But some of today’s most influential feminists contend that women will never fulfill their potential if they play by men’s rules. According to Avivah Wittenberg-Cox and Alison Maitland, two of the most prominent exponents of this position, it is not enough to smash the glass ceiling. You need to audit the entire building for “gender asbestos”—in other words, root out the inherent sexism built into corporate structures and processes.

The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.

What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favour of “collaboration” and “networking”, skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

Not surprisingly, the gals at Feministing had a few issues with this article, which puts them at odds with other feminist teachings from waves past.

Um, wait — what?? I don’t know about y’all, but I don’t think I have read one book in the last 10 years or have talked to one feminist who has contended that women are “wired” differently than men when it comes to work.

And as for the few examples of these “new feminists” that the author directs us to, here’s a tip: Just because someone has written about gender issues in the workplace doesn’t make them representative of today’s feminism. In fact, after some online research, I couldn’t find really any history where these folks even identified themselves as feminists.

Now if you’re like me and had read through The Economist article twice to understand the gibberish going on, this article hits on a few squishy issues that the feminist movement is now facing.

Vanessa at Feministing admonishes The Economist for, “contending that women are ‘wired’ different than men when it comes to work.” For starters, I didn’t realize that anyone was “wired” for work. Humans were not created to drive to the office every day and sit in front of little machines known as computers. There isn’t a part of our brain labeled “work.”

Since neither men nor women are wired for work, doesn’t it make sense that there would be difference in our styles and performance? Oh wait, what Vanessa is getting at is the larger, nature vs. nurture and “gender is socially constructed” fallacies that those on the left like to pretentiously trot out.

Recently, I finished reading The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, which focuses on how modern medicine has found vast differences in the brains of men and women. Starting in utero, our brains are triggered by different hormones, which produce a multitude of differences from our physical appearance to our emotions to how we respond to situations. Even male babies and toddlers respond differently than their female counterparts.

While Brizendine refrains for writing anything political, you can tell that she is hesitant to show that men and women are different. She writes, “In writing this book I have struggled with two voices in my head–one is the scientific truth, the other is political correctness. I have chosen to emphasize scientific truth over political correctness even though scientific truths may not always be welcome.”

Earlier she explains the political settings in which her training and research were conducted:

There are those who wish there were no differences between men and women. In the 1970s at the University of California, Berkeley, the buzzword among young women was “mandatory unisex,” which meant that it was still politically incorrect even to mention sex difference. There are still those who believe that for women to become equal, unisex must be the norm. The biological reality, is that there is no unisex brain. The fear of discrimination based on differences runs deep, and for many years assumptions about sex differences went scientifically unexamined for fear that women wouldn’t be able to claim equality with men. But pretended that women and men are the same, while doing a disservice to both men and women, ultimately hurts women.

As I’ve written before, there are numerous types of feminism. That’s the problem when a philosophy emerges after the activist movement. In the 60s/70s when women were fighting real discrimination in the workplace, they branched out and began searching for an academic angle and philosophy. They essentially combined pop psychology (Betty Friedan) with actual philosophy (Simone de Beauvoir) with the suffragist movement (First Wave Feminists) and established a framework that was largely piecemeal. This is why feminism is broken into waves. Second wave feminists wanted to eliminate the concept of gender and were the hardened activists. As The Economist notes:

The first generations of successful women insisted on being judged by the same standards as men. They had nothing but contempt for the notion of special treatment for “the sisters”, and instead insisted on getting ahead by dint of working harder and thinking smarter. Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the wimpish men around her. (There is a joke about her going out to dinner with her cabinet. “Steak or fish?” asks the waiter. “Steak, of course,” she replies. “And for the vegetables?” “They’ll have steak as well.”) During America’s most recent presidential election Hillary Clinton taunted Barack Obama with an advertisement that implied that he, unlike she, was not up to the challenge of answering the red phone at 3am.

The third wave realized that de-feminizing women wasn’t working, so another theory emerged: men and women are different, and women are superior. This is most evident in Women’s Ways of Knowing, an important text in academia, that has now infiltrated management. The book essentially teaches that all knowledge and education is misogynistic because the patriarchy (men) were the ones in control:

Along with other academic feminists, we believe that conceptions of knowledge and truth that are accepted and articulated today have been shaped by the male-dominated majority culture. Drawing on their own perspectives and visions, men have constructed the prevailing theories, written history, and set values that have become the guiding principles for men and women alike.

