How Feminism Became the New F-Word
“You can’t sit with us!”
It’s 2018 and there’s a new “f-word” in town: feminism.
The F-word has experienced a resurgence, largely due to the results of the 2016 presidential election. Ironically, both candidates seemed to emanate some degree of a “woman-problem” on the campaign trail — Trump dealt with accusation of sexual harassment, and Hillary dealt with accusations of weakness for standing by a husband who committed similar offenses, solely to further her own political ambitions.
And since that time, from both right and left, I hear “f-this” and “f-that.” Everyone wants to cash in on the other side’s malfeasance. I admit it, I really hate the F-word. It’s taken a good idea, i.e., equal opportunity, and associated it with anger, aggression, and absurdity.
And, I know I’m not alone in thinking that. In March 2017, Forbes noted that “there are thousands who believe in equal rights but find “feminism” a word and a movement that doesn’t align with their personal beliefs or values.”
So, on the one hand, announcing my distaste of the F-word is not a new or original thought. However, I do feel that an updated response is required given the New York Times publication earlier this week entitled “The Myth of Conservative Feminism” by Jessica Valenti.
The Mean Girls of Feminism
Upon closer examination, the only myth advanced by Valenti is that the F-word is basically an exclusive sorority — unless you align exactly with her ideas on what the F-word is, you can’t be initiated. There is no agreeing to disagree.
In other words, if you don’t agree with us, you can’t sit with us.
However, many things are more difficult to define than a simple one sentence dictionary definition.
According to dictionary.com, by definition, the F-word is, “The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” This seems relatively straightforward; however, as noted by Forbes, this definition fails to provide cultural context.
Likewise, conservatism, as a concept, is hard to define. If you ask the dictionary, it means “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.” Similar to the definition of the F-word, this definition also lacks context.
One of my favorite definitions of conservatism, advanced by Yuval Levin, is:
To my mind, conservatism is gratitude. Conservatives tend to begin from gratitude for what is good and what works in our society and then strive to build on it, while liberals tend to begin from outrage at what is bad and broken and seek to uproot it.
As I recently noted in The Evolution of Sex and the City, conservative feminism isn’t an oxymoron. But, if you listen to writers like Valenti, you’d think it was. This is my biggest gripe with liberals’ concept of diversity — it’s only diversity if you can see it, i.e., things like race, gender, and ethnicity. If you can’t see it, it doesn’t count. (“You wouldn’t buy a skirt without asking your friends if it looks good on you, would you?”) Meaningful forms of diversity involve diversity of ideas and beliefs. Even the idea that a woman may personally identify as a conservative.
Refuting Valenti’s Argument
I don’t know when blaming the opposing political party for putting a less than ideal candidate up for President and subsequently losing an election became feminism, but that is essentially the crux of Valenti and others’ in her circle of mean girls arguments.
Valenti’s first point is that “Feminism isn’t about blind support for any woman who rises to power.” On this, I wholeheartedly agree. That’s why I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton for President. On the one hand, liberals have accused conservatives of being anti-feminist for not voting for Clinton. On the other, for example, they claim that not supporting the first female CIA Director, Gina Haspel, is OK since this is about more than just blindly supporting her for being female.
Liberals can’t have it both ways. Why didn’t this same argument apply in 2016? On the one hand, if you voted for Clinton because you agreed with her policies and thought she was a better choice for our country, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that, and I hope anyone who is voting is doing so based on their beliefs not and not any single characteristic, including gender. I did not agree with Clinton on policy, which is why I did not vote for her. It had nothing to do with her gender. But don’t tell me I that I’m actively trying to curtail women’s rights simply because I had a number of policy disagreements with your Presidential candidate.
Next, Valenti states that, “Conservatives appropriating feminist rhetoric despite their abysmal record on women’s rights is, in part, a product of the president’s notorious sexism.” Valenti conveniently forgets that her political party is the one that brought us Bill Clinton. And JFK. And Al Franken. And John Conyers. Should I go on?
Neither party is innocent when it comes to elevating notoriously sexist men into the office of Presidents and and other highly-visible positions of power, so let’s stop playing the blame game. Yes, we do have an issue around gender equality in this country. But blaming this on one party whose members, generally speaking, tend to be pro-life, for example, on religious or personal grounds, does not equate to taking women’s rights away. By making statements to this effect, Valenti is doing the same thing she complains about Trump for doing — making inflammatory statements to increase partisan divide, rather than for any productive purpose.
I understand that issues around unwanted pregnancy are very real issue for some women, and I don’t want to take away from that. But, to try to mobilize all women around “women’s rights” via abortion is, once again, the same thing Valenti claims conservatives are doing — blindly supporting something because feminists like her dictated it from on high.
In furtherance of this point, Valenti proclaims that, “In our eagerness to make feminism more friendly to the mainstream, we didn’t fully consider what it would mean if any woman could claim the label.” I didn’t realize that Valenti was the Regina George of the F-word and was in charge of who could describe themselves in certain terms based solely on her approval.
In other words, men are allowed to choose to identify as liberal or conservative, and to support political candidates and parties that most closely align with their values and beliefs. Why aren’t women allowed to do the same?
As with many other concepts, the F-word is not one-size-fits-all. It’s a shame that Valenti feels it should be. My understanding of the F-word is that it’s about equality, not necessarily agreeing with someone like Valenti. In other words, men are allowed to choose to identify as liberal or conservative, and to support political candidates and parties that most closely align with their values and beliefs. Why aren’t women allowed to do the same? Wouldn’t a true equality argument mean allowing women to choose which political candidate or party to support, based on her personal values and beliefs, even if Valenti disagrees with what those values and beliefs are? According to her piece, apparently not.
Ironically, Valenti’s closing argument is that:
Now we have a different task: protecting the movement against conservative appropriation. We’ve come too far to allow the right to water down a well-defined movement for its own cynical gains. Because if feminism means applauding “anything a woman does” — even hurting other women — then it means nothing.
The only person with a cynical gain here is Valenti. She doesn’t get applauded for championing the F-word if it acknowledges diversity of thought.
In the words of Gloria Steinem, “the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” The truth is that conservative feminism isn’t a myth. I, for one, am glad that the Valentis of the world are pissed off about it.
