Rothfeld: Mischaracterizing Feminism
By Becca Rothfeld, Contributing Columnist
Published on Monday, October 8, 2012
Since the advent of second-wave feminism in the 1960s, the mainstream feminist movement has suffered a disquieting decline in popularity. According to a 2009 poll conducted by CBS News, only 24 percent of American women identify themselves as feminists. Among men, numbers are even more disheartening: Only 14 percent of the American male population identifies as feminist, while 24 percent of American men regard the term as an insult.
It is difficult to see what could be so off-putting about a movement whose primary aims are so innocuous. I doubt that feminism’s detractors would oppose the elimination of institutionalized gender inequalities or endorse the objectifying practices that underlie a culture of rampant sexual assault. It is equally unlikely that these self-proclaimed anti-feminists would champion the glass ceiling, defend employment discrimination or speak out on behalf of domestic abuse. What, then, could possibly account for the recent wave of hostility toward the feminist position — a position whose goals are so uncontroversial by most modern standards?
“People see feminism as a knocking down of men rather than a convergence of the two genders,” one ’13 male, who asked to remain anonymous, said. Furthermore, J.P. Harrington ’14 explained that he is not a feminist because he perceives the movement as having “largely strayed from self-determination and independence to arguing for special benefits.”
These anecdotal reports lend credence to what I have long suspected — that most opposition to feminism derives from a complete misunderstanding of what the movement actually entails. Backlash against the feminist position is not a response to the arguments and ideas presented in feminist literature or women’s and gender studies classrooms, but rather a response to the caricatures of feminism that riddle popular culture.
According to common logic, the feminist is an unshaven, combative creature intent on the utter destruction of the male sex. She is willfully ignorant of the difficulties that males face in our society, and she is self-righteously indignant at every opportunity. Although she is quick to blame individual men for the long history of chauvinism plaguing the Western world, she remains incredibly resistant to engaging in even a cursory examination of her own role in the process of female marginalization. Even the most favorable popular portrayals of feminists still tend to represent them as aggressive, abrasive and unappealingly sanctimonious.
Such a characterization could not be more misleading. Although the term “feminism” refers to a diverse array of stances and intellectual advocacies, there is widespread consensus among feminists that the goal of the movement is to promote critical dialogue and self-reflection. Feminism is not so much a commitment to a certain set of beliefs as it is a commitment to general inquiry and dialectic. Prominent feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler are less wedded to any particular account of the world than they are to presenting challenges to unquestioned cultural conventions.
Much of the criticism levied against feminism relies on the unfounded assumption that feminists ignore men’s issues or hope to fight misogynistic hierarchies by reversing them. In point of fact, most contemporary feminists are quite sympathetic to the male plight. From a feminist perspective, female oppression and male oppression arise from the same central source: from the series of social expectations that conspire to create gender roles. The chauvinism responsible for the suppression of women is bound up with the very same cultural structures that demand certain behaviors from men. The notion that women should be demure, sentimental and delicate is closely related to the corresponding notion that men should be strong, stalwart and reserved. Consequently, any discussion of gender norms that fails to address men’s issues is miserably incomplete.
Feminism is nothing if not cautious when it comes to assigning responsibility and blame — indeed, many tomes have been dedicated to an examination of women’s hand in their own subjugation, a consequence of the internalization of sexist ideologies. The position is not anti-men — it is merely anti-patriarchy, and reasonably so.
The myth of the dogmatic, hysterical feminist is one more attempt to silence the feminine voice and discredit the female point of view. The assumption implicit in such accounts is that women could only oppose their own oppression by assuming an unreasonable posture, an assumption that smacks of familiar stereotypes and prejudices.
This is a really good column. I may be a little naive, but I think everyone’s a feminist of sorts— I think most people born today believe in basic women’s rights issues: women’s suffrage, equal pay for equal work, and access to birth control, so I think you’re right that women’s issues are dividing not because of the actual issues, but because of marketing. You did a great job disseminating several stereotypes about feminism- indeed, that feminism DOES care about men too!
By Anon ‘12 on Oct 8 | 3:19 am
There is a tremendous straw man argument in the middle of this column. I don’t think what Harrington said (viz. that the movement has “largely strayed from self-determination and independence to arguing for special benefits") was adequately addressed in this piece.
The fact is, it’s all well and good to look down from the ivory tower galvanized by WGST courses, armed with Butler and Irigaray, but in the popular culture there is probably a justifiable confusion about just what “feminism” means and what it’s purporting to do. In that sense, the article is correct that there are common misconceptions, but it is difficult even for well-informed Ivy Leaguers to know what’s going on with this “movement.” I suspect it has to do with the different “waves” of feminism changing what the whole point is. People can probably be forgiven for not knowing feminism has become an abstruse theoretical critique of the social power that determines gender roles.
By Anonymous alum on Oct 8 | 10:23 am
Perhaps the pollsters should define feminism before they ask their question? Or they might first ask the people they poll what their definition of feminism is? To ask people if they are “feminists” without providing a specific definition is idiotic.
Are you a democrat? A liberal? A conservative? Please answer yes or no. Oh, please.
(A feminist is asked if she wants to hear a joke. She answers, “THAT’S NOT FUNNY!”)
By OMG on Oct 8 | 11:26 am
This is such a thoughtful, ACCURATE, and well-written article. It’s everything I’m always trying to explain to people. Thank you for contributing this.
By 15 on Oct 8 | 1:42 pm
While modern day feminism has a lot of good points, there are some very troubling tendencies, especially on the internet, where I would gather most people encounter “feminism” today.
One egregious example is the use of the word “mansplaining”, a negative gendered word, to shut down discussion about feminist issues. “Mansplaining” is usually defined something along the lines of “To explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening.”, despite the fact that being patronizing is not limited to the male sex.
On many feminist blogs, when a man attempts to critique a feminist argument he is “mansplaining” and therefore automatically wrong. Ad-hominem arguments such as this, and other logical fallacies are not something usually encountered in academic feminism, but something easily found on the internet, and can easily turn off potential supporters of feminism.
By ‘12 on Oct 8 | 3:48 pm
“the suppression of women is bound up with the very same cultural structures that demand certain behaviors from men. The notion that women should be demure, sentimental and delicate is closely related to the corresponding notion that men should be strong, stalwart and reserved”
The “forces” you speak of killed a hundred million young males in the wars of the last century. No such equivalent “force” impinged on female longevity.
Paul D. Keane
By theantiyale on Oct 8 | 10:04 pm
My full quote was as follows, since that seems relevant to the discussion, although impossible under the strict code of the D’s Opinion section.
“I find labels to be somewhat misleading, but for the purpose of this interview, I’ll apprehensively adopt their use. I would say that I am not a feminist because I share a fundamental disagreement with what I perceive to be the current leadership of the feminist movement. I believe that the feminist movement began by saying that they deserved equality of opportunity. In essence, that "men should get out of their way.” I am in full support of that. I do not agree with the current stance of many feminists. I believe the Fair Pay Act is unnecessary and poorly designed law, given that women are not significantly underpaid compared to men. I believe that there is significant discrimination against males in terms of divorce law and other legal proceedings. I absolutely believe that there is still discrimination against women in some regards, but I’m not convinced that the correct approach is legislation. Feminism has largely strayed from self-determination and independence to arguing for special benefits. I disagree with that. I also disagree with the combative tone that has been taken towards women who wish to be homemakers of their own free will."
Perhaps it would have been better said that I agree with the idea of feminist critique of cultural norms and such, but not necessarily with their ideas and certainly not with the legislative platform that is billed as feminist, whether it is or not. I’ve long been told that feminism isn’t what I think it is. I remain unconvinced. Mayhaps outside the Ivy League ivory towers, feminism is something far different than this article claims.
By JP Harrington on Oct 13 | 5:57 am