The Oppression of Women
Posted By Tiffany on June 26, 2010
When I attended a chapel during my Christian university’s week of gender reconciliation chapels, I found that many of the women on the panel had begun to consider the question of whether or not they experience oppression as women in their daily lives. One woman’s comment was particularly intriguing. She said, “Before coming to this university, I’d never really even thought about the fact that I was a woman or that women were oppressed in the church.”
I was interested in what this woman had to say because of all the women on the panel, she was surprisingly the least “feminist,” while having the most reasons to hate men, after suffering through an abusive early marriage, a gang-rape, and an abduction to be a sex-slave.
She continued on to say, “Before I learned about how women are oppressed in the church, I was just happy to be saved and to serve in all sorts of ministries in the church. I didn’t think about women not being able to preach.” In other words, before coming to work at our university, and meeting the hardened feminist professors, she was rejoicing in her salvation and content to pursue serving the church in the variety of ways that were legitimately open to her as a woman.
In addition to this woman (who was only a clerk at the university), there were several female professors who sat on the panel as well. These women spoke of oppression and discrimination, but failed to give any concrete examples that I could buy into. For all their use of these words, I had to wonder if most of the female oppression that they spoke about came simply from the books they’d read.
When the women spoke of oppression, they gave examples such as their male coworkers asking if they would be staying home after they gave birth to their babies. Then they expressed their indignation at being asked the same thing by multitudes of people at church.
I’m sorry, but this is not oppression, folks! It’s an honest question, and probably something that most people would ask just to make conversation! However, the women on the panel seemed to feel that by merely asking such questions, people were making judgments about what they should be doing with their lives once they had children. I don’t think this is the case (especially in today’s world, where most mothers don’t stay home with their children), and honestly, I have to wonder if they women are just letting the guilt that they feel in leaving their children seep into the conversations they have with others.
This same goes for the way that they interact with their male co-workers. Because feminism is so popular in modern America, women seem to actually be on the lookout for oppression, and I have to wonder if a lot of the things they take as insulting or “anti-women” are caused merely by their insecurity or sensitivity to such issues. In a lot of cases—not all, of course—discrimination is found when you go looking for it.
I, personally, have never felt oppressed as a woman, and perhaps that’s why I react with surprise when other women express these kinds of feelings. I’ve never felt that being a woman was something to apologize or fight against. I’ve never envied men for the supposed “privileges” they have as males in America. I love the realm of women and femininity, and frankly, I’m glad I’m not a man. Feminists confuse me for pushing for special rights and privileges that will “liberate” them from the things that make them distinctly female. Logically, I’d think that those who promoted the cause of women would not push to make women more like men, but would whole-heartedly embrace their uniquely-female abilities, like childbearing and mothering, instead of finding ways to extricate themselves from the “burden” by promoting abortion and the like.
As I listened to the women on the panel speak, I couldn’t help but feel that they were just complaining about small, insignificant issues. As they sat discussing a joke that their male coworkers had made, my mind began to wander, and I thought of the women in China who were having abortions forced upon them, women being beaten in Iraq, and the little girls being forced into prostitution in Thailand. You know, those real kinds of female oppression and subjugation.
Yes, female oppression really does exist. It exists across the globe–as well as in America, in select cases–and it probably always will as long as we have naturally weaker bodies than men. But, I don’t think feminism (aka: pushing for our rights—which isn’t a very Christian thing to do in the first place) is the answer to the ills and grievances of women—neither physically nor emotionally. Christ is the only answer, both for the sin that causes men to hurt and oppress women, and for the emotional insecurity that women feel about their roles in society. I think Christian feminists have forgotten what Christ said about taking a supportive, background, or serving role:
“The greatest among you will be your servant.” ~Matthew 23:11
Amen.
As long as we can be servants, there is no need to become angry with God, bend Scriptures to fit the sentiments of the time, or shake our fists at the universe because we can’t be pastors or preach. Our quest to be like Christ by being a servant should be more than enough to fulfill us, and if it isn’t, we probably should be examining our hearts and minds to figure out just who we’re really working for when we push for the ability to gain recognition and more prominent roles.