Thus, all knowledge, even the hard sciences, discriminates against women. Contrast what Christina Hoff Sommers writes in Who Stole Feminism? with The Economist article:

The authors of Women’s Ways of Knowing…define “separate knowing” as “the game of impersonal reason,” a game that has “belonged traditionally to boys.” “Separate knowers are tough-minded. They are like doormen at exclusive clubs. they do not want to let anything in unless they are pretty sure it is good….Presented with a proposition, separate knowers immediately look for something wrong–a loophole, a factual error, a logical contradiction, the omission of contrary evidence.”

Seperate knowers–mainly men–play the “doubting game.” The authors of Women’s Ways of Knowing contrasts separate knowing with a higher state of “connected knowing” that they view as more feminine. In place of the “doubting game,” connected knowers play the “believing game.” This is more congenial for women because “many women find it easier to believe than to doubt.”

Again read the maligned paragraphs from The Economist article:

The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.

What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favour of “collaboration” and “networking”, skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

While proponents of this “feminized” management style may not be card-carrying feminists, this philsophy has its roots in Women’s Ways of Knowing and other transformationalist studies that attempt to break down the very foundations of education and learning and run them through a gender filter before being rebuilt the politically correct way.

This is hardly surprising. Peruse the business or management section at any bookstore. Has there every been a field more given to fads or philosophies-of-the-month? In grad school, I tried to write a satirical paper for my management class on how the cartoon strip Dilbert has influenced corporate management. I didn’t get very far with the satire because the research and academic papers were very real and very serious.

Anytime there is a problem in the workplace or a crisis, the business world will try some new technique or philsophy. Since we’re in a mancession, why not try feminism? Women are apparently successful and have reached parity with men in the workplace, so we need to re-teach men to be more “connected” and “transformational” in their professional approaches.

Trudy W. Schuett at Dean’s World writes about the real gender war:

While the genuine issues of equality have been dealt with long ago, the ultimate aim of feminism – to liberate women from the perceived oppression of husbands and families – has yet to be attained. If we continue to believe in the illusion that feminism has ever been about equality, or concern for the state of women in general, they will succeed. The result will be a society that will quickly learn what real oppression is about.

The other day, I mentioned to a co-worker that feminism was the gender version of Marxism. Don’t believe me? Well-known feminist philosopher bell hooks wrote in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center:

Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology o domination that permeates Western culture on various levels, as well as commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires.

A former co-worker, who is an avowed feminist, once told me that she hates money. I laughed at her and called her naive, but then I remembered that bell hooks is one of her favorite writers. There’s a deep hatred towards capitalism and freedom that underlies the silly, PC-talk of the women’s lib crowd.

Rory Dicker, a professor at Vanderbilt University, wrote in A History of U.S. Feminisms:

…society needs to be transformed so that all systems of domination, including not just patriarchy but racism, imperialism, and capitalism, are eradicated. All of society would be free if the “ideology of domination” were eliminated; as a result, people would be able to concentrate on “self-development.”

She later writes:

Above all, sisterhood elevates the importance of the collective over that of the individual….Perhaps the biggest threat to sisterhood is competitive individualism, one of the beliefs on which our capitalistic American society is founded….A basic part of American culture, competitive individualism is what the American Dream is premised on: The idea is that, through hard work, a scrappy go-getter can claw her way to the top, gaining monetary rewards along the way. While the financial gain one acquires as a result of this ideal may be fulfilling to some, the cons are great: What is sacrificed is a sense of commitment to the greater good of the community.

One of the goals of feminism, then is to remind women that if their focus is exclusively on themselves, much is lost: In addition to change that could be accomplished on behalf of oppressed groups, competitive individualists lose out on a sense of commitment to something larger than themselves….feminism is essentially a way of thinking and of acting in the world. By transforming our understanding of power relations in men and women’s lives, feminism can teach us how to transform society itself so that both equality and liberation can be achieved.

Schuett nails it when she says, “It was never about equality and cooperation as we were led to believe, but about exactly the same things political revolutions are always about: money and power.”

