I saw a a bumper sticker on the way home this week that was a bold faced lie. It read, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Baloney.
Before anyone gets crazy, I'm not in the slightest attacking the idea that women are people. I think women are more glorious and consequential than most feminists do I'm sure. I can say that because I believe that women, along with men, are created in the image of a loving, good, and creative God, whereas most feminists have only wishy-washy metaphysical foundations for the importance of persons. Women, in my view are to be respected and cherished on the basis of this foundational point, which a host of other considerations buttress and nuance.
So what is feminism then? Putting a simple definition on it is silly as the movement has become very large and unwieldy, but in its origin, feminism is the belief that each women should decide the terms of her own existence. Thus, the first wave (post 1968 in the USA) of "feminism" followed the existentialist feminism of Simone de Beauvoir, who made recommendations for a moral revolution: on demand abortion, no fault divorce, equal pay for women, among others.
So what is feminism? The idea that women should have the full support of society in being master's of their own fate, capable of at any time and for any reason cutting all ties and responsibilities to their community, to their husbands and to their offspring. Denying them this is now to be interpreted as oppression.
It is, in fact, our commitments and relationships that define us. We can no more determine our own identity than we can determine our species. I don't oppose equal pay for women, but I won't fall for some bumper sticker aphorism that makes such false light of marring the image of God, disconnecting that which was created in the image of the Trinity from the responsibilities and community which are the arena of its glory.
Down with stupid bumper stickers.
8 comments:
Sorry for not proof-reading this y'all. Mistakes everywhere.
Hey Krams,
Interestingly, I recently snickered when a close friend told me that she used to have a water bottle with that exact phrase on it. Shortly thereafter we got into a pretty intense discussion of feminism.
My friend legitimately found it hard to understand that I was unwilling to call myself a feminist, since in her mind anyone who supported the goal of equivalent value for all persons was a feminist, and any project that was seen as aiding in the realization of this goal was appropriately labeled feminist (this conversation was also related to a discussion of feminist epistemologies).
My response was one of frustration, since such a position meant that not calling myself a feminist indicated that I did not think all persons (and particularly women) had equal value (implicitly, to my own). Yet if I accepted the label of feminist it was unavoidable that I should in some way be associated with views that I consider morally detestable, such as the ones you mentioned. I realize that not all self-labeled feminists would construe their movement in this way, but the existence of such bumper stickers indicates that there is no lack of those who would.
Once my seething subsided I was left with some interesting food for thought. After all, I am unashamed to call myself an evangelical despite the fact that I am rather ashamed of many acts/beliefs/positions performed or maintained by other evangelicals. Origins of a movement are of course important, but they are also not the be-all end-all. Maybe I should ascribe feminism to myself then?
Ultimately I reject such a move, but it was important for me to realize that I do not do so on logical grounds. Rather, the rational grounds on which I reject the label feminism concern an overall evaluation of the movement, and its relation to my own social/political/philosophical views. My thought then is that I relate to feminism in much the same way that I relate to postmodernism. I consider both to contain important critiques of the status quo which I accept. However, the broader philosophical foundation of those critiques is such that I cannot in good conscience identify myself with all of the negative, or a significant portion of the positive stances that they take.
All this rambling leads me to this thought: I love too little. I am convicted that my rejection of "isms" often leads me to poorly reflect Christ, whose condemnation of falsehood was inextricably wed to an all-surpassing love and compassion. For such should I strive.
Of course, you say nothing in your post to belie such a position. I suppose I am merely responding to your musings with my own. I'll end with this one:
I would support any candidate of any party who proposed a complete ban of bumper stickers.
Krams,
I wish you had ended with, "Down with the lies of feminism!" or something of the sort.
I was excited that you were writing about feminism, but it was such a letdown for you to make "stupid bumper stickers" the main takeaway from your post.
How about explaining the effects of no-fault divorce on women in the past couple of decades so that we aren't left wondering if it goes in the "good" category of equal pay or the (possibly) "bad" category of on-demand abortion? You've completely left us in the theoretical realm--only saying that feminism is impossible since we cannot determine our own identity. Yet we have been pursuing it as hard as we can for many years. Has the result really only been "stupid bumper stickers", or is there something else we should know about feminism, like why it is dangerous? You see what I'm driving at?
With love,
-Joseph
Hey friend,
Just so you know, first wave feminism followed the right to vote (Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were the leaders).
That was pre-Simone era.
Second wave was in the 60s/70s, aka: Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, "Women's Lib," bra-burning.
(Just in case you really wanted to know, many think we are currently in the third wave of feminism.)
Ole Simone was just stuck there in the middle of two movements, not really an influence at the time of her book "The Second Sex" in 1949.
See? I knew my useless Women's Studies minor would be appropriate for at least one history lesson in life.
Not a feminist,
Kate
Many good points to respond to hear.
Josh, thanks for your musings. It is a fine line we walk to simultaneously affirm the image of God in our fellow man and to condemn the works of Satan at the same time. I hope we both get better at it.
Joseph, you are right to criticize the way I end that post. It was a weak ending on a light and humorous note. I'm still learning about engaging in this medium and I'd like to blame this sarcastic ending on the trends I have observed in the editorial blogosphere, but alas the fault lies with me for emulating it. For the record, Down with Feminist lies!
Kate, thanks for clearing up that historical point. I did not know that the earlier movements referred to themselves as feminists. Did they in fact do so? I wonder whether the academic/existentialist sort haven't co-opted history to mollify their image. By this I question if the rhetoric of existentialist feminism doesn't go something like this, "Women's right to vote was good and those were just 'early' feminists. We're just their successors, so we're proposing good things, too." You see what I mean. Tell me what you think.
Thanks everyone,
Krammy
I'm not sure whether or not the folks like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony would call themselves feminists or not. Honestly, the suffragist movement was liberals and conservatives alike, fighting for the right to vote. I'm not sure even if the word "feminist" was coined by then (maybe).
But, I was really only referencing your use of "first wave." Most all of my women's studies history classes classified (and capitalized) those eras as First Wave Feminism, Second Wave Feminism, post-First Wave, etc. This Wave business is quite the historial cornerstone in feminist chronological venacular.
I'm not sure from where the "Wave" business came, though. My guess is that a lot of it came during the Second Wave, since there was a bunch of incidents that "justified" a name of more than one movement. Honestly, I don't know.
I should probably look that up.
BUT, I don't really want to. :)
della....you need to read So Much More by Anna and Sophia Botkin. It's an amazing book about feminism and its faults. miss you here at CTK
Hey Della and Krammy,
I just looked at Della's old blog and came across your new one.
Great topic. I have actually been reading a bit about men's and women's roles from this site:
http://www.cbmw.org/
It is an excellent resource. It teaches that God created men and women with equal value but that we are created differently.
Equal:
Gen 1:27, 31 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created he them…And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”
Different:
Men: Gen 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Women: Gen 2:8, 21-23 “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him… And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
And as you continue to read Gen you see their different strengths and weaknesses and there rolls being distinguished. What I think is the greatest thing about all of this is why it is this way. Husband and wife are to represent the relationship between Christ and the Church and ultimately the relationship between the trinity where the Father has the ultimate authority and Christ is in joyful submission to the Father. It is beautiful!!
The down side is sin, because of this struggle things aren’t as they were in the garden of Eden before the fall. You can see the curse we inherited in Gen 3:16-17.
Post a Comment