This article originally appeared on Tiffany’s blog True Femininity
About The Author
Tiffany
Tiffany is the oldest of two children, a 2007 homeschool graduate, and now a twenty-two-year-old college graduate. She majored in English literature and has a passion for reading, writing, and discovering God's plan for beautiful womanhood. For over a year she has been blogging at True Femininity, which chronicles all the little things in her life as she journeys towards true femininity, such as her favorite interests: homemaking, cooking, fashion, frugal living, homeschooling, and theology.Comments
16 Responses to “The Oppression of Women”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I encountered this kind of thinking often in my college textbooks. I didn’t find it so much in the classroom, probably because there are so few men in the nursing field that no one complains about them. However, if you look at it objectively, American women really have no restrictions worth speaking of and are some of the most privileged women in the world. Modern feministic complaints are mostly bogus.
The problem with arguments like this – that women don’t realize the extent of their oppression until it’s pointed out to them – is that they are the logical equivalent of sticking one’s head in the sand and pretending that, if one cannot see it, it’s not really happening.
This is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Excellent post Tiffany and I totally agree with you. For example, a great point is when you said, “Feminists confuse me for pushing for special rights and privileges that will “liberate” them from the things that make them distinctly female. Logically, I’d think that those who promoted the cause of women would not push to make women more like men, but would whole-heartedly embrace their uniquely-female abilities, like childbearing and mothering, instead of finding ways to extricate themselves from the “burden” by promoting abortion and the like.” You’re absolutely right. There’s actually a lot of wanting it both ways. When I was a feminist (before becoming a Christian) I wanted to be soft, alluring, and feminine in order to attract a man, but at the same time I didn’t want to be tied down to any man who would tell me what to do. I wanted to be like a man – autonomous and free to do as I pleased. As a result, instead of seeing the beauty in a submitted life, where a man can care for and provide for me, I went from relationship to relationship always feeling burned when they didn’t last. I thought I was some sort of victim when, in reality, I was pushing these men away in an effort to “protect myself” from them. In other words – I perpetuated the problem and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Additionally, I appreciate that you mentioned abortion as well. I have just started a blog and my second and third posts are my abortion story. I have worked in ministry for 12 years now, leading Bible studies for post-abortive women, and if you read my story, or know of others’ stories, the lie of feminism is tighly woven into the fabric of that. My blog is at http://oilofhisgrace.blogspot.com/.
I have felt the hard bump of the glass ceiling that women experience in the workplace.
Yes, women all over the world are treated much worse than here in the states, and I am not here to either refute or diminish these facts, but to assume American women are equal to men in this day and age is asinine. I’m not asking to be put ahead, or given a better chance than men; all I’m asking for is the ability to climb the ladder without hitting the ceiling if I so choose.
And “pushing for our rights – which isn’t a very Christian thing to do in the first place” is what? Could you explain? I’m sorry, I legitimately do not understand this. Christian leaders have been at the forefront of just about every rights movement in American history.
Thank you so much for this perspective. I live in the Third World, where oppression of women is very concrete indeed. I feel frustrated when the average North American feminist quotes the oppression of women as a motivator for their stance, because their personal stance has no relevance for the daily struggle of oppressed women here. No, I think the real motivator for them is a sense of entitlement. I wish they would wake up, stop complaining, and realize how privileged they are, and regain a sense of perspective on what oppression is.
Hi, Tiffany!
Your post is so important and I am so grateful to you for tackling such a weighty subject. I agree with a significant amount of what you wrote. Your attendance at a Christian college makes your experience with feminism all the more interesting because I, for one, would not have expected it to be as prevalent as it was at colleges like yours.
I have several comments (not criticisms!) based on my own experience and my research into these topics.
I would suggest that we should avoid conflating oppression or misogyny in the public and private/religious spheres. (Many feminists would disagree – c.f. Betty Friedan’s “the personal is political” and contemporary feminists’ claims that subtle Christian, patriarchal influences oppress women regardless of where they are.)
