Am I A Feminist?
I’ve had a little back and forth with a fellow blogger Katie Rose about a story she wrote about here. If you’re interested, you can go to her blog to read the original story, her post about it, my comment, and her response. Most of Katie’s other posts are thought provoking and worth a look, as well.
The short of the story is as follows. There’s a girl, Holley Mangold, playing high school football (quite well) in an otherwise all-boys league. Holley doesn’t consider herself a feminist and distances herself from ‘I am woman hear me roar’ movement (Holley’s words). Katie, meanwhile, argues that the girl is “breaking down barriers,” being a “trailblazer,” and serving as a “hero” to other young girls. Indeed, Katie even levies some criticism against the 16 year old saying that it is “sad” that a woman “changing the stinking world, can't stand up and say, ‘YES, I AM CHANGING THE WORLD.’”
I’m trying to understand why a feminist would use the term ‘heroic’ to describe Holley’s decision to play football. By her own account, Holley admits that it is not her intention to change the sport or the world, nor does she intend to advance feminist ideals; she just likes football. If she is heroic despite her intentions not to be, then her heroinism must be owed solely to the effect her actions have. So what effect might a girl playing high school football have with regard to the feminist movement?
Feminism is defined, though perhaps poorly, as the “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.” Is Holley, unwittingly, pushing society towards sexual equality? If one’s answer is yes to this question, then you might believe that ‘equality’ means ‘sameness.’ Thus, if a boy plays football, a girl can play football, too. Indeed, you might argue, girls ought to play football to preserve this sexual sameness. But, if that is one’s belief, then one must also acknowledge the other side of the coin, which is this. Sexual sameness can be accomplished in either of two ways - neither one being better than the other – (1) girls can do things that have been historically done by boys (such as football) or (2) boys can do things that have been historically done by girls. In other words, yes, the sexual sameness perspective would laud little Holley Footballer, BUT, it would laud her only as much as it lauded little Johnny Barbie-doll-player. But do feminists canonize little boys that play with dolls? Do they praise boys that want to grow up to be a stay at home dads? Or nurses? Or school teachers? Wouldn’t the fruition of their dream push our society towards sexual sameness with equal force and rapidity as the Holley Mangold story? Would these boys also be criticized if they didn’t acknowledge their place in the feminist movement and shout from the rooftops that, “YES, I (TOO) AM CHANGING THE WORLD.”?
I would argue, then, that if one is going to consider Holley Footballer a hero, then, for the purposes of internal consistency, one shouldn’t forget about Johnny Barbie-doll-player. Alternatively, one can conclude, as I do, that neither of them deserve the scrutiny of our heroes. Sometimes kids, boy or girls, just want to be kids, and since when is that not ok? Who am I to spoil their fun by forcing upon them my own big ideas about how the world ought to function? Unless of course, they want to be little ethicists…
**
Katie also asked me if I was a Feminist, and, if not, why not? Truth be told, I don’t consider myself an anything-ist. The problem with identifying with any ideological group is that it’s probably too broad to accurately reflect an individual’s personal beliefs. To complicate matters even more, feminism, in particular, seems especially factional. For example, wikipedia divides the feminist movement into 14 sub-types:
Anarcha-feminism
Cultural feminism
Cyborg feminism
Ecofeminism
Individualist feminism
Liberal feminism
Marxist feminism
Postmodern feminism
Psychoanalytic feminism
Radical feminism
Religious feminism
Separatist feminism
Socialist feminism
Womanism
Indeed, the feminist movement has been chopped up, divided, contorted, misquoted, perverted, misunderstood, overanalyzed, defined, redefined, undefined, expanded, contracted, etc, etc, etc so many times that the term itself has been rendered completely devoid of meaning. If someone says they are a feminist, what does that tell you about them? That they hate men? Maybe, some do. That they think that there is no distinction between genders? Maybe, some do. That they think that men and women should live separately? That they think that there should be fewer men in the world? That they think all sex is rape? Maybe, some do. That they think the very use of language is a means of subjugating women? That they spell the word ‘wommyn’ as opposed to ‘women’? Maybe, some do. That they think that women are discriminated against more than other social groups? That they think that God is a woman? That they think that we should get rid of capitalism? Maybe, some do. That they think that women are like cyborgs? Maybe, some do. Indeed, others would reject all of the above and still consider themselves feminists. My point is, the label feminism encompasses so much to the exclusion of very little that its use is rarely, if ever, informative or descriptive.
