Says Glenn Reynolds linking to a NYT "Room for Debate" collection of 5 essays on the topic "Is Carly Fiorina a Feminist?" I'll take his word for it that only 1 of the 5 answers yes.
I had a flashback to the time I was invited to write for a collection like this. I think the question was "Who is a feminist?" I forget what current issue made that seem like the right question to ask, and I'm sure my answer was something along the lines of: It depends on how you define the term.
20 minutes later... That was surprisingly hard to find. The question was "Who Gets To Be a Feminist?" — which is a a strange way to put it, suggesting that there's a gate-keeper deciding who's allowed in the club. It was in DoubleX at Slate back in October 2010. I wrote:
"Who gets to be a feminist?" Who wants to know… and why?... You don't get any special rights or privileges for being a feminist, so what difference does it make? "Who gets to be a feminist?" Is it some high-school clique with mean girls deciding who gets in? Are there guardians at the entrance? The entrance of what? Nothing hinges on it. One woman says, "I am a feminist" and another says, "No, you're not." This is political polemic of a very dull sort.ADDED: Hillary recently embraced definition #1. She expressed puzzlement that some women don't want the label "feminist," but the puzzlement — which is just theater, of course — only makes sense if the definition is solidly nailed down, which it isn't.
There's one group that pushes for a narrow definition. Feminism requires radical dedication to toppling the phallocracy. Great. Say that. Be fiery and militant. Another group makes a litmus test out of abortion. OK. You have your issue, and you think it's helpful to insist that feminism is just another word for abortion. Or you can tromp in from the right and be Sarah Palin and say you're a feminist—and a grizzly bear … or whatever it is you want to be. Knock yourself out. Make steam come out of the ears of the feminism-is-abortion crowd.
It's rhetoric. Maybe you can stir up some action fighting over feminism, but I have a feeling that most people are, like me, bored by struggles over words when nothing happens as a result of somebody acquiring possession of the word, and nobody's going to get possession of the word anyway.
But, I'll play nice. Here are two definitions: 1. a feminist is anyone who believes in the equality of the sexes, and 2. a feminist is someone who centers her political activities on the interests of women and steadfastly puts those interests first. The trouble with No. 1 is that pretty much everyone is a feminist now. The trouble with No. 2 is that you get to kick out everyone who, say, muddied the issue of sexual harassment in order to help Bill Clinton out of a jam.
Definition No. 2 is good if you'd like to put people to the test. Plus, it's amusing when you have to kick yourself out, too. I know I would—not because I put party politics ahead of women (like the would-be feminists I'd enjoy giving the boot), but because equality and justice are more important than doggedly advancing the interests of your own kind. So, that means I've stumbled back to definition No. 1—and the end of the conversation.
पोस्ट्स
८२ टिप्पण्या:
Carly walks the walk and speaks the truth.
The real problem with definition #2 is that in the real world, it gets used selectively to target people who are not Democrats. I've never seen the Kennedies accused of not being feminists. Of Joe Biden not being a feminist. Of Obama not being a feminist.
Definition 1 is the better, and more accurate, definition of a feminist. It's just that the term, like many terms, has been twisted into having a denotation [definition 1] with a connotation [definition 2, used selectively], where a lot of the most vocal pretend the connotation is the same as the denotation.
Carly Fiorina is a feminist, unless she's hiding it really, really well.
Hurrah. I am a feminist too. Now can I speak back to the equal women like Trump never hesitates to do?
Let's look at some of the NYT's authors on feminism: "It’s no surprise that feminism has given rise to women who would undermine it. It always has. Feminist victories enabled the careers of professional antifeminist activists, from Rose Wilder Lane to Phyllis Schlafly, who, in turn, used those careers to urge women back into the domestic sphere." -- So, empowering women to decide what to do with their lives is anti-feminist.