I think “oppression” is a slippery term. Feminists see oppression in several ways. First, there’s institutionalized misogyny in the public sphere. Second, contemporary family structures perpetuate what they perceive to be restrictive social norms, sexual double standards, and laws that keep women from advancing in business and spheres of public authority. Internalizing such norms causes women to be agents of their own oppression. Feminist theory looks at American social norms as “oppressive” when, as you point out, we don’t have rampant sexual abuse of women and horrific strictures that are common in too many nations. For more reading on the subject from a feminist view, Debran Rowland’s The Boundaries of her Body is very useful.
I would disagree with, “Because feminism is so popular in modern America, women seem to actually be on the lookout for oppression, and I have to wonder if a lot of the things they take as insulting or “anti-women” are caused merely by their insecurity or sensitivity to such issues. In a lot of cases—not all, of course—discrimination is found when you go looking for it.”
First, as a woman who’s worked for several years, and who has talked with many female colleagues about issues of sexual harassment, I’ve come to realize that these behavior patterns exist and are more common than one might realize. I had a particularly uncouth male colleague who used to ask me if I would “prostitute” myself for various “rewards” (money, gifts, etc.) I shrugged it off because I didn’t want to be distracted, and because I thought he was just being a jerk. After a while, though, he began to say these things in front of colleagues. That was when I had to appeal to authority. Thankfully, my father worked at the same company, and after I mentioned it to my dad one day — needless to say, the guy stopped (and was, thankfully, transferred to a different location.) But, many other women aren’t lucky enough to have their fathers or other trusted colleagues at their workplaces.
I could give other examples, like the lawyer who tried to grope me during a conference (and really wouldn’t stop. It was gross.) And I’ve been working for only two years (plus summer jobs from 2004-2007)!! I have heard horror stories from my older female colleagues that make what I’ve experienced look like absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, many working women (particularly those who have been in the workforce for 20+ years) have experienced sexual harassment, and are thus “on the lookout” for it in the future.
Second, statistics bear out that misogyny does exist in the workplace. The EEOC website reports, “In Fiscal Year 2008, EEOC received 13,867 charges of sexual harassment. 15.9% of those charges were filed by males.” (Note that many cases of workplace harassment never get to the EEOC simply because they’re either resolved at the office, individuals don’t report harassment, or they report it and decide that it’s too much trouble to file an official lawsuit.) The article by Jaimee Marsh, et. al., “Prevalence of Workplace Abuse and Sexual Harassment among Female Faculty and Staff,” 51 J. Occup. Health 314 (2009), available online here, also has useful information about statistics on the degree to which women in numerous countries face sexual harassment. The footnotes in that article are particularly useful (i.e., footnote 8.)
I suggest that we are currently moving beyond “sexual harassment” to what one author terms “gender harassment” – i.e., the harassment of men and women who don’t conform to “traditional” expectations of what it means to be a man or a woman. (See Jennifer L. Berdahl, “The Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women,” 92 Journal of Applied Psychology 425 (2007), available online here.) These theories (a) hold men to extraordinarily high standards and would criminalize many innocuous remarks, and (b) might actually deny protections to pregnant women – and women in general – because the proposed laws would deny biological reality in order to make women more like men under law.
“Yes, female oppression really does exist. It exists across the globe–as well as in America, in select cases–and it probably always will as long as we have naturally weaker bodies than men.” Many contemporary feminists argue that women’s bodies are, in actuality, not any different from men; they see the notion that women are naturally weaker as an example of patriarchal culture. Yikes!
Your definition of feminism as “pushing for our rights” is very interesting. I’m quite interested in how rights discourse influences relations within the family and church. In the political/public sphere, feminists push for rights that would make women equal to men under law. Such efforts often have the effect of giving women far more legal protections than men while denying men the same rights. I don’t doubt that many feminists – especially those women who consider themselves “feminists” but aren’t active in national feminist organizations – have good intentions and simply want to see “equality.” However, the goal of feminism is not and has never been “equality.” Feminist leaders have expanded the women’s rights agenda to encompass so many goals that are (at best) tangential to ending the harassment of working women (see, for example, the current goals of NOW – which hold that gay marriage is a “women’s rights issue” and feminists must advocate for publicly-funded abortion on demand.) And society has largely gone along with these goals — to its detriment. Of course, even early feminists (c.f. Victoria Woodhull) advocated abolition of marriage and goals similar to those promoted by national women’s organizations today.