The only common strand among all feminists that I am able to identify is that they all think that there is gender inequality and they think that fact should be righted. However, that definition of feminism is so watered down that it is indistinguishable from what would appear to be its antonym, Masculinism. (To be honest, I didn’t even know such a thing existed until just now! Although, in law school, as a response to the “Womens Law Students Association” a group of guys banded together “The Man Club,” which hosted a beer pong tournament and a lecture by renowned ambulance chaser James Scott Farin, though not at the same time. Do you suppose that’s what Masculinists do on weekends? ) But who, in their right mind, would argue against the fact of gender inequality or argue that it not should be righted? Not me. So, I guess I’m a feminist (of no particular denomination) and also a masculinist (sans the beer and ambulance chasing) and, at the same time, I'm neither, also. To the extent that I am a feminist, I must note that I concern myself less with the descriptive question of sameness (see above) than the evaluative question of equality. That is to say, I recognize two distinct genders that are equal, rather than one super-gender which is identical to itself. And while I find the notion of a genderless society implausible, that fact alone would not disqualify me from membership into the feminist or masculinst movements.
If someone can present a better definition of the term, I’d be interested to hear it. At the very least, reading up a little about the movement has been a valuable experience. Roar.
The short of the story is as follows. There’s a girl, Holley Mangold, playing high school football (quite well) in an otherwise all-boys league. Holley doesn’t consider herself a feminist and distances herself from ‘I am woman hear me roar’ movement (Holley’s words). Katie, meanwhile, argues that the girl is “breaking down barriers,” being a “trailblazer,” and serving as a “hero” to other young girls. Indeed, Katie even levies some criticism against the 16 year old saying that it is “sad” that a woman “changing the stinking world, can't stand up and say, ‘YES, I AM CHANGING THE WORLD.’”
I’m trying to understand why a feminist would use the term ‘heroic’ to describe Holley’s decision to play football. By her own account, Holley admits that it is not her intention to change the sport or the world, nor does she intend to advance feminist ideals; she just likes football. If she is heroic despite her intentions not to be, then her heroinism must be owed solely to the effect her actions have. So what effect might a girl playing high school football have with regard to the feminist movement?
Feminism is defined, though perhaps poorly, as the “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.” Is Holley, unwittingly, pushing society towards sexual equality? If one’s answer is yes to this question, then you might believe that ‘equality’ means ‘sameness.’ Thus, if a boy plays football, a girl can play football, too. Indeed, you might argue, girls ought to play football to preserve this sexual sameness. But, if that is one’s belief, then one must also acknowledge the other side of the coin, which is this. Sexual sameness can be accomplished in either of two ways - neither one being better than the other – (1) girls can do things that have been historically done by boys (such as football) or (2) boys can do things that have been historically done by girls. In other words, yes, the sexual sameness perspective would laud little Holley Footballer, BUT, it would laud her only as much as it lauded little Johnny Barbie-doll-player. But do feminists canonize little boys that play with dolls? Do they praise boys that want to grow up to be a stay at home dads? Or nurses? Or school teachers? Wouldn’t the fruition of their dream push our society towards sexual sameness with equal force and rapidity as the Holley Mangold story? Would these boys also be criticized if they didn’t acknowledge their place in the feminist movement and shout from the rooftops that, “YES, I (TOO) AM CHANGING THE WORLD.”?
