Emily Shire’s New York Times Piece Complaining About Feminism Is Rich With Hypocrisy
After reading Emily Shire’s op-ed, “Does Feminism Have Room for Zionists?” in The New York Times, I walked away more confused, and frankly, disappointed.
In the op-ed, Shire makes it clear that she considers herself a feminist, while also exposing feelings of irritation with the movement, slightly suggesting a tug-of-war sentiment with the women’s movement.
“As a proud and outspoken feminist who champions reproductive rights, equal pay, increased female representation in all levels of government and policies to combat violence against women, I would like to feel there is a place for me in the strike,” wrote Ms. Shire.
Ms. Shire proceeds to gripe about feeling rejected by feminism due to her allegiance to Zionism, while also supporting the two-state solution with Palestine. She believes feminist (ref: liberal feminist) have abandoned feminists like her because some liberal groups like No Red Tape are apparently pro-Palestine and reject the expansion of a Jewish state.
Ms. Shire also is concerned that liberals have established an affinity for Rasmea Odeh, who was accused of being a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — which the State Department declared a terrorist group. In 1969, Ms. Odeh was convicted of the bombing in Jerusalem that killed two people, and another bombing at the British Consulate, which Ms. Shire reports in her op-ed.
The alleged crimes of Ms. Odeh are indubitable; acts of terrorism are despicable. Religious bigotry is intolerable, and Ms. Shire is right to be dismayed, actually horrified by Mr. Odeh celebrity within the feminist movement. As a Christian, who has studied the Kabbalah, I too am horrified.
That said; the feminist movement isn’t a monopoly. It’s a diverse movement that attracts a broad range of supporters, leaders, and ideas. Take, for instance, myself.
I’m a black woman, Democrat, pro-life, and a feminist. My pro-life stance within liberalism, in this era, makes me an anomaly. Still, it didn’t stop me from rejecting the 2016 Democratic presidential platform to gut The Hyde Amendment, while also supporting Hillary Clinton. Nor did it keep me from partaking in the Women’s March this past January.
Shire’s goes on to conclude there’s “…no reason I should have to sacrifice my Zionism for the sake of my feminism.”
Who’s asking you to sacrifice your identity? Again, feminism is diverse.
The ironic thing about Shire’s argument of feeling rejected by feminism is she’s perfectly content with the movement moving in the direction of denying people like Ms. Odeh the right to take claim of feminism too. Essentially, Ms. Shire is willing to engage in a purity test, a purity test which she regards as having discriminated against her.
Emily Shire doesn’t’ have to participate or support feminist groups that idolize Ms. Odeh, but that doesn’t mean she’s actively being discarded from the movement by feminists that share a different point of view.
Feminism isn’t a cult; it’s about human rights and the right to exist in a society that purports to being fair and equal.