From a legal perspective: Supreme Court cases relevant to the issue of women’s employment rights and the oppression of working women include Johnson v. Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), Hishon v. King and Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984), Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) [holding that it's illegal to force pregnant women to take maternity leave on the grounds that they're incapable of fulfilling their jobs], and Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation, 400 U.S. 542 (1971) [striking down laws prohibiting the hiring of women with preschool-age children.] The issue of pregnancy is particularly complicated because discrimination based on pregnancy is (according to Supreme Court precedents – see Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983)) unlawful discrimination based on sex. Perhaps the seminal case, in my opinion, is Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977)), which struck down laws in Alabama that required prison guards to be of a certain height and weight because, in the Court’s view, these restrictions had a “disparate impact” on women and thus constituted discrimination based on sex. I think it’s clear that the idea that prison guards should be able to guard prisoners and, when necessary, physically subdue them is … well, a good public policy goal. The case is a good example of how the feminist agenda ultimately pushes for ends that hurt women.
The ACLU has a very useful summary of cases dealing with women’s employment rights available here. Their case summaries are pretty unbiased and those that are overtly biased show what they believe to be important in women’s rights — and are thus quite intriguing.
I think you’re absolutely right to point out that so many women in other nations experience horrific oppression on a daily basis. My experiences in the workplace cannot possibly compare to the horrors of sex trafficking and other terrible issues these women confront. Furthermore, and unfortunately, American feminists often don’t speak out against such actions in favor of staying silent to “respect cultural differences.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s experience is a very good example. Christina Hoff Sommers has written about how American feminists heap scorn on American social norms while largely ignoring problems faced by other women. See, for example, “Feminism, Freedom, and History” (note that some of the language isn’t appropriate for younger readers!) and “The Subjection of Islamic Women”.
All that being said, oppression within Christianity is a totally different subject. I’m hesitant to compare religious “oppression” to problems in American work environments because the topics are so different. Yes, some leaders *do* abuse authority and act in manners that are in no way reflective of Christ’s love. But these actions don’t invalidate the central truths of Christianity and Biblical womanhood. They don’t mean that Christian men abuse women because they’re Christian. It’s intriguing to observe that social science bears out the idea that the abuse of wives and women in general is lower among Christian communities and Christian men than in other communities/cultures. I have the studies somewhere and can dig them up if you’re interested.
I suppose my point is this: Christian feminists want us to throw out standards of Biblical womanhood in favor of contemporary feminist norms because they believe that traditional values oppress women. This is not the case. We live in a fallen world and there are, of course, men who don’t fulfill their duties to love and cherish their wives. But Christianity is the sole agent of women’s true liberation – and indeed, the sole agent of human liberation more generally.
Finally (this is getting long!) I LOVE your last paragraph, and think it sums up everything so well. Thank you so much again for sharing your views on the subject of women’s oppression. I really enjoyed reading your post and pondering the ideas it contains.
Blessings,
Luci
a tranquil heart
Hi ladies,
I am a Christian, and I also consider myself a feminist. No, this does not mean I “hate men”, nor does it mean that I want to “fight against” being a woman. However, it makes me sad that so many of you think that being weak and submissive is what makes us female, and are the trademarks of a “good” woman.
Yes, of course there is far worse oppression of women in other parts of the world, and I pray for women who are truly oppressed. It’s also true that hardcore feminists sometimes see oppression and discrimination where there is none. However, that does not mean we should just fall back and accept the discrimination that does undeniably take place right here in the United States. Women in the workforce experience REAL discrimination and sexual harassment every day, I have witnessed it and been subject to it first hand.
Also, it makes me sad that so many of you think that being weak, frail and submissive is what makes us female, and that the role of a woman in a family is to be a “servant”. I don’t see why God would grant me all the gifts he has if my sole purpose in life was to be a servant to a man. Although I am only 19 right now, I want more than anything to someday be a wife and a mother, but I would never marry a man who thinks that it is my job to be his submissive servant. Nor am I interested in having a man “provide for me”, as I am perfectly capable of providing for myself. When I get married, my husband and I will provide for eachother.
I respect all of your opinions, but I will never accept the idea that I am any less capable of a man to be strong and independent and to make my own decisions.