One of the people that NYT's went to to get insight? Donna Brazille. The "balance" that the NYT's sought was from a former Reagan official. Brazille also wraps feminist or not into a single topic: Abortion: "If a feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses, then the policies that Carly Fiorina supports make it difficult, if not impossible, for many women — especially poor and minority women — to be feminists." When I read this, and the title, I thought "Wait, did Carly have an abortion? That's what Brazille and the NYT's title implies to me." Did she? If she didn't, then the NYT or Brazille needs to work on writing more clearly. "Carly Fiorina is free to call herself a feminist. But the best feminists don’t just stand up for themselves — they stand up for all women." -- Oddly enough, of the two, the only one I see tearing another woman down with deliberate innuendo is Brazille.
Coontz's piece is problematic at the start, by believing that PolitiFact is nonpartisan. It is not; it should not be treated as such. Educated people should know that. Coontz says: "Being a feminist is not about how successful, talented and assertive you are in your own life. It's about whether you support the struggle to overcome the limiting gendered stereotypes and barriers that force so many women to restrict their aspirations as workers to fulfill their aspirations as parents and force so many men to do the opposite." So, wait. Is Fiorina for women not getting opportunities? That... seems odd. Or, does she think other policies will create better opportunities for women? One is a cartoon villain, which it seems like all the NYT's can argue against -- the other is a vibrant, actual, real human being we would have to debate against.
If this is the best the NYT can dig out, it is kind of shameful.
I hope Hillary wins the nomination for the sole purpose of watching Carly beat the hell out of her in the debates. The beating will be so bad that Hillary will be in tears.
The tension between those definitions is the same as it is with racism (though curiously those words are applied in opposite ways- feminism generally refers to the good shift toward equality while racism refers to the bad maintenance of inequality.)
My point though is that in either case of inequity, there can be disagreement of whether or not you should push for an over correction, to favor the formerly oppressed group, or if you should embrace the value of neutrality.
2. a feminist is someone who centers her political activities on the interests of women and steadfastly puts those interests first.
By that definition, all feminists demand a Vaginocracy. No amount of equality will be enough. Women need to have the upper hand in all activities. Rights for men? why?
"I found Fiorina’s views to be of the Yosemite Sam cowboy camp, a specific type of worldview that immediately recalls the Bush era." -- What does that even mean? How did she see that? How is a coastal elite, like Fiorina, being confused with a Texas cowboy? What level of critical thought brought us to this conclusion?
I hate when you write a post I have no argument with.
At least Donna Brazille admits that federal funding of abortion is about reducing the number of poor and minorities. Except the Hispanics don't really believe in it, which is why their numbers are growing and why they are expanding in their political power. The situation could almost be viewed as ironic.
Does Althouse Def #1 mean that women and men should have equal rights, or that they are actually equal?
Let's compare Coontz's definition of feminism [it isn't about personal success] to the author who worries that women may be too inclined to enter domestic life instead of corporate life.
Do they have a consistent definition of feminism?
"1. a feminist is anyone who believes in the equality of the sexes,
and
2. a feminist is someone who centers her political activities on the interests of women and steadfastly puts those interests first."
Also:
3. a feminist can never take "Yes, Dear" as an answer.
I am Laslo.
Nietzsche was the original feminist, naturally identified as misogynist by the official line.
Official feminism doesn't want a castrated male; it wants a castrated female.
Matthew Sablan said...
Definition 1 is the better, and more accurate, definition of a feminist.
This might be true from a perspective that focuses on where the word came from.
But from the perspective of understanding what people who call themselves feminist are trying to accomplish it's not just false but actively misleading.
Is it some high-school clique with mean girls deciding who gets in?
To ask the question is to answer it.
Donna Brazile probably offered the best definition: Feminism is wanting to be given stuff by men.
What a fantastic column. I'm sure heads exploded over at Double X.
And yes, the Double X types are Mean Girls.
The question was "Who Gets To Be a Feminist?"
Not the hot chicks, that's for sure.
I kid.
The women who have a man to do the heavy lifting.
Feminist is like White Supremacist or Black Nationalist, but they don't like to admit it, so, when asked, they lie, like Hillary did.
The rest of us just want everybody to have equal rights and a fair shake.
The old rules that women are protected by men is never surrendered by a feminist
as women take over independent power as their right. Strindberg spelled this out 150 years ago. It Ida war on men.
