Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My “Feminist” Fever Dream
Note: The title of this post should be viewed as ironic. I have never claimed to be a “feminist,” nor am I blind to the many counterproductive, wrong, and destructive outcomes of the formal “feminist” movement over the years. However, it appears as though the word ‘feminist’ means many things to many people. Just as some claim to be ‘feminists’ while espousing a very mild version of “equality of the sexes,” others see the slightest outbreak of assertiveness on the part of a woman as evidence of “feminist” rottenness to the core. A pox on all of them I say. Better to just look at each other as people. So, to business.
I am the grandmother of an eight-year-old girl. Technically, she is my step-granddaughter, though the distinction makes no difference, I assure you. Her mother is my stepdaughter and beloved friend. Her first few years have not been idyllic. And she’s had to learn to be a little tougher than I would like, a little earlier than I would like. I’ll just leave it there. But she is, without a doubt, the most beautiful, accomplished, intelligent person I know.
It’s not subtle. Her through-and-through awesomeness hits you in the face the moment you meet her, from her sweet face to her gap-toothed smile, her physical awkwardness to her much-too-grownup-for-her-age conversation, her inquisitiveness, her kindness, her thoughtfulness, her sharing, her ever-present suitcase full of stuffed animals, her tongue-biting concentration as she masters the (adult) climbing wall at the gym, and the complete abandon with which she throws her arms around her granny every time we meet.
I want her to go through the entirety of her life that way. I want everyone, men and women to think — perhaps for different reasons — “Wow! She’s awesome! I wish I could get to know her.” And, in future years, if the occasional “varray, parfit, gentil knyght” wants to walk up to her and pay her a compliment to that effect, I think that’s great. And I hope he does, too.
Here’s the rub: We do not live in a perfect world, and not everything can always be as we wish it. Nor can we live a life expecting that we will never be put into a situation that makes us uncomfortable.
I simply do not believe that taking all of the preceding statements as a given (and they are), somehow puts a gag on me and prevents me, or any woman, from saying — as appropriate — “Wow, this is just plain wrong,” or “Gosh, I would like this to be different, and perhaps I can make it so,” or “You know, I’d really prefer it if you didn’t say (or do) that.”
None of these responses, in any way, in any situation, implies rudeness. None implies meanness. None implies litigiousness. None implies hate. None implies anything other than what it says, relative to a particular instance at a particular time.
All each of them implies is that I, as a free human being, have the right to say what I think, pleasantly and politely, to another free human being, about how I feel.
My dream for her is that she lives in a world where she has that right, and that she’s able to do that. Actually, that world already exists. My real dream for her is that she’s not vilified when she exercises that right, particularly by those of her own sex who view it as their mission to make her feel bad for stepping on what they see as the only path to true womanhood, and who think she is nothing but a fool, or a joyless scold, or a man-hating troll.
Because, believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. There is not, and never will be, a canker of that sort on her soul.
Published in General
Any vilification of her opinions will reflect utterly on the person doing the vilifying. Not everyone in earshot will get that – but if she understands that, I think she will be happy and continue to develop great thoughts.
I love the photo of her.
Sometimes I think we need to establish the National Definition Day.
I started my professional life in basic-level college textbooks where my workdays consisted of attempting to fine-tune the definition of common terms. Since the burden authors carry is to define words in new and clearer ways, let’s just say things can get messy in their heads by the time they get to writing the new and better definition of the fiftieth term in their book’s glossary. It falls to the editor to fix it. To that end, one trick editors use is to go to old textbooks in the same field and see how terms used to be defined before everyone and his uncle got into the act.
Having done this for such a long time, I have great respect for earlier generations of academics and writers. Up until twenty or thirty years ago, we saw ourselves as trying sharpen the language pencil. Now we write with kindergarten crayons.
This lack of clarity has led to complete confusion as to the exact nature of “sexism” and “racism.” And it is driving everyone nuts. Societies cannot function productively when people are fearful of being charged with vague offenses.
Textbook publishers divide the academic world into the soft-side humanities and the hard-side sciences. The soft side needs to learn from the hard side how to write good definitions. In short, I think the humanities have caused these social problems.
She: Thank you for this post. I don’t have time to read it yet, as I am off to a one year old’s birthday party, but will be back later tonight and will read it then. I am interested in hearing more of your thoughts :)
As has a great deal of social engineering by the Left, in their stridency to redefine many terms to the disadvantage of Conservatives and the Right.
I’m not sure if the toothpaste can be put back in the tube.
Another strategy might be to adopt our opponent’s methods, and turn it back the other way.