As I said earlier, feminism is the gender version of Marxism. Ever wonder why gender equality is never quite achieved? Feminists have not succeeded in reaching their Marxist goals. Until society is absolutely and completely re-organized, they will not be happy. Feminism aims to destroy capitalism, individual rights, and as evidenced by Ms. Dicker, the American Dream. This is the truth behind feminism.

What’s Being Taught in College Rape Prevention Programs
Jezebel, November 20, 2009

It’s Still 1960 in Washington
Amy Walter, National Journal, November 17, 2009

There’s no crying in baseball. A modern rant about feminism.
Dacia Nichol Marshall, New York Examiner, November 17, 2009

So, who do women think do all the work?
James Delingpole, Telegraph, November 24, 2009

Men’s groups are fine by me, sister
Jennie Agg, Guardian, November 24, 2009

This appeared to have happened with feminists. Ms. magazine launched the meme that Twilight is bad. This served several purposes. It gave feminists something to discuss other than Sarah Palin, and it connected feminism to the number one topic trending on Google. Two boons for the beleagured movement.

Why Twilight? Feminists are known for complaining about what happens to be in the news, but is there another reason? Is it possible that feminists have singled out Twilight, not because of the teen angst and decisions that Bella makes, but because of author Stephanie Meyer’s religion? Ms. reveals their hypocrisy:

Meyer insists that she sees Bella as a feminist character, since the foundation of feminism is being able to choose. What Meyer fails to acknowledge is that all of the choices Bella makes are Meyer’s choices—choices based on her own patriarchal Mormon background. In Breaking Dawn, the latest book in the series, Meyer finally allows Bella’s subordination to end as she takes her proper place: in the patriarchal structure. When Bella becomes a wife and mother, Meyer allows her to receive her heart’s desire—to live forever by Edward’s side, to be preternaturally beautiful and graceful, to be strong and be able to defend herself.

This follows the feminist pattern of explaining that feminism is about women making choices for themselves unless the woman is conservative, Christian or Republican. Then, she’s merely propping up the patriarchy.

Click here to read even more feminist whining about Twilight. Also Campus Progress claims New Moon has an abstinence “fetish.” Can abstinence be a fetish?

Gina Barreca, an author and English professor at the University of Connecticut, is a vehement critic: “The big thing that really makes ‘Twilight’ a really bad book is that fear should never be an aphrodisiac. The idea that you fear your lover should not make him sexier and that is a big part of these books. … It distresses me to see that in any form, whether or not it’s supernatural.

“It’s a damaging fantasy. … It’s the idea that she feels as if she is in a dangerous relationship and she doesn’t know how to get out of it and that finally, however much in danger you feel, love has to conquer. … No, when you feel yourself in danger, you have to go away, put yourself in another novel.”

For starters, Edward is a vampire. The last time I checked, those did not exist in reality. Secondly, while there was always the possibility that Edward could bite Bella, he truly loved her and wanted to protect her. Sure, I am physically capable of leading an armed robbery, but I’m not going to do it. It’s very clear in the book that Edward would never bite Bella under any circumstances.

I also hate to break it to Ms. Barreca, but fear has been an aphrodisiac for women since creation. Going back to the Austen — how many of her characters fall for the bad boy? Elizabeth is attracted to Mr. Whickham in Pride & Prejudice, Emma to Mr. Churchill, Fanny Price toys with the idea of marrying Mr. Crosby in Mansfield Park,  and Marianne falls for John Willoughby in Sense & Sensibility. If the “wrong man” plot device is now verboten, we have a lot of classical literature to change.

We don’t always make smart decisions, but aren’t women strong enough and empowered to make their own choices about who they love? Barreca’s sentiments continue the theme that men should be emasculated in order to be appropriate “feminist” men that women are allowed to love. This next paragraph makes me wonder, has this writer ever been in love?

It wasn’t until the second book, when Bella virtually collapses after Edward breaks up with her — Meyer indicates this with entire chapters that consist of a blank page with the name of the month at the top — that she began to see the relationship as “probably not the healthiest thing in the world.”

“But people have to remember it’s a fictional thing,” said Bart. “It’s obviously not real. … Everyone falls in love with the bad boys. Edward has both sides to him. The appeal is he’s safe because he does want to protect her and spend his life with her, but there is this underlying element of danger.”