A gatekeeper at the mean girls table? As IF.
More of this and less Bloggingheads.
If I am not considered a feminist, then I have no use for the term.
I agree with Althouse; define it however you like. But understand that the more narrowly you define it, the more irrelevant it will be.
When the radfems claim that all "PIV" intercourse is de facto rape, it's easy to see why some would not want to be associated with such.
But understand that the more narrowly you define it, the more irrelevant it will be.
A perfect chaser to AA's excellent take in the original post.
2. a feminist is someone who centers her political activities on the interests of women and steadfastly puts those interests first.
The problem with that definition is that it is sexist and immoral. The interests of women often come at the expense of men and the definition denies men full humanity by saying their interests are always less than those of women. It also denies women their humanity by assuming that there is such a thing as "the interests of women" as a collective rather the the interests of individual women.
Definition number 2 I think describes many current feminists. It of course begs the question why any rational and moral person would want to be that.
The 5 debaters are all women; that is feminism.
Feminism is what those who claim to be feminists do. Which definition better describes that?
In practice, feminism trends toward definition (2). Feminists' defense against this accusation is often something like, "Well yes, I want funding for women's shelters and more government programs for women and girls and more legal protections for women and girls (etc., etc.) and I'm not working for equivalent resources for men or boys, BUT, since you're free to advocate for men and boys I am not seeking advantage and therefore can claim to favor equality."
As far as I can make out from reading "professional feminists", a feminist is a woman who complains about certain stereotypes of women while fulfilling them. E.g., never having serious interests in anything but "chick stuff".*
Does Ms. Traister know or care about Fiorina's views on trade, foreign policy, immigration, etc.? (That is, aspects of those issues that cannot be pretzeled into somehow being about Ms. Traister's ovaries.)
State of contemporary feminism: Those who could, did. Those who couldn't, write whiny articles about those who could in the women's pages.
(*To be fair, a quick google reveals that Traister has been known to care about racism, too.)
If you infantilize women and do not hold them responsible for the choices they make, you are a feminist.
Feminism has become a parody of itself.
Peter said...
I'm not working for equivalent resources for men or boys, BUT, since you're free to advocate for men and boys I am not seeking advantage and therefore can claim to favor equality."
Not mentioned is that if you do try to advocate for men and boys, it pisses them off royally, and they will mock and belittle you ("Oh boo hoo, poor widdle mens, you're sooooo oppressed!")
Angelyne,
Feminism is in such a sorry state partially because it's adherents try to make it an all encompassing philosophy rather than what it is, which is a way of looking at one area of life; relations between the sexes. There is no "feminist position on trade or immigration". Feminists can't admit that so they either just ignore those issues or graft leftist politics onto them in the name of "feminism".
This is exactly the issue. Political-activist-feminists whine that women don't think of themselves as feminists, when they ought to be, per definition #1, but then they turn around and use definition #2 to say, "in order to be a feminist, here are your marching orders: support abortion, government-funded daycare, quotas for female programmers at twitter and female legislators, etc."
Feminism currently operates as a motte and bailey. The motte is definition 1, and the bailey is definition 2.
Those who can see this tend not to want to call themselves feminists. They have no interest in occupying the feminist bailey.
iCarly has a rare gift of making shit up and convince herself it's real.
Peter said:
In practice, feminism trends toward definition (2). Feminists' defense against this accusation is often something like, "Well yes, I want funding for women's shelters and more government programs for women and girls and more legal protections for women and girls (etc., etc.) and I'm not working for equivalent resources for men or boys, BUT, since you're free to advocate for men and boys I am not seeking advantage and therefore can claim to favor equality."
I actually don't see anything wrong with that even though I'm not a fan of the feminist movement.
There is an ethical and logical position for feminists to defend women against the remnants of a culture that favored men, without going so far as to demand special advantages for women. The only part of your statement that might fit into the latter category would be "more government programs for women" depending in what that actually entails.
Just realized a missed opportunity-
While I thought Fiorina's response to the debate question about putting a woman on currency was fine, she should have taken the opportunity to name one of these women.