God Bless
Jenn, please read through our theme articles and FAQs before making gross generalizations and assumptions. Submission is something every human being does every day of the week. If you stop at a traffic light, that is submission. If you obey a police officer, that is submission. It has absolutely nothing to do with weakness. Servanthood also does not equal debasement. Christ came as a servant; the Holy Spirit is called the “Helper.” That woman was created for man, equally the image of God and designed to complement masculinity with God-given femininity, is a privilege–not an insult. God gifts women with talents they are to use for His glory through their own unique calling. God clearly calls men to provide for their families, shepherd their children, and lead their wives. If both are to lead all the time, you end up in a frustrated stalemate–not in equality. Egalitarianism is a myth that has been vainly pursued for centuries with sad results. I was of the same mind as you when I graduated college. I followed the siren song of religious feminism, too. It’s a dead end. Christianity is a call to submit ourselves to God’s perfect Word–not to redefine it. If we do not like this, we are free to choose another religion or no religion at all. But I urge you to reconsider and joyfully embrace the pure Word without hesitation. It is life, health, and peace.
I submit to the law for the safety of myself and others. I don’t need to submit to a man to be safe and happy. As I am right now, independent and free, I am doing perfectly well. What makes a man more fit to lead than a woman? Is a man more intelligent than I am? More moral? Why do I need to be led by a man?
I know plenty of couples, my own parents included, who see eachother as equal partners in every way and have perfectly loving, peaceful and happy marriages. The original author mentions the treatment of women in western society compared to other areas of the world, and this is because women are, more and more, being viewed as equals. This was not so in the 50′s and earlier when women were viewed as domestic servants. We were unable to make were own choices or have our own lives outside of our homes, and domestic abuse was common practice.
Wow–that’s a boatload of myths you’ve got there, Jenn! Please do scoot on over to the FAQs, and I would also recommend reading Christina Hoff-Sommers and F. Carolyn Graglia to help dispel a lot of those old chestnuts about how women were only viewed as domestic servants prior to our oh-so-”enlightened” times. It just isn’t so. I’d also heartily recommend the article, “The Truth About Women That Feminists Don’t Want You to Know” at http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/theme-articles/power-womanhood.
You remind me so much of myself 16 years ago. I had the same views and thought myself very advanced. I came to see that I was really going through life with my eyes shut to history. Oppression has existed since the Fall. It has been addressed through the centuries as well–not just by feminists in our day. In fact, Christians led the way in raising the status of women as pagan cultures came under the Lordship of Christ. And oppression is not restricted to women, either. Men are also oppressed, sidelined, and marginalized. Feminism would have us wrap ourselves in a mantle of victimhood in the name of “freedom,” but it really doesn’t work. Human rights? We’re all for them. So is Christ, because all are made in His image and have inherent worth and dignity.
Please do read our other articles about submission and headship. It has nothing to do with one person being “inferior” to or less intelligent than the other. God created woman to be the perfect complement to the man–the two making up the whole of humanity as male and female. Man is not complete without woman. God said it was “not good” when Adam stood before Him alone. Only when Eve was brought into the world was everything declared “very good.” In our complementary roles, as we build on each other’s strengths and help each other in our weaknesses, we find wholeness and unity. What delivers woman from oppression is this truth–that woman is created in the image of God and is the glory of mankind (Paul’s words). It isn’t some enlightenment philosophy that delivers woman. Paganism always puts women down and oppresses them. What we see in other countries is spiritual bondage and its outworkings. The answer isn’t some egalitarian pipe dream. The answer is Christ and His perfect Word. Grace enables us to grasp it and find wholeness again.
Grab How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin Schmidt for a thorough discussion of how Christian teaching has elevated the status of women wherever it has gone. Pick up a copy of Christine Pohl’s Making Room for a beautiful description of women’s roles in the Church throughout history to see the power we have in Christ to significantly impact culture for generations…or to destroy it.
There’s so much to learn when we get our heads out of our own cultural sand and study history without the blinders of “women’s studies” or “gender-neutral” tags stuck all over everything. Femininity is a gift. It is different from masculinity. That is a good thing; not something we should seek to escape. Keep reading!