Bart said she could understand why “people think it’s probably not the best thing to be giving young girls.”

One of Meyer’s strengths is capturing the crazy, heady feeling of first love. I remember reading New Moon, coming across the blank pages and thinking, “Wow. That’s exactly how I felt.” Teenagers are not exactly known for being sensible, and Bella is a fairly typical teenage girl who falls head-over-heels with a boy. She’s crushed when he breaks up with her.

Feminists keep trying to deny human nature. It’s not always neat and politically correct. These women are so stifled and expect society to operate within the narrow confines of their worldviews. When will they admit that they can change laws, but they can’t change biology? Imagine what a dry and lonely world this would be if feminists removed all romance!

This article reminds me of Christina Hoff Sommers discussion of Gone With the Wind in Who Stole Feminism?. Feminists were aghast that a survey found most women did not see the famous scene when Rhett Butler sweeps Scarlett up and carries her upstairs as “rape” but “exciting.”

The idea of ‘mutually pleasurable rough sex’ is not high on the gender feminist list of entertainments. All the same, if the New Feminist philosophers were honest about taking women seriously, they would be paying attention to what, in most women’s minds, is a fundamental distinction: Scarlett was ravished, not raped. The next morning finds her relishing the memory. Ms Friedman’s insistence that Scarlett was raped was just another example of how gender feminists, estranged from the women they claim to represent, tend to view male/female relations as violent or humiliating to women.

Defending women who enjoy the idea of ravishment is not the same as holding a brief for any specific kind of fantasy or sexual preference. Fantasies of female domination are also popular. women are clearly capable of treating men as “sex objects” with an enthusiasm equal to, and in some cases exceeding, that of men for treating women as such. Male strip-shows seem to be as popular as Tupperware parties.

This article plays exactly into the paradigm that all sexual relationships are based on some level of violence:

One was about a character named Sam who, when he was turning into a werewolf, loses control and hurts the young woman he desires, Emily. Later, he apologizes profusely. She forgives him because he was out of control and didn’t mean to hurt her. The two get together, but Emily is left scarred forever by the event.

If you subtract the werewolf element, such scenarios sound all too familiar to experts like Mitru Ciarlante, the youth initiative director for the National Center for Victims of Crimes in Washington, D.C. “This pattern of ‘the werewolf’ losing control sounds like a dynamic we’ve heard in abusive relationships,” said Ciarlante.

Again, the character is a WEREWOLF. Logic does not apply when the character in question is more animal than man. In Twilight, the young men on an Native American reservation start turning into werewolves because vampires have returned to the area. Since no living generation had turned into werewolves, the young boys are completely without guidance and do not know what is happening. Strong emotions trigger the changes and since no teenager ever acts out abruptly, is it surprising that he inadvertently attacks a woman?

Domestic abuse is wrong. However, this is not domestic abuse. This is not a man manipulating or beating a woman because he has emotional issues or violent tendencies. This is a situation where a man is becoming an animal with animal instincts, and a woman happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anything else is just reading psychobabble into it to make a whiny political point.

But it goes on.

Suzanna Narducci, a co-founder of TweenParent.com, a website for parents of 9- to 13-year-olds, said she wouldn’t forbid kids from reading the books or seeing movies, though she admits that when Bella gives up Dartmouth, “that killed me,” and the relationship between Sam and Emily “reeked of domestic violence.”

This simply gets the plot wrong. Bella doesn’t give up Dartmouth for a “man.” She gives up Dartmouth (SPOILER!) because she becomes pregnant with a half-human/half-vampire spawn that almost kills her. You can’t go to Dartmouth if you are barely alive.

There is one glimmer of reason here:

Lisa Burns, an associate professor of media studies at Quinnipiac, pointed out that while much in the books offends feminist sensibilities, Bella gets what she wants. “You can argue that if feminism is all about choices, that she is given the ability to make the choice. … It might not be one that most feminists would agree with. … It might be putting us back to the 1950s standard, but it is her choice.”