I hope she does take the opportunity at some point to educate people on the prolife stance of some early feminists.
CStanley,
I so wish Trump had gotten that question and answered by saying "Kate Upton". The fainting and gnashing of teeth such an answer would have caused would have been priceless.
"Feminism" is a term of art that has been coopted to include "and votes exclusively Democrat" as a key tenet. There is considerable evidence to show that this is working, and therefore it will continue to be used as a dog whistle to push voting Democrat for as long as it continues to work (and for many election cycles thereafter).
"2. a feminist is someone who centers her political activities on the interests of women and steadfastly puts those interests first.
Anyone who fits that description is hopelessly biased and is unfit for high office. Neither a Feminist nor a Mens' Rights Activist should be permitted to be President. Period. I mean Full Stop.
"Carly Fiorina has feminists on the defensive.""
Because "feminists" are not feminists. They are leftists.
In the same way that environmentalists are leftists and not environmentalists.
In the same way that all "xxxx-ists" are just leftists attempting to gain sway by utilizing some specific "lever" or cudgel.
garage mahal: "iCarly has a rare gift of making shit up and convince herself it's real."
Any update from you on your claim that it was a Breitbart operative who hacked poor Anthony Weiners' accounts?
While updating us on that, do go on with your "...making s*** up..." line of discussion.
It's fascinating.
@CStanley
It becomes a problem at the point where they make up problems (e.g. the 77 percent pay gap myth, rape culture) in order to leverage further advantages for women, beyond the point of equality and in ways that begin adversely affecting men.
That sort of activity is consistent with definition 2. Anything to further benefit women politically, socially, economically. That is not the model of an egalitarian movement, but of a supremacist one.
BTW, is "iCarly" now an "insult"?
I'm surprised that a rather pathetic would-be Castro-brothers IT support wannabe, like yourself, would cast aspersions at those in the tech field.
Or maybe I'm not really surprised at all.
How is the weather in your new home state of Minnesota?
Feminists use shoddy science to make claims that justify their premise that men are oppressing women. Claims such as women making 77% on the dollar to do the same job as a man, or that American culture is permissive of rape.
White supremacists similarly use shoddy science to make claims that justify their premise that non-whites are inferior to whites.
Shoddy science is useful, since when someone disagrees with you, you can simply call them ignorant and unfit to discuss the issue until such time as they go read (and, of course, accept) the clear and incontrovertible "proof" of your viewpoint.
BTW, is "iCarly" now an "insult"?
Before I noticed it was supposed to be derogatory, it struck me as a rather cute and agreeable nickname.
So why is equality defined with the feminine? FEMIN-ist? Why not a male-ist or an andrist? More accurately, perhaps, why not a sexual egalitarian? The use of the femininist label is still connotatively anti-male; i.e., the feminine believes in equal rights while the masculine, by implication, does not. For that reason I pretty much discard the first definition as newspeak.
Hunter, sure, but the offense there is that they are making stuff up, not that they are advocating for protections for people who really deserve them. IOW, the people who falsify figures about wage gaps and such are not working under a good definition of feminism, but there are other activities that could well fit under definition #2 without doing that.
My issue with Peter's comment is that without assuming bad intentions, there really isn't anything wrong with advocating for the needs of one group. It's wrong to say that women who help the female victims of domestic abuse should have to also advocate for male victims. To require that of activists would mean that no one could do anything because no one can do everything.
Brazille: "If a feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses, then the policies that Carly Fiorina supports make it difficult, if not impossible, for many women — especially poor and minority women — to be feminists."
Oh, ok, lives the life she chooses. Subject to constraints, Donna, or no? I mean, I'd choose to live a different life than I do if I didn't have to worry about paying the mortgage, you know. I guess the Government not giving me free housing makes my living that different life difficult, if not impossible. Hey, I'm oppressed!
