Jessica Valenti - "Who Stole Feminism?"

 A recent article by Jessica Valenti, “Who Stole Feminism?”, published in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/155109/who-stole-feminism), discusses how the feminist movement is being hijacked by politicians who have distinctly anti-woman beliefs. I thought the article was really interesting, because it talks about how Third Wave feminism is often ignored or derided by older feminists who were part of earlier movements, which makes it easy for others to take over the term and use it for their own gain.

Valenti is right in discussing how Second Wave feminists can be very harmful to the movement as it changes with time. By placing strict barriers on what feminism is, they push away women who don’t fit into the white, middle-class mold. Valenti’s views on the 2008 election are also really interesting. It is true that many left-wing women were scorned for not supporting Hillary – but the fact that some feminists chose to support Sarah Palin after Clinton’s loss is mind-blowing. Sarah Palin approaches Christine O’Donnell in being as anti-feminist as you can be, yet they get paraded around as female leaders in their parties. Being a woman alone does not make you a feminist and it’s scary to see how these women laud their beliefs and use the term to win over conservative and moderate female voters.   

               

I think Valenti has good ideas about how to win the movement back, by promoting women’s and girl’s organizations that truly help women and support gender equality. We need to show people that we can be a more united front and that while feminism can be very inclusive of different beliefs, holding anti-woman beliefs and calling yourself a feminist isn’t okay.

The Feminist Movement & All It's Parts

                The recent class discussions on the different types of feminism, with information from the Tong readings, were really helpful in understanding the feminist movement as a whole. It’s easy to stereotype the feminist movement and place it into a category of angry women who hate men. But there are really so many different varieties of feminist thought, each of which add on to each other and make the movement richer. 

                There were of course the separatist feminists, who seem to be the source behind the “man-hating feminazi” label.  But what I thought was interesting was the different feminists, Simone de Beauvoir among them, who claim that women should be more like men in order to be more equal, and relinquish their feminine qualities. I can’t say I necessarily agree with that, but it seems like that falls in line more with the beginnings of the feminist movement, like liberal feminism. Third Wave feminism, though criticized for being a little too vague, really seems to be the most modern, every-day type of feminism you can find among young women and it’s a very accessible type of feminism. Like Jessica Valenti, I would classify most girls and young women as Third Wave feminists, even if they don’t quite recognize it – being for reproductive rights, anti-sexist and pro-gender equality. 

                Personally, it’s hard to choose just one particular type of feminism to classify my beliefs into. I feel like I, and many women, could fall into any number of the categories. I think it’ll be interesting to see new waves of the feminist movement crop up in the future, and to see how they change as society’s norms change.

Biology as a Tool of Oppression?

We only briefly talked in class about biology as a factor in gender and gendered conflict, and I think that there’s a lot more to delve into on that subject. While doing the argument analysis paper, I read the two contrasting articles by Ruth Hubbard and James C. Dobson about whether or not biology determines gender roles. Personally I tend to be interested more in the biological differences than cultural differences, so I was looking forward to the article supporting biology. Instead, what I got was an article by a conservative evangelical Christian about “traditional” gender roles for men and women, and how they should apply regardless of whether the supposed differences between men and women are biological or cultural. I thought it was a horribly chosen article to support the side of biology, because Dobson is not a biologist and real biologists don’t support his sexist, outdated views. I think the reason we get his point of view and not a scientist’s is because feminists are afraid of biology.

A lot of feminist authors argue that any gender differences are cultural, in part because they talk about how biology has been used to oppress women in the past. Men think of women as capable of reproduction and that’s it, and they make women out to be the “weaker” sex and use that to their advantage, rationalizing the sexism with “science.” But the same thing goes on with Christian scientists, who use “scientific evidence” to support their beliefs that the Earth is only 6000 years old and evolution is a lie. In the 1920’s and 30’s, a ton of people tried to justify eugenics and extreme capitalism using Darwinian ideas. Does that make evolution untrue, because people can twist it to rationalize their own bad morals? No, evolutionary theory is still fact. 

Accepting biological differences doesn’t have to mean we’re rationalizing sexism. Biology, in principle, is not sexist, it’s not political, it just is. The way we take it is what matters. I think it’s important to embrace scientific findings regarding gender differences and similarities. People will twist anything into supporting their views, but that doesn’t make it less valid. It’s also important not to censor scientific findings if they don’t support our views. Science can help us come to a better, more rounded understanding of life.

Sex and Biology

I really enjoyed Dr. Widman’s guest lecture today on the biological differences between men and women. Being a sexuality major, the topic is really important to me and to anyone going into a health field for women. I thought that he brought up some very good points and talked about the research that has been done in a very easy-to-understand way. A lot of what he talks about can be found in books by biologists like Richard Dawkins (particularly in his book The Selfish Gene), so I did recognize it, but he definitely brought up some new points that I hadn’t heard before.

Personally, I believe biology is incredibly important when it comes to the differences between men and women. Yes culture plays a huge part, but I think that a lot of what we believe socially and culturally can be traced back to biological and evolutionary facts. I feel that Toria brought up a lot of good points, and she definitely challenged Dr. Widman to back up what he was saying, but I think that as students we need to remember that nature and nurture are intertwined. It’s nowhere near easy to separate them. I believe that oftentimes, when we speak of “cultural” ways of thinking and biological phenotypes, we are discussing the same thing. They feed into each other.

I was really glad to have the opportunity to listen to Dr. Widman speak. It really helps to recognize the biological factors behind differences in men and women – and it doesn’t mean that you can’t go against that biology. Your genes do not have to define you. Though we may be biological conditioned to do a certain thing, that does not make it right by cultural and societal standards. As our cultural norms shift, we can go against the grain of our genes. I feel that that is an important part of knowing about our evolutionary history and being able to apply that knowledge to life.

The Roles Men and Women Play in Conflict

In the group discussion questions in class on Tuesday, our group was the smallest by far with only three people. Our question was “What roles do men and women play – how do gender roles limit or enable men and women to act in conflict?” While it was definitely a tough question to answer with such a small group, we did get some ideas. We all agreed that whether essentialist notions of womanhood and femininity help or hurt the feminist movement depends on what version of feminism you follow. There are so many different ways to view feminism, and to believe what empowers women. That makes it difficult to talk about this question – there are so many ways to argue about it.

I believe that violence done by men is pretty much considered normal in most societies. By normal I mean not necessarily condoned, but not unexpected. With women, it’s a different scenario. I feel that the dominant belief in the U.S. is that when women are violent, it is either because they are insane or because they need to protect or defend something, like themselves or their children. Not necessarily their country, but something more close to home, whereas men often fight for abstract idea such as God and patriotism.

Just look at the show “Snapped” and the trials dealing with battered women who turn on their abusive husbands. Violence in women is abnormal, and often actually condoned because of the circumstances. It seems that women will only fight for something incredibly important but also very close to them, very concrete. They’re usually seen as peaceful, or active bringers of peace, like the women of Lysistrata.

I don’t know how this idea came to be, but it would be interesting to see what psychological studies have been done on the differences between the genders on this subject.