Feminists: We Have Work To Do
The death of feminism has been pronounced many times over the years by those who want it to be so. But to borrow a phrase from Maya Angelou, "Still we rise."
Recently I was on a talk show panel with three men, ages appearing to be 30-something to 50-something, each of whom said during the interview, "I'm a feminist, but..." I found that particularly amusing given that so many women say, "I'm not a feminist, but..." The serious bottom line, though, is that both men and women in this country have so incorporated the fundamental principles of feminism that we assume women should have equal educational and job opportunities, that women should be able to own property, not be property, and so forth. We haven't attained full gender equality, but the values have become so much part of the culture that it is not fruitful to argue about feminism's viability, as some commenters here would like to do.
What is worth discussing is the damage done by the U.S. to women's ability to gain equality and reproductive justice in the rest of the world during the time that the fundamentalist right has held political sway. Reproductive self-determination isn't the only thing women need, but without it, women can't determine any other aspect of their lives.
And despite the election of Barack Obama who supports international family planning and has already rescinded George Bush's global gag rule that denied funding to programs that so much as mentioned abortion, there is much work to be done to restore U.S. leadership globally in this field and to repair the damage that our two-and-one-half decades of ping-ponging (gag rule on/gag rule off, UNFPA funding on, then off, overall funding for international family planning never reaching the levels it should to pull our share of the weight to assure that all women have access to modern birth control methods) of this critical U.S. foreign policy. Given that when the U.S. sneezes, the rest of the world catches pneumonia (our "leading" the way to a global economic meltdown being a case in point), we also have a good bit of damage to undo before we can start moving forward again.
Obama rode into office the wave of a hunger for change combined with disgust for the excesses of the Bush administration's hubris that brought us a failed war and a failing economy. But reaction doesn't translate into a sustainable movement for change. The sharpest lesson of political history is that to allow the grassroots to lie fallow, to fail to mobilize the troops around a specific, forward looking agenda, is sure death to any political movement.
For example, five former directors of USAID's Population and Reproductive Health Program are calling for immediate doubling of U.S. funding for family planning overseas, to $1.2 billion and increasing to $1.5 billion over the next few years, if global anti-poverty and development goals are to be achieved. And it is essential that the U.S. address the legitimate place of safe and legal abortion within women's reproductive health and human rights.
Michelle argued persuasively that the absence of women's reproductive rights contributes to overpopulation, environmental disaster, family instability, HIV/AIDS, and sex-ratio imbalances that threaten global stability. Other matters may make more news, but nothing will make more difference. So, the heck with arguments about tensions about or within feminism; we have work to do.


















Actually, the poll data shows Movement Feminism not "rising" but falling. Current polls show about 1/5 of American women self identify as Feminist. It's been in decline for decades. Feminism isn't "dead" it's just that we're in a post Feminist era.
It's easy to understand why many men say "I'm a feminist but I support equality..." and women say "I'm not a Feminist, but I support equality..."
It's presumed a woman is for equality but she'll wish to make clear she doesn't agree with Movement Feminism. Whereas a man will often emphasize he also supports equality but that he doesn't support Movement Feminism.
They (>80% of Americans) are all saying the same thing: for equality, against Movement Feminism.
People just don't accept the ideological framework of the Feminist era. Movement Feminists alienated women and men by presuming to speak for them and caricaturing them on everything from lifestyle to religion to politics.
btw, it's like liberal vs Liberal Movement or conservative vs Conservative Movement.
May 7, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree Michele Obama is a very persuasive speaker becasue she's rational, makes good use of empirical data to support her case, and she's not an ideologue.
But how do we know Michele really cares about those issues anyway?
Didn't Feldt claim yesterday that men only discuss such issues empirically becasue of they're "uncomfortable with talking about sex, childbirth, or much of anything else warm and wet."
(btw, are Feldt and her male acquaintances 500 years old?)
May 7, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure readers realize how carefully you have to tread in many countries. Birth control or job training is fine as long as men see an advantage to themselves but loss of control over women is unthinkable. Activists within the target country tend to know best how far they can go and aid agencies need to defer to them. Attitudes can change quite rapidly among the young, just as they have in the U.S., but an angry backlash can undo a great deal of progress. So, yes, I agree that it's pointless to waste a lot of time on the tensions within feminism, but the work to be done requires an awful lot of patience.