You’ve managed to describe the most harmful characteristics of any cultural movement. The first is complaint as a way of distinguishing yourself, the creation of a common enemy, perhaps to detract attention from the absence of a legitimate purpose. The second is the notion that equality means uniformity, and that since we are all of equal ‘worth’ we should all be the same. Ludicrous, really. I thank you for your patience in countering this notion.
Although I do not believe in a god and I have some distincly feminist tendencies, I’m charmed by this post and the responses. Mrs. McLeod, I’d love to get my eyes on those studies you mention, since the studies I read (admittedly, ten years ago…) indicated that abuse is more likely to occur in (semi) closed or guarded communities, including those with a Christian religion.
~Liedeke_B
I understand what you’re saying, really I do. But I think you’re sort of missing the point of feminism. Feminists aren’t trying to escape feminity. They’re just trying to make the world an equal place – so that women aren’t forced (economically, politically, socially) to get married, stay home, and have children. They can if they want to – but feminists want to ensure that women are empowered to have the choice not to. It’s all about giving women freedom.
Also, you say that you’ve never felt oppressed in American society – okay, that’s fine. How you feel is how you feel. But I really don’t think it’s fair to assume that women in America – across race and class borders – generally aren’t victims of a patriarchal culture. I mean, think about something as prevelant as the ad industry and the impact it has on women’s body image. It’s an entire industy dependent upon making people (especially women) feel like they’re not good enough just the way they are. You’re skin doesn’t look like this model’s – buy this makeup. You aren’t as skinny as this model – buy these diet pills. You have cellulite – buy this firming lotion. I mean, it’s an entire culture predicated on making women feel crappy. And guess who overwhelmingly are the CEO’s of these companies? Men. Feminism wants women to realize that they don’t have to wear makeup, or loose weight, or use firming lotion – they can if they want to, but they shouldn’t feel yucky or ugly or unwanted because they don’t. Those are real problems that are impacting millions of American women (75% of women are unhappy with their bodies) – not to mention the millions of others suffering from disordered eating patterns and eating disorders. I don’t think American female oppression is as select as you make it out to be. And by ignoring cases of opression – or as you say not going out to look for it – we’re just enabling an unequal society to continue to exist.
Honestthinker,
I really appreciate the courteousness of your reply. Not everyone who disagrees with this article is as polite. I do however think that you overstate the oppression of women, for two reasons.
First of all, I agree with you that it is absolutely lamentable that women are stereotyped and objectified in the commercial world. But is that worse than the objectification and stereotyping of men in say.. popular sitcoms? Think of Brock in Reba. Think of Jim in According to Jim.
Or if you wish to think of commercials. Do we take offense on the general stupidity that is portrayed by so many men in commercials? While women might be portrayed as self indulgent and overly pretty, men are generally portrayed as .. well… stupid. Consider the streak free Windex commercial and many others. I challenge you to try and find commercials in which men outsmart women.
I can think of only one current sitcom with smarter men then women and that would be the Big Bang. And even there, while our ‘nerds’ might be the intelectual ones, they are socially ackward and frequently put in their place by the slightly dimb but at least life smart woman.
Would I prefer it that they didn’t try to market items to us by creating a false strife between men and women which makes us gniffle over the failings of the other? Men indulgently nodding at shopaholic, gossiping vain women and women over dumb men, certainly. But advertisement agencies just try to use our weaknesses against us, men just as much as women.
Another argument you bring up is that fewer women than men are CEO’s. I do not disagree with your numbers. I believe that there definitely are less women than men in what is called the higher eschelon’s of bussiness. My mother having been an area manager for Easter Europe of a large global firm, I have some insight though in what is required to achieve that type of job, and the majority of women just does not wish to give up that much of their lives to a job.
Quite often people say that there are less women in those higher paid functions because women want to have children and there are not enough accomodations for women with children in the workplace, like longer payed maternity leave for example, or more flexibility to stay home when the children are sick. But would it be fair to have two different standards of performance for CEO’s? One for women and one for men, just because we want equal numbers?
There is a difference between equal opportunity, which we have, and equal outcome.