I would argue, then, that if one is going to consider Holley Footballer a hero, then, for the purposes of internal consistency, one shouldn’t forget about Johnny Barbie-doll-player. Alternatively, one can conclude, as I do, that neither of them deserve the scrutiny of our heroes. Sometimes kids, boy or girls, just want to be kids, and since when is that not ok? Who am I to spoil their fun by forcing upon them my own big ideas about how the world ought to function? Unless of course, they want to be little ethicists…
**
Katie also asked me if I was a Feminist, and, if not, why not? Truth be told, I don’t consider myself an anything-ist. The problem with identifying with any ideological group is that it’s probably too broad to accurately reflect an individual’s personal beliefs. To complicate matters even more, feminism, in particular, seems especially factional. For example, wikipedia divides the feminist movement into 14 sub-types:
Anarcha-feminism
Cultural feminism
Cyborg feminism
Ecofeminism
Individualist feminism
Liberal feminism
Marxist feminism
Postmodern feminism
Psychoanalytic feminism
Radical feminism
Religious feminism
Separatist feminism
Socialist feminism
Womanism
Indeed, the feminist movement has been chopped up, divided, contorted, misquoted, perverted, misunderstood, overanalyzed, defined, redefined, undefined, expanded, contracted, etc, etc, etc so many times that the term itself has been rendered completely devoid of meaning. If someone says they are a feminist, what does that tell you about them? That they hate men? Maybe, some do. That they think that there is no distinction between genders? Maybe, some do. That they think that men and women should live separately? That they think that there should be fewer men in the world? That they think all sex is rape? Maybe, some do. That they think the very use of language is a means of subjugating women? That they spell the word ‘wommyn’ as opposed to ‘women’? Maybe, some do. That they think that women are discriminated against more than other social groups? That they think that God is a woman? That they think that we should get rid of capitalism? Maybe, some do. That they think that women are like cyborgs? Maybe, some do. Indeed, others would reject all of the above and still consider themselves feminists. My point is, the label feminism encompasses so much to the exclusion of very little that its use is rarely, if ever, informative or descriptive.
The only common strand among all feminists that I am able to identify is that they all think that there is gender inequality and they think that fact should be righted. However, that definition of feminism is so watered down that it is indistinguishable from what would appear to be its antonym, Masculinism. (To be honest, I didn’t even know such a thing existed until just now! Although, in law school, as a response to the “Womens Law Students Association” a group of guys banded together “The Man Club,” which hosted a beer pong tournament and a lecture by renowned ambulance chaser James Scott Farin, though not at the same time. Do you suppose that’s what Masculinists do on weekends? ) But who, in their right mind, would argue against the fact of gender inequality or argue that it not should be righted? Not me. So, I guess I’m a feminist (of no particular denomination) and also a masculinist (sans the beer and ambulance chasing) and, at the same time, I'm neither, also. To the extent that I am a feminist, I must note that I concern myself less with the descriptive question of sameness (see above) than the evaluative question of equality. That is to say, I recognize two distinct genders that are equal, rather than one super-gender which is identical to itself. And while I find the notion of a genderless society implausible, that fact alone would not disqualify me from membership into the feminist or masculinst movements.
If someone can present a better definition of the term, I’d be interested to hear it. At the very least, reading up a little about the movement has been a valuable experience. Roar.
posted by Donkey Boy at Thursday, August 10, 2006
4 Comments:
I am ashamed to admit that I have not been reading your blog, as I have been out of commission. I will catch up soon.
I was once told that I could not possibly be a feminist, because I am male. Therefore, anything I do to promote the equality of women undermines the movement, because it's like I, as a man, am "giving" them equal rights, proving that they are obviously not equal.
I asked her what she was advocating that I do, and she didn't have an answer. Seems to me under her theory that I should do what I can to consciously oppress women so that they can do it all themselves and prove how equal they are.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I really don't care very much about the arguments involving the meaning of feminism (too much time spent on the Journal of Gender Law and Policy, although I do note in response to Pave's comment - maybe more as an 'amen' - that most leftist movements have a difficult time accounting for members of the alleged oppressor group who do not conform to their own preconceived notions, i.e. the man who supports and encourages women's rights, the white person who supports minority issues, the native who supports immigrant communities, the straight person supporting the gay community, and so on. I don't know what to make of it, but think it's interesting.)
I'm much more intrigued by the meaning of "heroism". In short, I say that we over-use the term. Oprah profiles her 'heroes' (like Patti La Belle) on a special two-part episode. Pat Tillman is killed by friendly fire and dies a 'hero'. Some little girl decides to play football and she's a 'hero'. Again, I don't know what to make of it(and if I did, I'd post it on my own blog and not in comments to someone else's - weekend project?) but thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
Donkey:
Your definition of feminism is pretty good. And your conclusion is also on point-- sometimes in Women's Studies Classes we ask: "Do you believe women should get equal pay for comparable work? Then you are a feminist." It is much more complicated than that of course, as you've pointed out.
I like Bell Hook's definition of feminism: “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” (from Feminism is for Everybody)
Pave:
Men CAN be feminist. Some male feminists call themeselves "pro-feminist" instead of feminist for the reason you stated above.
Scott:
I don't think the girl was "little".
-From a teacher of feminist theories.
Post a Comment
<< Home