For example, if a gentler, more reasonable, definition of ‘feminism,’ with aspects that we can accept, is espoused by many women, let’s not insult them by saying that they are not “real” feminists, because “real” feminists are hags and feminazis, and only hags and feminazis can be feminists. So either (we say now) they are lying to themselves and they are not real feminists, or they really must be hags and feminazis in disguise.
Instead, let’s engage with them, and say, “You know what? You’re right! You’re a feminist. I can agree with much of what you say! How many more of you are there? Where are they? Let’s talk!”
And thus, over time, can we move the Overton window on the meaning of feminism to a range that we find much more acceptable.
It strikes me that this is a much more productive sort of engagement than insisting that the two extremes are entirely incompatible, and trying to force everybody in between to line up in one camp or the other and climb into the correct box.
And it’s really how language evolves anyway.
So why don’t we let it?
That. Right there.
When I read Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own and Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, I thought I understand what feminism was about. I was supportive of the objectives of feminism.
Today, I see those objectives as having all been met and then some. Now women have become the overbearing and controlling people we were railing against fifty years ago.
Women sought justice, and they got it.
In my opinion, it’s time to seek peace. The war is over.
I need to add to my previous comment that I mean in America. Women are faring poorly all over the world vis-a-vis men. I have only to point to the Taliban and the Boko Haram as proof of that.
It would be great if the American feminist warriors would take their warring skills overseas.
I could not agree more. I wish everyone saw it that way.
Unfortunately, the media, and the politicians, and the lobbyists, and the grievance mongers (on both sides) don’t agree, and it is in all their interests to see the war goes on.
So our work is not done.
As for ‘feminists,’ they’re not going to go away any time soon. So stealing the word away from them is still, I think, a good option. Leftists do that sort of thing all the time. And they almost always ‘win’ when they do.
Indeed.
In fact, they don’t even need to get on a plane.
It would be refreshing, and eye-opening for some, if they would speak out against it while they are even still in this country. Hillary Clinton, I’m looking at you (stop counting your Clinton Cash for a minute would you, and listen to me please . . . .)
I wish Laura Bush had run. Now there’s a feminist I can believe in. She remains active in helping women in Afghanistan. My favorite election moment when GW ran the second time was when she spoke at the convention. She stepped to the side of the podium with a big sign with a W on it, and said, “W is for Women.” Given GW’s fight against the Taliban and our military’s actions, with GW’s support, to reopen the schools for girls that the Taliban had closed, those were true words. Islam is a fight against freedom and equality for women. That’s what Islamic men are afraid of losing–their slaves.
Thanks.
Granny is in charge of Halloween costumes each year. The photo represents a pleasing fusion (I think) of The Mermaid, The Knight, and The Lady. I believe it was a good call, on her part, to leave out Benjamin Bunny, and Bumble, in this particular case.
The orange and black pullover was her own addition, and is especially fetching, in my estimation.
Your little girl will be fine. Increasingly our society is being engineered for the sole purpose of the empowerment and comfort of womyn. So she has the correct genetics, the world is her oyster.
Thank you for your snarky comment. I should have expected no less. Please go away and enjoy your insecurity somewhere else.
She: Congratulations on having such an awesome grand daughter :) You are obviously a wonderful grandmother, and I am sure that she loves you just as much as you love her. My nieces and nephews are the joy of my life, so I think I have an idea of where you are coming from.
Do you feel the same way about the word “Liberal” as you do about the word “feminist”? Should we be saying to people “Gosh, you are a liberal! That’s great!” Should we be trying to meet liberals half way? I just want to get a better idea of where you are coming from :)
I noticed that immediately, and counted it as proof of a truly precocious style sense.
Here is what I believe: I believe we sometimes need to use the tools available to us to achieve the result we want. Even if we have to be a little sneaky about it.
It’s funny that you ask me about the term “Liberal.”
The word “liberal” comes from the Latin root meaning “free,” and it used to mean something completely different from what it means today. Liberalism originally (17th century or so–John Locke) championed the rights of the individual against intrusive and overbearing government, and I think it wouldn’t be out-of-line to say that the American Revolution, and the subsequent founding of the country, were deeply rooted in Liberal thoughts and values, having as they did, such strong beliefs in rights to things like private property and individual freedom (Note: I’m somewhat out of my depth here, but I hope I’m not too far off base).
