem — I mean, J.K. Rowling doesn’t only vocalize her opposition to trans rights — she has actively supported figures like Caroline Farrow, a right-wing extremist who in theory, should be against everything Rowling stands for. Farrow was even arrested for her drastic actions against a trans activist.
And let me assure you (or sow more hatred in you), Rowling is not the only TERF.
All in all, as a movement, feminism has a shady record of advocating for its value at the behest of others, disrupting groups that should hypothetically be in arms together to fight oppression. For all the substantial achievements it has made in fighting the opposition to abortion, proposing laws favorable to women survivors of rape, sexual assault, and domestic abuse, and making the world a much safer and explorable place for them, they have also tried to obstruct those same privileges to other people. Think of that next time a feminist wants to raise their nose in their pink hats at how they fight for progressive values or becomes stuck-up in order to “dunk” on anyone they deem an enemy.
Note: I had originally planned to include a section on Erin Pizzey, the feminist who became a men’s rights activist due to the backlash she received from fellow feminists by saying that men suffer domestic abuse too. However, I did not feel that it would fit the overall message of this blog. Instead, I will devote a likely shorter article to dictating her story and sharing my thoughts. Cheers!
Another note: So I can beat people to the punch… #NotAllFeminists.
