Feminists Go Low

It's a new year, it's a new world. Donald Trump is president (what the heck?) and feminists are nasty and proud of it. 

Hello, 2017.

It's the nasty woman thing that's on my mind this morning. 

It wasn't too long ago when the slogan of the left was, in response to Mr. Trump's incivil campaign and uncouth persona, "When they go low, we go high." In fact, it was Michelle Obama who introduced the phrase July of last year, speaking at the Democratic National Convention:

Very effective. A devastating rebuke to Trump and his supporters. 

So much for slogans. 

Michelle Obama may have gone high, but her sisters--at least, the sisters at Saturday's Women's March in Washington D.C. and elsewhere around the globe--went low. As in, into the gutter, low. They were as crude and uncouth as the man they condemn.

Way to keep things classy, ladies. 

I did not march on Saturday. 

Not because I march to the tune of my own drummer (though I tend to). 

Not because I don't much like bandwagons (which is true). 

Not because I don't support women's rights (but really, women's rights are not at risk, in spite of the over-the-top rhetoric). 

I didn't march because I'm not in solidarity with the brand of feminism this event represents. These women do not speak for me. These feminists do not represent me. 

Back in the 90's, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a book called Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. One of the best blurbs on the back of the book is, "Sommers has done something lethally deflating to the pretensions of the shriller sort of feminists: she looked at their evidence and found it lacking." Sommers debunks evidence feminists use related to issues such as domestic violence, rape, wage disparity, and anorexia, to name a few. Her objective is not to minimize the seriousness of these issues but to peel away the hyperbole in order to confront them realistically. She writes: 

"Statistics and studies on such provocative subjects as eating disorders, rape, battery, and wage differentials are used to underscore the plight of women in the oppressive gender system and to help recruit adherents to the gender feminist cause. But if the figures are not true, they almost never serve the interests of the victimized women they concern. Anorexia is a disease; blaming men does nothing to help cure it. Battery and rape are crimes that shatter lives; those who suffer must be cared for, and those who cause their suffering must be kept from doing further harm. But in all we do to help, the most loyal ally is truth. Truth brought to public light recruits the best of us to work for change. On the other hand, even the best intentioned 'noble lie' ultimately discredits the finest cause" (page 189).

Sommers describes herself as an equity feminist, which she contrasts with the gender feminists whose values were expressed during Saturday's march by its most celebrated leaders (for a brief explanation of the distinction between gender feminism and equity feminism, go here). It's Sommers' brand of feminism that I identify with. She rejects the argument of the gender feminists, that "women are trapped in a sex-gender system, that gender roles are arbitrarily defined, and [that] the purpose is to convince women that they are victims." Rather, she embraces the "classical feminism that got us the suffrage, that got us equity in education, that continues to get us equality of opportunity" (I read these comments in an interview, which I linked below). 

Sommers critiques the gender feminists for being anti-man as opposed to being pro-woman. It's an important distinction. The face of Saturday's march was primarily the face of the gender feminist, full of rage and contempt. The rage was ostensibly focused on the new president. But as many have rightly noted, the march was not solely about Donald Trump. He's a convenient target--easy to mock, easy to revile. But what else did this march represent? Which branch of feminism did it champion? Certainly not Christina Hoff Sommers' branch--the gender feminists despise her. Certainly not the New Wave Feminists' branch. Pro-life feminists were prohibited from sponsoring the march. 

Where does that leave women like me? Feminism is a huge, sprawling tree with lots of branches. Where do I fit on this great tree? I was chatting with a friend about all this, sharing some of these thoughts as they were evolving and worrying about going public on this blog. She challenged me to think about what I hoped to contribute to this discussion. "What brand of feminism would represent you," she asked. "Do you feel the need to march with other like-minded women? If so, why?" When I suggested that maybe Christina Hoff Sommers should update her book or even write a new book ("Reclaiming Feminism" would be the title), she said I should write my own book. 

I was chatting with another friend who read these thoughts as they were evolving. "How does someone like you," she asked, "someone who doesn't feel the need to denigrate men but who supports the fundamental principles of the feminist movement, an English teacher with a shy side that steers clear of mobs, how does someone like you get your voice heard? Keep writing, regardless of the negative response it may generate! Use Twitter and Facebook to encourage greater understanding of the difference between gender and equity! And write that book!" 

Well, I'm pretty sure that won't happen. But if I did write a book, I might start with where this blog entry began: When they go low, we go high. The "face of feminism" that was presented to the world in the aftermath of Saturday's march was, to be blunt, vulgar. But, as I said, that face doesn't represent me. And I suspect it doesn't represent a vast majority of women who call themselves feminists. I happen to know many women who marched on Saturday. These women are not vulgar. Quite the opposite. They are kind, loving, honest, intelligent, thoughtful, courageous, decent, classy people. 

I'm sure each of us has different issues we care about. Our politics or ideologies may differ. But if there's a shared commitment among us to show respect for people of different races, genders (including men!), religious views, educational backgrounds, political leanings--in other words, if there's a shared commitment to "go high"--then these are the women I would proudly march alongside on a cold January morning.

I didn't see their faces splashed on the front pages of newspapers or cluttering the news feeds of social media. But this is the face of feminism I'd like to reclaim. 

******** 

The Future of Feminism: An Interview with Christina Hoff Sommers (Scott London)