It's a strange worldview that equates responsibilities (and constraints of the world as it, you know, exists) with being held back in some way, but at least some feminists are honest about holding that view. If the world won't let me do what I want (and not face consequences for doing what I want) then it's oppressive and the world needs to change. Art history majors should make as much as electrical engineering majors, people who work 30 hours/wk should make as much as people who work 60 hrs/wk, etc. Force and coercion must be used to arrange the world such that this is possible!
HoodlumDoodlum-
I once got into an extended discussion about abortion with a pro-abortion feminist. I mentioned that the pro-abortion side basically wants the government to correct for the biological inequity that involves females having pregnancy as a potential consequence of sex.
I was stating it as a way of pointing out how foolish this is, but her reaction was excitement because she thought I was having an epiphany and was going to come around to her way of seeing things.
@CStanley
I can agree with that narrowly. There is nothing wrong with having a specific focus -- else you could just as easily say "yes violence is bad, but what about poverty?" The issue with feminism, and this goes for a lot of typically left wing movements, is the adversarial nature. It isn't merely pro-woman in a vacuum; it is pro-woman via assault on the privileged position of an oppressor class.
That is not even a bad goal, assuming one is actually being oppressed. It's when the goals have largely been accomplished that such a movement becomes a threat to equality, because the natural tendency after a series of wins is to keep on going.
beautifully argued
CStanley - I mean, if I was being generous to feminists I'd say that relates back to how Thomas Sowell conceptualizes the difference between the constrained and unconstrained visions of the political right and left...but it really seems like there's more to it than that. It's not just that those feminists seek to equalize burdens we objectively agree exist (through things like mandating child support to compensate for the fact that a man can impregnate and leave, for example), but also that they seek to be compensated for the subjective value of choices they'd like to make and/or costs they'd like not to bear (but that the rest of us, or at any rate men, have to). That seems less like an idea that people and/or the state of the world are perfectable (an unconstrained view) and more like the idea that women's desires and interests must be given preference no matter what--that the world must conform to their wishes and any situations where it doesn't are evidence of sexism.
And to add -- you don't have to have bad intentions to want to do that. People are deceived by others but even more so by themselves. And it feels good to be swept up in a movement.
I have no doubt that most self described feminists sincerely believe in the 77 percent myth and the existence of a pervasive rape culture. They are no less wrong about those things but they are not lying about it. They just are too invested in those ideas. They don't want to see the flaws, and so they don't.
@Hoodlum
It is, at some point, naked self-interest.
But understand, they have been taught to believe that they are entitled to such things, it is a right being unfairly denied them. After all, white cishet men have enjoyed, are still enjoying privileges which they do not. It's only fair that they get theirs too.
From that viewpoint, it is an effort to bring society closer to perfection by reducing unfairness.
Specifically, the reverence paid to birth control and abortion comes from their use in perfecting society. The utopian aim is that no child ever be born into a situation that doesn't meet certain standards (loved/wanted/fed/housed/educated/provided opportunity). An adjoining utopian aim is that no woman ever be subjected to the biological consequences of sex unless she chooses to be. Or, eliminating hardships from bad fortune (say, having a child with developmental disorders).
All upsides, no downsides. It is an attractive way of looking at life.
Good comments, HD and H.
iCarly has a rare gift of making shit up and convince herself it's real - garage
Talking to the mirror again? Is that going to be your new handle?
iCarly was a television show on Nickelodeon, about a girl named Carly and her friends who hosted a web series called iCarly.
I guess the insult is that Fiorina is a teenage girl, or has the intellect of one, or something
But iCarly (in the show) was a very bright and capable girl who became somewhat of a worldwide success via her web series, so it's not much of an insult.
An interesting take - Robert Stacey McCain did a rather extensive analysis of university Womens Studies Departments, their leading lights and the textbooks normally assigned, plus required reading in these programs. He has an initial book out with a promise of a more complete work -
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Trouble-Radical-Feminism-Against-ebook/dp/B00U1I0YBG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443809998&sr=8-1&keywords=trouble+mccain
Sex Trouble.
Interesting points he makes about feminism having a public, popular face and an esoteric face, known only to the initiates of the academic variant, which is apparently an extremely radical, tight knit and little-publicized world of its own. His subject is the "secret" ideology of feminism, which seems to be the academic standard.