I have seen it often in Europe where they did everything to get more girls in previously male oriented directions in school, including these directions in schools that had more girls, quota’s and everything. Thirty years later, they have to accept that it is just not going to happen because… girls are not interested. Of course there are a few that are, and it is great that they have the opportunity, but there is no need to pretend that they are not exceptions. And there is no need to take offense to the fact that they are exceptions.
“thinker,” please read our Theme Articles and the FAQs, as the things you bring up here are already addressed there. You do not need feminism to encourage women to accept their bodies, reject materialism, or overcome eating disorders. You need basic human rights, as both men and women are created in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic worth and value. Putting women over men isn’t the answer. Men are oppressed in this world, too. The answer isn’t “masculinism.” Please do take the time to read the FAQs! Warmly, Jennie Chancey
Okay, so I read your Theme Article on “You Don’t Know Feminism,” and I do think you make some good arguements. The feminist movement historically has advocated for a lot of radical things. And like you said, it’s not fair to lump all feminists together, just like it’s not fair to treat all women as a cohesive unit. I suppose the issue that I have, then, is that I don’t think it’s really accurate of you to say that you are “against feminism.” You nor I can even truly define what feminism is. And the dictionary definiton solely talks about the achievement of social, economic, and political equality. Perhaps you are against “radical marxist feminism,” or the errosion of the nuclear family, or sexual promescuity, or the demonization of the housewife, or one of a number of the things mentioned by the authors you quoted in that post. But I think to say you are “against feminism” is a bit of a slap in the face to all those women who consider themselves feminist, but also don’t think we should live in a Marxist society or belittle every housewife out there (which I would wager is the majority of people who today consider themselves feminist).
I also think that in terms of understanding why the phrase “Ladies Against Feminism” upsets so many people, it is important to note that the intuitive modern definition of feminism is a belief in the equality of the genders. That is pretty much the base-line requirement to be a feminist. Just as the basic requirement to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ. If you say you’re not a Christian, the immediate assumption is that you don’t believe in Christ. If you say you’re not a feminist, the immediate assumption is that you don’t believe in equality. And I suppose it is hard for most people to understand why someone wouldn’t believe in equality – especially when one considers how hard women have worked to achieve the equality that we have.
Also, in regards to your last post, generally accepted third wave feminist theory does not advocate for “putting women over men.” It’s truly all about equality – but I feel that point has already been made. To me it seems that believing in equal human rights for all (men and women) does not contradict feminism, but rather compliments it.
Hi, honestthinker!
I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I did want to address some of the issues you raised in your post. I think you’ve pointed out something really important – which is the use of words and the importance of defining what words mean when talking about controversial issues.
I’ll start by pointing out that feminists have indeed pointed out issues that needed correction in our society. Carolyn McCulley makes a similar point in her book Radical Womanhood. Our feminist sisters have indeed done some good work. But, I would ask – could we have achieved similar results without the entire feminist movement and the label “feminist”? I believe it’s critically important to look at the historical context of feminism – because, historically, feminism has not been about “equality” per se.
You wrote, “… it is important to note that the intuitive modern definition of feminism is a belief in the equality of the genders. That is pretty much the base-line requirement to be a feminist.” But is it? Is this the historical focus of feminism – and is it the goal of feminists today? Please know that I’m not saying that every single person who’s a feminist believes the exact same things. But, it’s important to know what the leaders are saying – online, in print media, and in interviews – because they claim to represent the “feminist movement.” We’ve seen their ideas trickle down to have a serious impact on the vast majority of “ordinary” women. Thus, I think it’s important to examine what these people say and think – regardless of how “radical” they might seem. The values feminists espoused just 40 years ago seemed radical in their day – and yet those values are quite prominent and “mainstream” today.
Regarding “equality of the genders” – one very important lesson of modern jurisprudence and feminist theory is the importance of words. Are we dealing with equality of genders or equality of sexes? And, how would we define “equality”? I don’t think you’ll find a single woman (or man!) who visits this site who disagrees with the important precept that all people, men and women alike, are created in the image of God. We are all children of God. But, equality of worth in God’s eyes, c.f. Genesis 1:27 (and the perspective of the law!) doesn’t mean that we should all have equality of roles in the family, church leadership, and civil society.