Somewhere along the way, in the 20th century (Teddy Roosevelt? Woodrow Wilson?), for lots of reasons, the term “Liberal” came to mean something completely different, and began to be associated with a powerful central government, increasing government interference in our lives, huge government handouts, and a degree of social engineering that still isn’t finished (in their minds). This is, in almost every way, the opposite of what the word “Liberalism” originally meant, and what someone who called himself a “Liberal” actually stood for.
But we don’t spend much time arguing about what the word meant 100 years ago, or why it’s different now. We only know what “Liberal” means today, and the huge juggernaut it has become.
And the “Liberals” of today are only too happy to point to a centuries old tradition of “Liberalism” to show their street creds, when in fact that tradition has nothing at all to do with their present beliefs.
Because they hijacked the word, so Conservatives, and Libertarians (who might be the closest thing to the old-style Liberals) can’t point to its place in the history of their movement.
So that is kind of my point.
I think we may need to hijack the term “Feminist.”
As far as engaging with so-called Liberals, I’m happy to talk to any one, and change a mind or two if that’s at all possible. I don’t expect any joy from the hard-left, hard-core, though.
And I don’t expect much joy from the hard-core Feminists, either. I’d just like to take their Group Identity away from them, so they have to go out and find a new one.
Thank you. There is nothing like it, is there?
I also think that there is a small, but real, number of conservative women who do consider themselves ‘feminists,’ as well as a larger group of women who may not be party-line conservative, but also consider themselves ‘feminists’ in a loose sense.
In most cases, I think neither of these groups is composed of hard-line feminists with a capital ‘F.’
These are the people I am talking about engaging, because they are already part-way ‘with us.’ Rather than insisting that they are not feminists, I think we should accept them at their own valuation.
I do not see the same sort of crossover among Liberals, in that I don’t know too many Conservative Liberals.
So, no, I do not think that we have to overextend ourselves to Liberals.
We need to focus on what gives us a better return.
Also, I think we should talk a heck of a lot more about what we are “for,” rather than what we are “against.”
She: I agree with you that all of us, especially me, should be more patient and gentle with some of the women who consider themselves feminists but obviously don’t support most or in some cases any aspects of the feminist agenda. But the question has to be asked: if you don’t support any aspects of the feminist agenda, then why call yourself a feminist? Words are important. Those of us who realize that all of feminism’s legitimate goals have been achieved should patiently and gently be trying to put that word in the past. I would like the word “feminist” to become like the word “abolitionist”: it should describe great people who fought a good fight a long time ago-a fight that is now over.
If they call themselves feminists their agenda is (one of the) feminist agenda(s).
(Btw, “The Feminist Agenda” seems like “The Homosexual Agenda” – oftentimes more a projection of other people’s fears than than what individuals in these groups want or believe. How do you think “they” would describe “The Conservative Agenda”, and what relationship would that have to your actual thoughts and beliefs?)
@She – congratulations, Proud Grandma. Wrt:
Doesn’t treating other people the way one would like to be treated (so what to say and how and when and when not) sort of cover it? Meaning it’s exactly what you’d want to govern how a grandson functioned in the world as well, right?
You’re missing my point.
There are lots of things I would like, too. But I can’t have them. I completely agree with you here, and with @marcin in #6, that it would be lovely if we didn’t have to keep on banging on about this.
The thing is, I believe that we need to change the meaning of the word ‘feminist.’ I don’t care what it used to mean when Betty Friedan was burning her girdle, and Gloria Steinem was having one abortion after another.
I want to take that ugly, and destructive, meaning of the word away from them.
I do not for a moment believe that hard-core ‘feminists’ are going to do the honorable thing and fade into the woodwork now the war is won. And no matter how nice we are, or how right we are, we can’t make them.
Because they just do not believe the war is over, and they want more.
They believe that they have far too much at stake to quit. So, we either (1) take them on and try to outsmart them, or we (2) succumb, or we (3) fall back to our redoubt, talk only to each other, and lament the state of the world, as it crashes down around us.
I would go for option (1) myself.
But that’s just me.
Totally agree with you about this. But if we can convince some women who think of themselves as feminists that they really shouldn’t be calling themselves feminists, then we will be taking power away from feminists. Words matter, and as conservatives we must never succumb to the idea that words don’t matter. You seem to be saying that women should be able to call themselves whatever they want, whether it really applies or not; I disagree. People shouldn’t be able to just go around calling themselves whatever they want: there has to be some basis in reality for what we call ourselves. If I would like to tell people that I am a sainted martyr from ancient times, should people just pat me on the head, and say “Oh, yes dear, whatever you say”? So as not to alienate me?
I am not down with this idea that feminism should mean whatever any woman wants it to mean.
Thanks. She is a miraculous little person.
