This is what an anti-feminist looks like
A reader’s response to Venus Zine’s article on the Independent Women’s Forum
By Ann Friedman
Published: June 23rd, 2006 | 1:19pm
When Laura Bush dropped the F-bomb last month and called herself a feminist on a political talk show, she ignited a minor debate over what it means when that title is embraced by a conservative woman. A few weeks later, Venuszine.com posted a piece about the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) titled "Feminist Fiction." I hoped the headline was a reference to the fact that this is a group that fictitiously portrays itself as feminist. Sadly, that wasn't the case. The article presented the organization's talking points about its particular brand of feminism — which is really a thinly veiled anti-woman agenda — without comment or criticism.
Feminism has room for a variety of perspectives on various issues, but a commitment to equal rights for men and women is, in my opinion, an absolute must. It's a commitment that IWF lacks. The group denies that gender inequality exists, thinks child support should be voluntary for men, shaming and firing people for having sex, opposes comprehensive sex education, fights to confirm federal judges who oppose abortion rights, and is a mouthpiece for the Bush administration. They've supported eliminating the "burdensome regulations" and "frivolous litigation" (like class-action lawsuits) that help ensure women's full participation in the workforce. And they oppose the Violence Against Women Act, which provides funding for domestic violence and sexual assault programs that serve victims of both genders.
For the record, I do believe that conservative women can be feminists. I think it's just fine if a woman wants to date a "chivalrous" man, prefers to quit her job to raise children, or personally opposes abortion. But it's when these women get together and decide that all people should live according to their narrowly prescribed gender roles that I take issue. It's why I would never call IWF a feminist organization. (I wouldn't bestow the title on Laura Bush, either.)
One of IWF's favorite "feminist fictions" is the wage gap, which even the U.S. government acknowledges is not fictitious at all. IWF says the gap is due to women's decisions to drop out of the workforce to raise children or choose careers that pay less. But wage gap can't be explained (or excused) simply by women’s choices, or even by discrimination. It's a complicated issue, and feminist economists have addressed it in far greater detail. What's more important is that IWF is perfectly fine with the existence of a pay gap. Feminists, on the other hand, want to work for social change so that if women do choose to take time away from their careers to raise children, they can do so without taking a major financial hit, relying on a spouse, or spending their retirement years in poverty.
But it's hard for us to debate the wage gap at all if we're missing data about men's and women's earnings. For that we can thank IWF "Woman of Valor" Elaine Chao, under whose watchful eye the Department of Labor stopped collecting statistics about women and work. A brilliant move. Without the numbers, it's pretty difficult for us to make the case that an earnings gap exists, let alone talk about ways to remedy it. (Nearly a year later, Congress passed a bill requiring the department to resume collection of statistics by gender.)
Even though feminists also value the work of stay-at-home moms, we just can't win with IWF. The organization's vice president of policy Carrie Lukas is opposed to the idea of calculating the salary a stay-at-home mom would earn if she were paid for her work — which is something that's been done to illustrate the point that full-time moms do valuable work, too. According to her mother's day essay, "Life is payment enough" for women who gave up careers to be caregivers.
While Lukas may say that IWF leaves reproductive rights off its agenda, the group wholeheartedly backs conservative judges who oppose a woman's right to choose. And not just a woman's right to choose abortion — there's a deafening silence from IWF on the issues of contraception and sex education. While it's hard to argue with Lukas's statement that abortion is often a divisive issue, birth control is not. Overwhelming majorities of women — even conservative, Republican women — use contraception. It's difficult to understand how a group that supposedly advocates for women's independence could deny that it has an opinion on this most important aspect of women's lives.
IWF equates independence for college women with a return to the days when women were expected to remain "pure" and men were given a free pass to have as much sex as they wanted. The organization's report on college "hook-up culture" reads like it could have come from a hard-line conservative group like Focus on the Family. They say that, for women, sex is frequently accompanied by confusion and shame. And their "Take Back the Date" program to encourage "a return to chivalrous dating practices" reinforces the tired old virgin/whore dichotomy, stating that "men are more likely to pursue relationships with women who reserve sexual interaction for marriage or serious relationships."
They perpetuate not only gender stereotypes, but also stereotypes about feminism. Advocates for gender equality do not think men and women are (or should be) the same. We simply think they should have the same rights and freedoms. This is a view that the IWF loves to distort, saying that feminists wish everyone was androgynous. As a devoted feminist with a serious addiction to vintage dresses, I can say that's not true.
Feminism isn't about defining what is and isn't acceptable behavior or choices for women (and men). It's about recognizing that there are forces in our society (like IWF) that do want to narrowly define those things for all women and about working to counteract those forces.
I find it maddening that the women who run groups like IWF have benefited greatly from the work of the feminist movement they now seek to undermine. Are any members of the organization on the Pill? Were they on high-school sports teams? Have they ever taken maternity leave? Do they vote? If so, they can thank the "radical" feminists they so despise, the feminists who seek true independence for all women.
Ann Friedman is an editor at Feministing.com and a senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones magazine.
—
From the writer of "Feminist Fictions":
I appreciate Katha Pollitt's [who also wrote into Venus Zine] and Ann Friedman's responses to my article, "Feminist Fiction," since they are both writers I admire, but I would have to respectfully disagree that my article was one-sided.
When given this assignment, I was asked to write a non-biased profile about the Independent Women's Forum. The piece, I was told, was to inform readers about a conservative women's group since many stories focus on liberal feminist initiatives. I was not asked to editorialize or talk about how outrageous their philosophies are. I tried my best to describe IWF's activities, their take on different issues and, in the brief space allotted, point out aspects which were blatantly questionable.
To say the article gave IWF a free ride is not inaccurate. I pointed out their close ties to the Republican party despite claiming to be non-partisan and snagged phrases from the Web site like "feminist fiction" and "perverse quota system" to illustrate how far outside the mainstream these women are on topics like the pay gap and Title IX.
Also, I find it hard to believe any Venus Zine reader would be signing up to join IWF after reading my less-than-kind statement that the organization "quaintly suggests a return to chivalrous dating practices to counter what the group perceives as 'the destructive culture of hooking up.'"
That being said, would I have loved to nail IWF to the wall? You betcha. As a proud feminist, I find their policies ignorant and destructive. But as a journalist, I needed to give IWF a fair shake. Besides, simply writing the story straight made them look bad enough.
Perhaps when I reach a level in my career when I have a column in a well-respected publication or a successful Web site that illuminates injustice against women I will be given the opportunity to write lengthy, in-depth profiles or skewering editorials. Until then, it is up to the Katha Pollitts and the Ann Friedmans of the world.
Beth LaMontagne is a staff reporter for the Portsmouth Herald.
Issue #28
Comments
Please login to be able to comment on this article.
more