I would suggest that feminism as a movement has never been about “equality.” Its goals have long been so much more than that. From its inception, feminism is about redefining womanhood. It goes back to the Garden of Eden, when the serpent asked Eve, “Did God really say…?” This is the first attempt we see to define womanhood and the person of a woman apart from God’s word. Margaret Sanger traced the origins of feminism to the Enlightenment. (See Women and the New Race, (New York: Truth Publishing Co., 1920), vii.) Friedrich Engels saw the family as an institution to be abolished and deconstructed. (“The monogamous family must cease to be the industrial unit of society,” in The Origin of the family, private property, and the state tr. Ernest Untermann (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1902), 90. Full text available here.
Major feminists throughout history have never promoted equality of “choice” in the sense that they say it’s ok to be a wife and mother if that’s what a woman chooses. Some have made similar statements in public, but have pushed for legal reforms and social changes that would make it impossible to actually pursue such a path without facing significant challenges and/or social scorn.
From the get-go, feminist thought has promoted emasculated men and scorned the idea of male leadership. The Seneca Falls Declaration is mostly known for calling for women’s suffrage (which, in fact, had existed where women were heads of households since the very beginning of America!) but also called for “equality” of women in the pastorate and in civil government. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were very close with Victoria Woodhull, who was the first female candidate for president and a very outspoken feminist leader of her day. One of Woodhull’s speeches, “Tried as by Fire,” is a great exposition of her goals as a feminist leader and where she saw the feminist movement going. (It’s also important to note that perhaps 250,000 people saw her give this speech in various forums around the country.) She argued:
Marriage “is… the most terrible curse from which humanity now suffers, entailing more misery, sickness, and premature death than all other causes combined. It is at once the bane of happiness to the present, and the demon of prophetic miseries to the future – miseries now concealed beneath its deceptive exterior, gilded over by priestcraft and law, to be inwrought in the constitutions of coming generations to mildew and poison their lives.” See here, page 6.
Modern feminism – especially third-wave feminism – remains particularly concerned with issues relating to family formation. Feminism sees the family as a unit to be “deconstructed” (see, in particular, the article by David L. Chambers in volume 95 of the Michigan Law Review (1996) & its numerous footnotes), “reformulated,” and eventually abolished. The idea of family re-formulation as crucial to “women’s liberation” is clear in treatises from the early writings from Plato to those by modern thinkers like J. S. Mill, Jeremy Betham, Marx, Engels, and other philosophers. Judith Butler (a major third-wave feminist at Berkeley) has written extensively on these and similar issues.
Judith Resnik’s article “On the Bias: Feminist Reconsiderations of the Aspirations for Our Judges,” 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1877 (1988) is a good overview of why third-wave feminists think women have distinct advantages over men when it comes to legal issues and the practice judging. She explicitly rejects the idea of “equality” throughout the paper.
Martha Fineman, who founded the Feminist Legal Theory Project at Emory University School of Law in 1984, states that marriage “has shaped the aspirations and experiences of women and men in ways that have historically disadvantaged women.” [see Martha A. Fineman, “Why Marriage?” 9 Va. Journal of Social Policy and Law (2001): 246.]
Judith Stacey argues that “marriage not only signals, but actively reproduces and exacerbates preexisting social and economic inequalities.” [see Judith Stacey, “Toward Equal Regard for Marriages and Other Imperfect Intimate Affiliations,” 32 Hofstra L. Rev. (2003): 343.]
Another good text is Nan D. Hunter, Marriage, Law and Gender: A Feminist Inquiry, 1 Law & Sexuality (1991).
Nancy Polikoff has written extensively on why marriage isn’t important. In her new book, she argues: “Marriage as a family form is not more important or valuable than other forms of family, so the law should not give it more value.” (See the introduction here.)
I think the idea of naming a website “Ladies Against Feminism” is provocative – in a good way! We want women to investigate the history of feminism, to think critically about issues of personhood and sexual ethics, and to know the historical context of the label “feminist.” Rather than act as a “slap in the face” to women who see themselves as feminists, the website title encourages a reconsideration of how we view ourselves and the importance of choosing words wisely.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me here or privately if I may clarify anything or if you’d like copies of the law review articles. Thank you for visiting – I hope you’ll stay around for discussions!
Warmly,
Luci McLeod