More’s piece “What the New Feminists Look Like” is (finally) online. You can check out my interview and all the other New Feminists’ interviews there. I’m a bit sad that our video interviews didn’t make it online – or at least, haven’t yet. I basically geeked out about how more feminists should embrace science and skepticism. Of course, that’s what I talked about during my phone interview, and the article is still predominantly about boobquake… Sigh, journalism.
On a related note, More is holding a panel on Young Leaders in Feminism in New York tomorrow based on this piece, and there’s already been a bit of controversy. Jessica Valenti, author and founder of Feministing.com, dropped out of the panel when she realized one of the other “New Feminists” falls into the category of “conservative women who have long fought against feminist ideals and goals are now identifying as feminists in an attempt to woo women’s votes for the GOP.”
Her reason for not participating will make sense to my readers:
“But I do think their participation is a strategic mistake. It’s like debating someone who insists that the sky is red – what does it accomplish besides lending credibility and valuable activist energy to a laughably false assertion?”
Creationists, anyone?
As someone who has had her “Feminist Card” revoked too many times to count for being too sexual or too critical of religion, I generally hate hearing that someone is “not a true feminist.” But it ceases to be a No True Scotsman Fallacy when you’re the antithesis of what that feminism actually is about: equality for the sexes. That includes allowing women to make choices that don’t necessarily agree with your personal morals or opinions, like being in porn, waiting until marriage to have sex, getting an abortion, or being a stay at home mom.
Seriously, the next time I hear Sarah Palin being called a feminist, I will puke. And in case you say it to purposefully get a rise out of me, I will aim my puking at you.
Do you think you could puke all the way to Australia? That would be rather impressive. Or maybe you’d just fly over here and do it.Agree entirely with the Creationist analogy, but I think it’s sad that Valenti has dropped out. Which I agree that debating on equal terms with these people is pretty much Feeding the Trolls, but at the same time it’s important to dilute this batshittery with reasoned, true feminism – at least 10x :PWould it be too polemical if Valenti showed up for the panel and just argued why the GOP woman is both wrong and not a feminist?
Gah how do you edit on this thing?
AFAIK seems like the only anti-woman stance you could argue for is her hatred of title IX, her apparent discomfort of NOW taking up trans and lesbian causes, and the fact she thinks the invisible hand of the free market is the best way to distribute healthcare. The last one isn’t really anti-woman specifically so much as anti-human being.
I’m old enough to remember Phylis Schafley making a living from saying that women shouldn’t work for a living.
My feelings are similar to yours about the problems with a Feminist Litmus Test, but when people who are obviously not working for the interests of all women start claiming the term, some boundary needs to be established. There are times when it’s okay to be exclusionary. For those times when it isn’t, however, I’m hoping that others will be able to tell the difference. :/
There’s an interesting parallel of feminist co-opting from the right: skeptical inquiry being co-opted from the right. For nearly 50 years now, the anti-science folks (be it denying smoking, asbestos, or second-hand causes lung cancer, CFCs cause ozone depletion, anthropogenic global warming, etc.) have tried to sell the public on the idea that “good science” was being “skeptical” of these ideas long past when actual science had reached a consensus. These folks often tried to present themselves as skeptics. In biology, this might be an aspect of the Green-beard effect. Any trait that signifies an advantage is co-opted by those which express the trait but lack the advantage. The routes around this in biology are either rapidly evolving signals (which is tricky) or signals which are directly tied to the advantage. What the cultural equivalent of these is would be a tricky idea.
I missed something — who objects to stay at home moms on moral or other grounds?
Some dads whose agreement with the arrangement was presumed, as I hear; otherwise, I’m not sure anyone does. A lot of people do tend to assume that this can’t possibly be what the woman really wants and she must have been pressured, coerced, or brainwashed into it (comparisons with the anti-porn kooks may be instructive), though…
Can I quote you when someone attacks me for claiming that people (usually women, if in a position of prominence, though not always) whose views on certain topics (usually, but not always, sexuality) are intelligible only granted the assumption that all men are irredeemable psychopaths and all women who don’t agree with them are gullible morons, should not be characterized as “feminist?”
I’m disappointed with More… it’s one thing to ‘offer a balanced perspective’, it’s another to elevate an outright lie to the status of something worthy of debate….
A lot of people do tend to assume that this can’t possibly be what the woman really wants and she must have been pressured, coerced, or brainwashed into itThere are also people in this demographic who will, when all their other arguments fail, claim that stay-at-home moms hurt all other women by perpetuating harmful gender roles, and therefore it is an evil choice. These are not very common, fortunately.
Interestingly I find that feminism taps into the whole “tough on crime” thing which is seen as typically conservative.Of course, I know that feminism is attacking cultural mores which make people more accepting of rape and violence against women and less likely to convict criminals, rather than attacking due process and attempts to actually rehabilitate criminals in favour of secret trials and the rack’em stack’em and pack’em penal system as law’n’order populism does (at least where I live). Seriously, our state attorney general tried to introduce a law requiring anyone posting on the internet to use their real name and address at all times.
Don’t worry about the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It ceases to be a No True Scotsman Fallacy when you can come up with an operational definition that separates you from them. If you have a creed of feminism, for instance, you can exclude yourself from taking responsibility for those who don’t follow the creed. And furthermore, you can justify the stances that you take that differentiate you from those that don’t follow the creed.
On a tangent, I ran across this todayhttp://fetlife.com/users/58371…
It’s one thing to make a choice that may not be stereotypically feminist, i.e. to be a stay-at-home mom. It’s entirely another thing to actively work against being allowed to make that choice.
In other words, it’s not a No True Scotsman fallacy if the dude wasn’t born in Scotland.
I’m sorry- did someone come up with a pure definition of feminism? And do you have it? Because to hardcore conservative, quiverfull, Duggar following Christians- Sarah Palin IS a feminist. How much does a woman need to be influenced by feminism to be considered an actual feminist? If she believes women can be pastors? If she is an activist for women getting equal treatment and wages at work? If she believes abortion should remain legal? If she believes God is a woman? If she doesn’t believe in God at all? Where’s your line?
If she genuinely believes that men and women are morally and mentally equal and should have the same opportunities and be held to the same standards, as determined from the policies she advocates.By the way, there’s no reason a feminist needs to be a woman.
Do you add the “or she” or “or he” disclaimer at the end of everyone’s gender specific statements? Because that’s really annoying. And smug. That’s a nice definition, but the rub lies, of course, in the details. If that’s the true definition, there are very few pure feminists.
Only when I suspect a widespread and obnoxious misconception is being reflected.And…so?