From a feminist perspective, I can see how they would make this into a pre-feminist enlightenment issue. Meyers is a strict Mormon and did not allow her characters to have sex outside of marriage. Thus, Bella and Edward get married after high school. Just because Meyers wrote a plotline that defended traditional values does not put us back into the 1950s. If someone wants to get married at a young age, that is his or her choice. That isn’t a “1950s standard” but an individual choice that should be respected in this country.

I guess feminists aren’t allowed to read either fantasy or romance books, and I thought being a conservative Christian was deemed rigid.

It’s documented that I can’t stand Valenti. I think she’s one of the younger and brassiest women to take on the mantle of feminism, so people pay attention to her. Face it, the media is tired to listening to the same five or six women who have been saying the same thing since the 60s. Ms. Valenti isn’t afraid to drop f-bombs and create a spectacle, so she gets attention.

My biggest qualm with Valenti is her logic. In her mind, if you equate something with Republicans, it is stupid because Republicans are stupid. I hate to break it to her, but that rationale doesn’t make sense. Simply because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that the other side lacks validity or purpose.

She actually mentions has an inaccurate comment in the interview regarding bra-burning and online activism.

Bra-burning never happened. It was completely made up by the media. A couple of women protesting a Miss America pageant threw some bras into a garbage can, and somehow that became this longstanding idea of feminists as bra-burners.

She’s correct that bra burning never happened. According to Susan Brownmiller’s memoirs, In Our Time, the phrase was used in a press release before the Miss America protest. The media latched onto that phrase, and the participants in the protest applied to Atlantic City for a permit to hold a bonfire on the boardwalk. Of course the city denied it, so the “bra burning” never happened. However, the phrase was used at the time, and perception is reality. It was also more than a  couple of people. The Miss America protest in 1969 actually drew a small crowd, and several influential writers,  including Kate Millet  and Brownmiller, where there. It was the first major event for the fledgling women’s movement and was viewed as a turning point by many until the “bra burner” stereotype became distasteful to them. (AKA when membership started to drop).

I do agree with her about the wave concept.

I don’t much like the terminology, because it never seems very accurate to me. I know people who are considered third-wave feminists who are 20 years older than me.

There’s not clear line of demarcation between second and third wave feminists. Historians like to categorize events neatly, but I’m not sure if feminism can be organized so simply. It was more of a cultural phenomenon rather than an organized political movement. Feminist history is quick to point out that due to identity politics, groups kept splintering. Being a woman was too vague of a concept for one group or movement, so you were left with black feminists, lesbian feminists, academics, activists, anti-porn feminists, pro-porn feminists, etc. Also crisis rape centers and domestic violence shelters grew out women’s liberation all within a period of 15 years.

Once the 80s rolled around and the average woman started getting sick of angry women and the ERA, women’s liberation lost steam. In the late 80s and 90s, women like Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf replaced the militant, man-hating persona with a whiny victim. This image largely still exists and has merged with the hyper-sexualized “if it feels good and empowers you, do it” philosophy.

Matt Yglesias at Think Progress had a slightly different take:

The interesting thing, I would say, is that for the past 40 years or so we’ve been in something like a feminist permanent revolution. On the one hand, the abstract idea that men and women should be treated equally in a manner that goes beyond formal legal equality, is now rarely contested by anyone. Yet at the same time, many of the practical implications of this idea remain extremely controversial. So we’ve seen, are seeing, and will continue to see many fronts of conflict animated by this incredibly far-reaching idea.

If there was a feminist revolution, it ended in the early 80s. Yglesias is correct that society has largely adopted the ideas of equality. Sure sexism does exist (I pointed out an example today), but the media is the biggest offender and most of the sexism is directed towards conservative women. The people who use it know that it is wrong and wield it as a weapon. Feminism ceased to be a revolution when it deigned to speak for all women and marginalized those who disagreed. Rather than debate them, they attacked the dissenters.  Feminism hasn’t made any inroads in the last 20 years because it stereotypes the majority of women in this country. Feminists attempted to exchange the cage of traditional values with a cage of feminist dogma. Their mistake was that women refused to willingly be shut into the man-hating or victim cages. Once the more practical sides of their ideology were implemented (equal pay, domestic violence laws, etc.)  there was nothing left for them to do.  An irrlevant “movement” is one that grows more shrill and crafty as they weaken.

She got a bit preachy in Princess Diaries, which was quite different from the Disney movie. Her young adult books have a much stronger political bent than her chick lit. She echos the sentiments of many a beleaguered writer and feminist: feminism isn’t unpopular, the label feminism is.

Ask any tween or teen girl today if she considers herself a feminist, and chances are good you will receive a horrified “No!” in reply.

But ask that same girl if she feels that women should receive equal political, social, and economic rights as men (which happens to be the definition of the word feminism), and she’ll cry, “Of course!”

It’s not the concept of feminism that’s the problem. It’s the word “feminist.”

I’m not sure when “feminist” became such a dirty word to so many. But for a lot of kids it seems to summon up an image of a hairy-armpitted, man-hating woman who despises fashionable clothing (and eschews all meat and dairy products).

While I would suggest that feminist actually practice what they preach and be more diverse in their political viewpoints and respectful towards their conservative peers, Cabot share how she inserts feminism into her books. The appeal to fashion, boys and girly topics is just a lure:

So how does a feminist author like myself write popular books for this generation of tweens and teens, who are at best suspicious of the word “feminist” and at worst repulsed by it, while actually getting across a feminist “message”?

I’ll let you in on my dirty little secret:

Like the sparkles on the tiara Princess Mia wore in the Princess Diaries, Allie’s fun rules and Em’s sudden plunge into the world of high fashion are just the bait to draw readers to the real message behind my books which is the same message I was taught growing up, and the message I feel is so important to today’s generation, because it seems to be getting lost in a world where so few girls self-identify as a feminist:

Everyone has value as an individual. Let’s celebrate our individuality, but at the same time, learn to tolerate one another’s special uniqueness. And let’s ensure that all children, girls as well as boys, have the same opportunities. We’re all equal. By believing in ourselves, we can accomplish anything.

That’s a message I think everyone can get behind, even the most judgmental teens and tweens of today. It’s a message that’s in all my books.

Call it cultural diversity awareness. Call it gender egalitarianism. Call it Girl Power.

Just don’t, I guess, call it the F word.

Cabot’s confession here underlies the reason why I started this blog. Feminist may be a dirty word, but the philosophy of feminism has infiltrated all levels of education, politics and even culture. Conservatives have faught the political front, but completely abadoned the cultural war. Not all of this is bad, but it furthers the view that girls are victims of this society simply because they were born female.

Cabot’s brand of “feminist light” is one which I’m extremely familiar. In the mid-80s, feminists turned their attention to the next generation and started working to “empower” girls. This is particularly true with girl-focused organizations such as Girls Inc.* and Girl Scouts.

While I don’t have issues with teaching equality of the sexes or telling girls to follow their dreams, these programs teach that girls are in “crisis!” that’s “harder to be a girl than ever before!” While it’s always difficult to be a teenager, it is harder to be a girl than ever before? Feminists have simply swapped the cage of traditional gender roles with one of victimization, low self-esteem and delicacy.

While most of the programs are silly hyperbole about self-esteem, tolerance and celebrating diversity, the messages do undercut traditional values and only present one side of the political spectrum because of the ingrained biases of the women designing these curriculum and presenting the programs. Having spent some time in this world, I can safely say that conservative women are rare.

*In full disclosure, I used to work for a Girls Inc. affiliate.

Carrie Lukas, Vice President for Policy and Economics, started off the call by stating, “we think women are missing important information about the health care system and trade offs that are involved. The press sometimes misses women’s real concerns.”

Since women make the majority of decisions regarding health care for their families, IWF commissioned KellyAnne Conway to survey only women about health care.

This random digit dial surveyed 800 women over seven nights with a proportionally represented sample of female registered voters.

The point I found most interesting was the timing. Congress and the media keep insisting that there’s a crisis! and Americans demand that health care be reformed now!

Not quite:

When asked when Congress and the President should enact healthcare reform,
9% hoped for action in the next few weeks; 20% wanted change by the end of the year; 22%
preferred to see reform in the next one or two years; and 43% of women say that Congress and
the President should enact healthcare reform “only when quality legislation is developed, even
if it means there is no deadline.”

• Women nationwide were presented with two differing opinions and asked to align with one,
67% of women agree with the following statement: “I would prefer that United States Senators
and Member of Congress not support poorly‐crafted or rushed healthcare legislation. It is more
important to get it done right than to get it done fast.” Only 28% align with the opposite view:
“Something is better than nothing: I would prefer to see my United States Senators and Member
of Congress support less‐than‐perfect healthcare reform. We cannot wait any longer for
healthcare reform.”

Health care was cited as top 3 issue by 53%

Health care is one of myriad of economic concerns that women cite as concerning. Big ticket items

-66% think about health care reform more for other people

-51% are currently unsatisfied with legislative proposals

-54% would not personally trade in coverage for public option or government-run health

-57% disagree that federal run program is best for family. There’s a gap between what I want for myself and what should be done for the country.

-75% want few to no changes for their own health care

-48% want slight modifications for health care generally

More details here.

While the interview is another example of ad hominem discussions about Palin, Quinn’s quotes are very telling. Her attitude exemplifies the hypocritical standard of the modern feminist movement: you can follow the definition of a feminist, but you aren’t actually a feminist unless you hold certain political views.

SALLY QUINN, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, of course, she is a feminist. I mean, if you look at all the things you’ve just said about her, she’s a feminist. I mean, she clearly believes in equality for women.

INGRAHAM: And babies in the womb.

QUINN: And most women I know are feminists. So I think it depends on who you call feminist. I think one of the producers was saying the sort of raging crazed pro-choice liberal women. But I have to say that of all the people I know, I don’t know a single person who feels jealous about her. I think that most of the people I know who are not Sarah Palin fans just don’t like what she has to say.

Really? Palin is a feminist? Interesting. What exactly is “feminism?”

It’s a tough question. The textbook definition states that feminism is:

1. the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2. organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

That’s rather broad. I’m all for political, economic and social equality.

Jennifer Baumgardener and Amy Richards, third wave feminists, write in Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future that:

Of course the goals of feminism are carried out by every day women themselves. Maybe you aren’t sure you need feminism, or you’re not sure it needs you. You’re sexy, a wallflower, you shop at Calvin Klein, you are a stay-at-home mom, a big Hollywood producer, a beautiful bride all in white, an ex-wife raising three kids, or you shave, pluck, and wax. In reality, feminism wants you to be whoever you are-but with a political consciousness. And, vice versa: You want to be a feminist because you want to be exactly who you are.

By that definition, most women in America, including the conservative ones would fall into the category of feminists. Perhaps third wave feminism, the looser, less militant, “do whatever makes you happy as long as you stand up for yourself” view could encompass conservative women too.

However, Baumgardener and Richards further explain:

By feminists, we mean each and every politically and socially conscious woman or man who works for equality. In reality, there is no formal alliance of women we can call “the feminists.”

Later on, they write:

Yes, all feminists deserve critique and debate, but save your political vitriol for the young babes who are right-wing and political.

Ok, so conservative women may fall within the definition of feminists, but they are still the enemy. Instead, women should be fighting for the unstated goals of feminism:

Feminism is not concerned with Band-Aids but with a radical restructuring of our society. Therefore feminist activism means figuring out how to change your life, each and every day, so that it represents your values.

So, feminism means actively fighting for issues that are important to you and viewing men and women as equal unless you’re a conservative. Then you’re hated.

What else have feminists said? Let’s take a look at what feminists said about Sarah Palin, a feminist according to Sally Quinn.

Gloria Steinem, the matriarch of the feminist movement, told New York magazine:

You know, even if Sarah Palin was better on the issues, the goal is not to elect Superwoman. As social-justice movements have learned the hard way, having someone who looks like you and behaves like them —who looks like a friend but behaves like an adversary—is worse than having no one.

Jezebel writer Jessica explained her reaction to Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention:

When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull. And I’m not the only one! I had simultaneous IM conversations with many friends, who said things like, “she seems like a fucking monster” and “this feminist wants to murk that idiotic cunt.”

Judith Warner, in a New York Times op-ed called Palin a “thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women.”

The Huffington Post’s Sarah Seltzer expressed, “But just because Sarah Palin is a woman doesn’t mean she’s good for women.”

While the blog Feministing applauding John McCain for picking women, writer Ann expressed:

Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman — one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

In her article entitled, Zombie feminists of the RNC, Rebecca Traister opined in Salon:

The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin’s candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.

Wendy Doniger, a professor of religions at the University of Chicago Divinity School wrote on her Washington Post blog:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

A blogger named Holly at Menstrual Poetry expressed:

Not only is Sarah Palin not a feminist, she is as anti-woman as Bush and McCain combined. That is the reason why McCain picked her; not because she is a woman and he wanted to be underhanded (which he totally did,) but because she’s a Republican, conservative man who just happens to be in a woman’s body.

At Salon, Cintra Wilson wrote:

As a woman who does not believe what Palin believes, the thought of such an opportunistic anti-female in the White House — in the Cheney chair, no less — is akin to ideological brain rape. What this Republican blowup doll does with her own insides in accord with her own faith is her business. But, like the worst and most terrifying of religious extremists, she seems very comfortable with the idea of imposing her own views on everyone else.

Wilson also called Palin a “Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume.”

It seems the problem with Palin’s feminism is that choosing to be a working mother, she had chosen the wrong views.

Sarah Zamboni at the Boston Globe opined that it was wrong of Palin to not support Big Government ticket items that liberals typically fawn over:

The conservative virtue of Palin’s life is that she doesn’t need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn’t lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K. Let alone universal health insurance. Or college tuition breaks, especially for that soon-to-be-teen-mom and her soon-to-be husband. Compare this with the Wal-Mart mom juggling day-care fees and gas bills, fantasizing about a job with benefits and the flexibility to be home when the kids are sick.

As Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine explained in a New York Times op-ed:

…feminism must demand support for women from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers — preferred by most working parents — is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is “the Republican Party line.”

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.

According to these feminist writers, feminism requires toeing the Democratic line in order to join the movement. In a period of a few weeks in fall 2008, a clear message was sent out to conservative women. Unless you supported abortion and government-mandated programs such as universal childcare and health care, gay marriage and affirmative action, there was no place for you in feminism.

I guess the “you go girl” open-minded feminism that the third wavers were promoting was a sham. Feminists were willing to welcome anyone except conservative Republicans.

From the Playboy article this summer to the recent comments made by Alan Grayson, to the left it’s ok to use profanity when righ-of-center females are in question. Between all of the feminist blogs, books and articles that I read, I get the picture that the most hate group in the country are women who refuse to be liberal. Tana Ganeva writes:

When Alan Grayson called a female corporate lobbyist a “K-Street whore” — and was attacked as crude and sexist at the same time that he was lauded as gutsy and honest — he played a role in a familiar script: hero of the left (MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher) attacks female villain (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) using sexist language. Progressive feminists soul-search about liberal misogyny. Mainstream media talk about sexism for 5 seconds. Then the media move on, and no one learns a thing. Repeat.

To a certain extent, I get it. The 24/7 news cycle makes ad hominem attacks necessary. When all you have is a :30 second sound bite, do you go for the attack or make a rationale point? The right is just as guilty (albeit without the profanity) as the left. We don’t have time for a lengthy scholarly debate. Civility has never existed in politics, we’re just more aware of it now due to our media-saturated society.

Then there’s PT Barnum’s old expression. When Grayson used the slur “whore,” he drew media attention. When you go for the extremes, the media notices you (i.e. Olbermann, Garafalo, Coulter and Beck). Dog bites man isn’t interesting. Man bites dog is.

However, what I don’t understand is the deep, guttural hatred that feminists feel for women like me. It’s not imagined. The more I read in the “women’s studies” genre, the more I understand how savagely we are despised. It’s almost as if they feel betrayed. They’re shocked, hurt and angered that we don’t applaud the actions they took in the 60s and 70s. We’re disobedient children who are misguided by those evil men in our lives and victims of the sexist society in which we were born. This is ok for the masses of women who are victims of oppression, but those evil women — the Michelle Malkins, Phyllis Schaflys, Ann Coulters and Sarah Palins — they should be vilified. Advocating a differing point of view is the greatest sin you can committ in modern America.

Feminists can’t seem to grasp that women on the right have such a differing fundamental philosophy that we will always disagree. What frustrates me is the lack of respect. I may disagree with you, but you do have a right to those beliefs. Is it too much for me to expect the same attitude in you?

We’re not unenlightened or a tool of the male patriarchy. We simply view the world from a different perspective. Why can’t that be respected?