Absolutely, the Golden Rule covers it, for everyone. And whenever either of the words is used in an polite exchange, “Yes,” is an answer, and “No,” is an answer. And should be respected as such.
What dismays me sometimes is the censoriousness of large numbers of people who seem to feel that a woman’s choice in answering should be restricted, and that deviating from the ‘acceptable’ response is worthy of deep opprobrium and must indicate that there is something ‘wrong’ with the speaker. And I never want my granddaughter to feel that politely speaking her mind is the wrong thing to do. (I am not talking here about license to say deliberately hurtful or unnecessarily rude things. I am talking about Politely. Speaking. Her. Mind.)
If I had a grandson, I might have written a similar post which ended with, “and if he approached a young woman he found attractive and told her that he thought she was awesome and would like to get to know her, and she said, “I’d really prefer it if you didn’t say things like that to me,” he would respect her answer, apologize (and sneakily check out her response to see if another, less clumsy attempt might be productive), and if not, take himself off.
Because I think it works both ways.
Like the Golden Rule.
Zafar: Feminists have organized groups that promote their agenda. There are women who don’t pay much attention or hold on to th e feminist label for sentimental reasons who do not support that agenda, but the official agenda does exist. I recommend going to NOW’s website to learn more about it. It generally includes putting women in combat, getting women drafted, affirmative action for women, abortion until the third grade, etc…These things are not figments of anyone’s imagination. They are real issues being pushed by real feminists.
No one believes that words matter more than I do. I choose them carefully, and I generally choose them pretty well.
Of course people should not be able to go around calling themselves what they want to call themselves, unless, in extreme cases, they want to get themselves locked up. I should not be able to go around calling myself The Emperor Napoleon, or Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni, either.
But I am talking about a strategy here. What I personally think about what women call themselves doesn’t matter. I’m over that. I want to win the war. Whatever, within reason, it takes (and holding firm on the definition of a ‘word’ is not something that is out-of-bounds for me in this case, when, as I’ve pointed out, definitions of words are fluid and change all the time anyway).
One way to win is to take the Left’s words away from them. They do it to the Right all the time (remember “Marriage?” Or, “Boy?” Or, “Girl?”) And then they win, while we stand around and say, “Oh, but you’re wrong. Words matter. It doesn’t really mean that. You can’t do that.” “That’s not right?”
Do you want to win?
Or do you want to spend the next quarter-century worrying about whether or not someone is using exactly the right word to describe herself, and trying to talk her out of it, while the hatchet-faced troglodytes take over the country?
She, I think I can relate to how much you love your grand daughter; I love my nieces and nephews so much, and all I want in life is for them to be happy. Men cannot speak their minds politely and never face disapproval. Women can’t either. It’s a cruel, cruel world. When we say things, people may disagree with us, and in some cases, a lot of people may disagree with us. I can totally understand why you don’t want your grand daughter to have to deal with that, but that is life on planet earth, and everybody has to deal with it.
I have no idea what this means :)
It means that I’ve tried to show you that the definitions of words are fluid and that how they are used changes all the time (as with “Liberal”) and that I think the same thing could be done with “Feminist.”
It means that I don’t think that a rigid insistence that “Feminist” can only mean one thing, is helpful when there are clearly divisions within feminism, there are different types of feminists, and feminism can mean different things to different people. I think we should exploit those differences, not try to force women to choose from extreme positions, or tell them that they can’t be what they say they want to be, when there is clearly a spectrum of positions they can choose from.
You want to dismiss all that because you are sure Feminism must mean only one thing. Because that used to be the meaning of the word.
I don’t care if that used to be the meaning of the word. I think hanging onto that thought is a losing strategy, for reasons I’ve explained.
I think the war to defeat the Left is bigger than my personal scruples about the meaning of a word.
If calling the women I would like to round up and bring onto our side “Pastry” would help, I would do it. But the word that’s out there, and the logical one to grab is “feminist.”
Change it’s meaning.
That’s what I mean.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-why-millennial-women-dont-want-to-call-themselves-feminists/
I highly recommend reading the above article. Only 23% of American women call themselves feminists, and while I haven’t researched it, I am pretty sure that most of the women calling themselves feminists are older. There are a few confused conservative women who call themselves feminists, and we should be nice to them, but most of the women who call themselves feminists support a hard left agenda, and most people realize that.
The word feminist has been totally poisoned by feminists. It does not have a positive connotation for younger women; even many young liberal women refuse to call themselves feminists, because the word has such a negative connotation. So how, exactly, do conservatives benefit from taking this toxic word away from liberals?