May 7, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's another lie spread by Feminists about very traditional societies: that narrowly defined roles only apply to women or that it's just men oppressing women.
Looking around the world honestly, impoverished, totalitarian, failed and warring societies are oppressive to everyone, not just women. I don't intend a tit for tat, but it's important to realize these are humanitarian problems and that the Feminism Movement has been distorting them enormously for personal gain.
In totalitarian cultures more men are usually killed and tortured than women in everyday affairs. Look at the Afghan grain dealer who was recently tortured horribly by an Arab prince stemming out of an ordinary business transaction. Male laborers in Saudi Arabia or other authoritarian regimes are beaten regularly. The problem isn't men, patriarchy, or any of that boilerplate, it's totalitarianism.
In poverty stricken failed states like parts of Africa, or SE Asia after during and after the Vietnam war, genocides have killed as many or more men than women. If you notice there tends to be a high percentage of women in the aftermath of genocides. While most of the soldiers will be male, the women are often cheering on the killing and rape becasue it's tribal in nature. In every holocaust I'm aware of women were as racist and enthused about it as men. Take Rwanda for example. I've seen interviews with women in truth and reconciliation where women openly admit they gave their own neighbors to death squads to get their land, possessions, or cut the competition for their husbands. The problem is the failed state, and it's a humanitarian issue, not a Feminist issue.
The poor in many parts of the world may be driven to survive by prostitution, pimping, drugs, or other crime. While prostitution is horrible and often a last resort in a poverty devastated community, men in that same community will be forced to steal or deal drugs or get into organized crime or starve or be victimized. Those are also highly brutal and often lethal professions. The problem is poverty and crime generally, a humanitarian issue, not a Feminist issue.
Traditional practices like arranged marriages or forced gender roles are practiced by fathers and mothers, and oppressive to brides and grooms trying to modernize. The problem is both men and women in a traditional culture struggling to modernize out of agrarian traditions, which is a humanitarian issue, not a feminist issue.
Sadly, Movement Feminists just can't help but frame every issue as women vs men, instead of seeing things holistically as humanitarian issues, not just Feminist issues. To which Feminists reply: "we want men as allies too, in the women's movement against oppressive men." That's just not good enough anymore.
In this post-Feminist era we need something less biased, less ideological, more results oriented, more pragmatic, and more gender balanced. We need a movement willing to understand other cultures and work with them, not just project onto them. We need people with the technical skills to do so, doctors, engineers, scientists, economists; not just ideologues.
More than anything we need a humanitarian movement which stops framing itself as women vs men, or men allied with women against bad man, but as humans with common interest trying to fix complex social problems.
May 7, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, on birth control in undeveloped countries in particular:
While it may be a shock to our sensibilities, in many undeveloped agrarian and ghetto communities, arranged marriage and procreation is more of a business transaction out of necessity.
People in the developed world are often aghast to learn some people don't marry for love. They don't have favorite bands or authors, don't go to restaurants, are often illiterate and basically scratching out a coarse and brutal survival.
In those societies, couples get married with some express goals: surviving, bearing children, and a division of labor for the most part along gender lines which goes back centuries to agrarian roots.
In that arrangement it's reasonable to understand that a "good" man who is providing but also illiterate and struggling to adapt to the modern world, would be worried about birth control. He has no paternity test, and no fertility test. He's probably scratched together a dowry and married based on the assumption they share a desire for children. He will spend his entire life, short and brutal as it may be, supporting that family, and he doesn't want to be cuckolded for life. From his perspective that's the ultimate crime, tantamount to rape and murder.
Now the other side of the birth control story, which we're already familiar with, is the woman trapped in domestic servitude with an awful husband, or even abandoned, and stuck with many children who then are more likely to perpetuate a cycle of poverty.
But Feminists seem incapable of enough empathy or knowledge to understand the complexities of the issues in traditional societies, and therefore can't offer practical solutions.
I agree access to birth control should be more common, but that's not the whole story, and Feminist's one sided and often militant approach is counterproductive and unsustainable on large scale, becasue it ignores the other half of the equation and fails to address root issues.
May 7, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of microsoft hyper v server, iscsi boot windows 7
March 30, 2011 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability systems
April 28, 2011 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink