I am not feminist. I discuss feminism a lot here, on this blog. Feminism has a lot of different definitions, depending on who you ask, so I'm going to tell you what I mean, 99% of the time, when I say refer to feminism.
So the question is: what is feminism?
I’m a sociologist (donchiaknow?) and so when I say “feminist” I mean it in the theoretical sense. Always. Always, always, always!!! If I am construed as using it as a derogatory term it is only because it has become so common for human beings to equate “stupidity” with “differing opinions.” If I ever make the unintentional mistake of referring to feminism as “stupid” it is only in this “differing opinion” way and I apologize if I have ever done (or will ever do) such a thing.
(Calling a specific feminist stupid is another thing entirely…because then, I’ll provide what I find to be sufficient evidence and in such a case I would only be using “feminist” as a modifier/adjective/pseudonym for that specific person. Mrs. Job Security, for example, might get called “stupid” from time to time.)
When I say "feminist" I’m referring to contemporary feminists that advocate for affirmative action on women’s behalf, that believe women are entitled to anything and everything they want, that believe marriage and motherhood are socially constructed and are thus inherently stifling, that believe gender is socially constructed and that believe that men are still inherently valued more than women in society and that talk about Mommy Wars like it’s something abhorrent.
When I say “feminist” I’m referring to standpoint theorists.
I’m referring to second-wave feminism.
I’m referring to Mrs. Job Security.
The next question is: what is wrong with feminism?
Well, in my opinion, everything I said above. But, for now I’ll focus on three: standpoint theory, gender construction and Mommy Wars.
1) Standpoint Theory
Standpoint theory, in the tiniest nutshell possible, essentially says this: those that are part of discriminated against minorities have a greater capacity to understand the world around them (as compared to the hegemonic majority) and as such their opinions about the world are more valid and should be more highly valued (than the opinions of the hegemonic majority). There are greater nuances to this theory, and I can say that I disagree with every one that I'm aware of, but for now we’ll stick with that simple definition.
I am about as Caucasian as they come. I was raised in an upper-middle-class neighborhood in a booming suburb in Southern California. I attended “the rich high school” of my city. Both of my parents received Bachelors degrees and my father received his Masters from USC. College was a non-question for me; I always knew I would attend a university (and that I would graduate). I am Christian.
Now, take Juan, a Latino who’s been raised in East L.A. and didn’t graduate high school and was raised by one, also-non-high-school-graduate parent and let's say he’s abandoned a strong Catholic heritage for Atheism.
I would never, in a million years, suggest that my views of the world are more valid than Juan’s based on this, or any other information about either one of us. I do not hesitate to say, however, that my view of the world—no matter how different from Juan’s view it might be—is equally as valuable as Juan’s. Nor do I hesitate to say that Juan’s view of the world is equally as valuable as mine. The world is made up of millions of different perspectives and viewpoints, and understanding them collectively is what will bring us to understand our world and each other.
Standpoint theorists would say no. Standpoint theorists would argue that Juan’s standpoint is more valuable than mine simply on the basis that he is a “minority” and I am a part of the “hegemonic majority.”
Standpoint theorists would say that my viewpoint is garbage.
I’ve actually had standpoint theorists (Mrs. Job Security, among others) say that, specifically, to me.
Discrimination is garbage. That’s what I say.
2) Gender Construction
In my experience, feminists typically (and I really do mean typically, I know I am making sweeping generalizations…I’m a sociologist, I’m allowed) do very little to distinguish between gender and gender roles. I cannot—on any logical, spiritual, emotional or ontological level—accept that gender, itself, is socially constructed. I believe that gender is an eternal aspect of our selves, in the premortal, mortal, and post-mortal worlds. Some cite transgender individuals as clear evidence against this belief, but I would argue that such individuals are examples of the imperfections of our mortal lives. (I’m not saying that I believe at all that transgender individuals are imperfect by definition. My above argument against standpoint theory should be evidence against that. I’m simply pointing out that life does not fit into perfect little categories like we might prefer and so on…) Perfection is something the human race is working towards, on every level. It is laughable to suggest or suspect that we have obtained it at this point in our history.
I can, however, acknowledge that there might be aspects of some gender roles that are socially constructed, but I would argue that such instances are merely examples of human being’s natural search for order out of chaos. If you study gender roles over time, it is obvious that they evolve and re-evolve over time to reflect the needs of whatever society possesses those gender roles. Feminists will argue that gender roles are determinative of the society. I submit that they are not. Gender roles are not definitive of people, nor are they definitive of gender. People filling the gender roles define them according to their society's needs. Gender roles are functional, not relational.
I also submit that gender roles are significantly less stringent then feminists typically acknowledge, but my arguments for that mirror my arguments for Mommy Wars, so for the sake of brevity (whoops…too late) we shall move on.
3) Mommy Wars
You may or may not know what Mommy Wars are (is…? It’s a specific term in sociology/feminist theory, so it might be “is.”). Even if you do, my guess would be that you’ve mostly only ever heard about it in negative terms (i.e. feminist terms), so you might not get what I mean when I say cite “talk[ing] about Mommy Wars like it’s something abhorrent” as an issue I raise with contemporary feminism.
Mommy Wars are the verbal and non-verbal fights that women get into over what it means to be a good mom. Basically, it’s the “Working Mom” vs. the “Stay at Home Mom.”
The WM perceives the SAHM as looking down on her for not spending 24 hours/day with their kids and not adhering to what they (the WM) believe to be the social norms (i.e. gender roles...) surrounding motherhood. Maybe the SAHM actually does look down on the WM for not being with her kids all the time.
The SAHM perceives the WM as looking down on her for allowing herself to be stifled and disenfranchised by not adhering to what they (the SAHM) believe to be the (more progressive) social norms (i.e. gender roles…) surrounding womanhood. (Aside: contemporary feminists, get over yourselves and admit to the success your predecessors have had…women working is totally a social norm/gender role.) Maybe the WM actually does look down on the SAHM for not being in the work force.
Here’s my point: both are completely viable life choices. You will never agree with everyone. You will never please everyone. There will always be 2 (2+, if we’re going to be completely honest, and why wouldn’t we?) sides of the same argument. There are very, very, very (…very…) few arguments where one side will be right and all others will be wrong. Mommy Wars is n-o-t-NOT one of those arguments. So why should we care if Mommy Wars continue? Are you going to change your life decisions just because someone else in the world has completely different values and goals for themselves? If you are, I’m sorry, but you’re complete weak sauce and you need to grow a backbone.
Maybe two.
Feminists argue that Mommy Wars have divided women and caused rifts amongst the feminist movement and that it is one of the primary reasons why some ventures of the movement have been unsuccessful and yadda yadda. Thus, their argument is best summarized: Mommy Wars is bad for all women because it makes women have divergent opinions, which means all women are not unified under one cause, that cause being Cause X of the contemporary feminist movement. This means feminists think all women should be feminist.
Though you won’t see any feminists advocating for women to be SAHM feminists, oh no. They want Working Mom feminists. It’s the Working Mom that hits the Glass Ceiling. It’s the Working Mom being constrained by her (“brainwashed”) “Stay at Home Mom Sisters” to conform to already constricting, hegemonic-male-induced social norms. It’s the Working Mom that hits the Maternal Wall. It’s the Working Mom that’s being discriminated against. It’s the Working Mom that needs representation and a voice and support and respect.
Now, (that rant aside) I’m not one to knock anyone—even if I disagree with them—for wanting to recruit more people to their cause. However, there’s plenty of room for diversity in the world, so let the world be diverse! You can have your goals for yourself and I can have my goals for myself and we can (I mean really can, I’m not be overly idealistic here) all get along just fine. It’s not even limited to just being a WM or a SAHM, there are countless other ways that women can Exist in the social world and countless other ways that women can be mothers.
Feminism originally was rooted in the idea that women deserved more options. Stay at Home Mom-hood is an option. By citing Mommy Wars as a problem for the contemporary feminist movement, contemporary feminists are shooting themselves in the foot. By discrediting the SAHM by saying “Mommy Wars is bad” (because that’s exactly what they’re doing) they’re denying women options.
I, for one, am not going to support anyone that wants to deny me my own opinions or limit the options I have available to me.
---
Interested in reading more?
In my post Man-Failure Disorders I discuss the realistic threat of misandry in overtly feminist media.
In my post Man-Failure Disorders I discuss the realistic threat of misandry in overtly feminist media.