It is a sort of political polemic I suppose, the result of hate-reading, but he sure has read a great deal indeed. $1.99, a bargain.
I read that R. S. McCain book. The tone is not such that you'd ever want to cite it in an argument, or ask a feminist friendly person to read it. But the chapter that is all quotes from feminist academics is worth the price of entry all by itself.
I like that the 'Carly's looking to be Vice President' stuff has stopped.
Quote from garage on feminism. We need to respect his bona fides, after all.
Paula Jones was quite accustomed to be asked to perform blowjobs, as Bob Bennett learned in pre-trial discovery. She gave five blowjobs to men at a keg party one year before Clinton asked her to "kiss it". - garage
You see, it is important to investigate the sexual history of the accuser regarding sexual assault, and to be sure to spread it all over the internet!
That's feminism, not this "The accuser has a right to be believed" crap that fake feminist Hillary has been babbling.
Carly can't hold a candle to garage on feminism.
garage mahal said...
"iCarly has a rare gift of making shit up and convince herself it's real."
Some jerk has taken over GM's account and is posting things to make him look really stupid.
What feminists are most concerned about is seeing Carly on the same debate stage with Hillary. Whoa boy, what a show that would be. An intelligent, strong, successful woman vs. a lifelong government employee and incompetent gasbag who hasn't driven a car or shopped for groceries in decades.
Hillary can't even turn the ringer on on her phone. But thank God it's not a supermarket scanner! Then it would be an important matter for saturation coverage by the press, like it was when it benefited her.
"Carly Fiorina has feminists on the defensive."
This is easier to visualize if you picture the Feminists naked with their feet behind their ears.
Not saying that you would WANT to picture it. Just helpful if you do.
I am Laslo.
Another thing: What a word like feminism means depends on whether it's being used positively or negatively. Of course in the liberal media today it would only be used positively, but out there is the real world to be called a feminist is to be called a bitch (if you're female) or a pussy (if you're male). I suspect that definition # 1 would be embraced by a lot of people in defense against such charges.
Why is there so much attention to this label? Feminist schmeminist. It's like a brand name trying to get itself attention.
So being a feminist is like being authentically black?
The real question should be: Why, when a woman comes along and takes on the Good Old Boys and corrupt politicians in her party, do The Feminists instantly reject her solely on the basis of her choice of political party?
Because unless we figure that out, the only answer to the "who is" question is "women who vote democrat." That's how a rapist-defending, slut-shaming, abuse-abiding skank like Hillary gets to be in the mean girls F club.
My definition is based on usage: It is a politician or other public figure who is part of the leftist cabal.
Feminism is just leftism in a dress. Or pants. Or without a bra. Or whatever.
It's community agitating all the way down.
Mike is right. Feminism's credibility died with Bill's blow job in the oral office.
What about men's rights? What about shelters for abused men and boys?
Fiorina ran the company she worked at into the ground, then expected people to vote for her for Senate. How could anyone think she's not a feminist?
Activists "feminists" have destroyed the word. I would never call myself one, or any woman I respect, because of the connotations.
Anthony said...
"Fiorina ran the company she worked at into the ground, then expected people to vote for her for Senate. How could anyone think she's not a feminist?"
Only an ignorant douche would post that she ran it into the ground. There is plenty of information out there about the details of what she did. HP survived 2 bubbles and grew while it's competition went out of business. There are numerous analyses that demonstrate the success of the company under her tenure and how HP outperformed competitors.
You need to be a better paid forum troll around here.
Laslo Spatula said...
"Carly Fiorina has feminists on the defensive."
"This is easier to visualize if you picture the Feminists naked with their feet behind their ears.
Not saying that you would WANT to picture it. Just helpful if you do."
Most feminists are fat and ugly. No thanks.
Alex said...
What about men's rights? What about shelters for abused men and boys?
Are there no prisons? And what about workhouses? Are they still in operation? I'll bet they've been abolished.
Achilles said...Most feminists are fat and ugly. No thanks.
Dworkin sisters
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा