As you may already know, MORE magazine* is hosting a panel tomorrow at the 92Y Tribeca: Naomi Wolf Talks With Feminism’s New Young Leaders based on the magazine’s recent feature on young feminists. I was originally slated to be a part of this panel, but when I found out that Allison Kasic ““ who works for the virulently anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum ““ was also a panelist, I decided to pull out.
I’ve been writing a lot lately about the faux feminism of the Right ““ how conservative women who have long fought against feminist ideals and goals are now identifying as feminists in an attempt to woo women’s votes for the GOP. I think it’s an incredibly dangerous trend facing the movement ““ if those who work actively against women’s interests can claim feminism as their own, the movement will become meaningless.
Given all that, it felt hypocritical for me to be a part of a panel that named Kasic a feminist leader. I didn’t want my presence to lend credibility to the false notion that people who work against women’s rights are feminists.
Yes, I could go on the panel to argue about the definition of feminism and the co-opting of the movement. But when I agree to be on a panel I’m accepting the terms of a debate ““ and it’s not a debatable point whether people whose policies actively harm women are feminists. I don’t want to validate that this is a question open for reasonable conversation. (Especially given that the success of anti-feminist women and orgs like IWF is largely based on their ability to get on panels and make this an open discussion – it’s part of their strategy.)
Now, I certainly don’t think less of the feminists who are participating on the panel ““ Lena Chen, Naomi Wolf, Courtney Martin and Shelby Knox. (In fact, there are few people I love and respect more than Courtney.) We all have to do our activism the best way we see fit, and negotiating something like this can be complicated. But I do think their participation is a strategic mistake. It’s like debating someone who insists that the sky is red ““ what does it accomplish besides lending credibility and valuable activist energy to a laughably false assertion?
I recognize that my position on this means that I won’t have a voice in this particular conversation and that sometimes refusing to engage can leave space for damaging messages like the ones of the IWF – so my solution is not without downsides. But the appropriation of feminism is only going to get worse, and we need to think carefully about strategy and how our activist choices influence the battle ahead.
What would you do?
*Just an FYI: I have a lot of respect for the folks at MORE – the writers and editors I’ve communicated with are extremely committed to women’s rights and put together this feature to shine a light on the often-ignored work of young feminists. And I believe they had the best intentions when they put together this panel ““ I’m sure they were interested in presenting what they felt was a balanced perspective.
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr
YouTube
50 Comments
‘Lending credibility and valuable activist energy to a laughably false assertion” is exactly right. Richard Dawkins said something similar about why he doesn’t debate creationists any more – it gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve.
I think you made the right move, Jess. Just ask Fox News:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/9/918865/-Fox-News-desperately-wants-Democrats-to-validate-them
I’m quite torn when I think about this. One the one hand, I don’t relish the idea of supporting faux-feminism either. On the other, I think about the pornography wars of the second wave, where I would claim two camps of feminists who had an ideological difference on an issue took to calling each other non-feminists.
I forget who made this claim regarding Palin, but, in essence, they denied Palin’s feminist credentials because to them, at the very least, feminists are united in their belief that their IS a problem that feminism is attempting to tackle. Some might consider this distinction academic (in comparison to the one offered here, which posits feminism as being unable to support policies which harm women), but it does seem to me to be a better claim, rhetorically. The neo-liberal “emancipation” offered by faux-feminists often erases any claims of social inequity, and these women who espouse it feel “empowered” by their own success and ambition, but they fail the “feminist test” to me, largely because they don’t view the world as having a problem that needs fixing (or at least that the goal takes more than “in the head” individual action, vim, or gumption); making claims about “harming women” can easily be turned about on its head to eliminate any number of feminists from claiming that identity because they don’t subscribe to any particular speakers brand of feminism.
This issue goes well beyond whether an invited guest chooses to appear at a particular forum or not.
Ms. Valentini, in May 2010 you wrote that the following is “inarguable”:
“Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.” (Jessica Valentini, Washington Post, 2010/05/28).
If this definition of feminism is “inarguable”, you’ve just excluded me as a feminist.
I did clinic defense in the 1980s and early 1990s, marched on Washington in 1989, held membership in NOW, was a charter supporter of the National Museum of Women in the Arts, etc. Today, I continue to take action in support of affirmative action, abortion rights, TItle IX, poverty reduction, prison reform, etc.
I did these things (and continue) not because I believe in some ideology or dogma. I have my own brain, and I wasn’t in the least impressed by the “patriarchy” rhetoric. Nor do I see any compelling evidence that we live in a “rape culture”. Nor do I think for a second that women as a whole (as a class) remain “oppressed” today after all the gains we have made.
And yet, I still took action then, and continue to take action today in support of women and gender equality. I did so because each of these actions made sense on its own merits, and because I wanted to help restore balance among the genders and, in my own small way, help make the world a better place for the next generation.
But, according to you, I am not a feminist because, in order for me to be one, not only do I have to take action in support of women, but I also have to agree with a certain ideology. In other words, ideology trumps tangible action.
So be it, Ms. Valentini. I will continue to take action in support of women and gender equality, where and when I can. But I will no longer call myself a feminist, since, apparently, I am not one.
Oops… I misspelled your last name in my previous post. Ms. Valenti, I sincerely apologize for my error.
Jessica, I’ll admit my first reaction to your decision was negative, but after reading your powerful argument, I agree with you. I probably would have gone to the panel and done exactly the wrong thing, that is, given Kasic legitimacy by arguing with her. You continue to impress me with your amazingly logical and forceful approach to feminism.
I also want to tell you that you have helped shape my teenage daughter’s view of feminism in a very positive way. I left “Full Frontal Feminism” lying around the house hoping that she would read it. She did read it, and began talking to me about a lot of the issues you brought up in the book. She now proudly calls herself a feminist, and I hope she reads Feministing.
I don’t mean to sound fawning, but you are a force for good for women of all ages, and I hope you know that. You inspire me, and I’m in my 40s. Thank you for doing what you do.
you’ve likely just entered a shitstorm, but I hope others will follow your example and stop giving these kinds of groups legitimacy.
I see your point but if the problem is just the title of the panel I would go on. Dawkins may not debate creationists (and I don’t think the IWF is quite that batty) but the new atheists spend huge amount of time debating religious believers. When feminists refuse to debate their opponents it makes the movement look small and frightened. Think of it the other way — if the IWF refused to go on a panel called “Rational Politics” or “Real Democracy” on the grounds that you were on it, although everyone else was rightwing, you would mock them mercilessly.
I’m with you, sister.
From the moment that those Phyllis Schlafley pretenders began to parade around as “real” feminists, I stopped attending those events.
No group gets my presence on a panel that imparts that feminism isn’t for just for people who espouse feminist goals like equal pay, freedom of expression, etc,, which those pretenders do not.
Ever.
Suzan
the appropriation of feminism is only going to get worse, and we need to think carefully about strategy and how our activist choices influence the battle ahead.
_______________
Good for you! I’m sick of these women who only believe in equal rights for themselves and say “hey I have a vagina, a big mouth, and a sense of entitlement- I’m a feminist!” Even if you don’t see eye-to-eye with other feminists on other topics like porn, the one true feminist goal that bonds us all is the fight for equality. Equal rights across genders, races, economic standing, etc. The bottom line is, if you don’t believe in equality for all, YOU ARE NOT A FEMINIST. I’m glad you pulled out based on the notion that it’s not a debatable point. You’ve done a beautiful job articulating your decision and I hope people care enough to read it before judging.
I don’t blame you whatsoever for having no interest in debating this woman. She is the same woman who said in her “review” of your book Full Frontal Feminism that “if young women aren’t afraid of the word “feminism†before they read this book, they certainly will be after they read it.” Her review of your book is just one continual attack and you personally. Debating her would probably just result in more of the same.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221036/i-full-frontal-feminism-i/allison-kasic
@Justin Ha!
@Adrian I’m sure I’m not the first – but I made this argument in the Washington Post a while back – that it seems suspect to call yourself a feminist if you don’t believe sexism exists or that there is something to fight for…
@Not a Feminist I’m a bit confused by your comment – if you don’t believe women are oppressed then why would you need to “restore balance among the genders?” You fought for women’s rights because clearly you felt there was something to fight FOR – which is exactly the point I’m making in the excerpt you pulled.
@Katydid That’s amazing – thank you so much.
@Katha Pollitt It wasn’t just the title of the panel, tho that did put me over the edge when I was debating what to do. I hear what you’re saying, I don’t feel like I’m running away from the argument or refusing to debate this at all – I’ve spent a good deal of time writing about this issue. But appearing on the same panel as someone who makes their living making women’s lives worse as if she was a serious person with a serious position just felt wrong to me.
I think the Feminist movement is in a very scary position right now with the rise of the “Palin Femininist”. As we continue to be invaded by these far right women (maybe some men even) we continually see that with their rhetoric they are trying to push the most basic feminist ideology away from the centre of the political spectrum and into the far left. Essentially branding us as left wing extremists in the eyes of the general public. As feminists we cannot afford to give these people any sort of credence, we should not be providing them with a stage to express their views, we should not be engaging them in debate. I know I just said this but I want to reiterate my total support to you in not engaging Allison Kasic in debate. Doing so would have done nothing but help permeate the myth that there is a debate to be had.
Lara Foley, why did you omit the highly relevant fact that Allison Kasic agrees with Jessica Valenti that feminism is the “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes”, and that Kasic does have a (few) positive things to say about Valenti’s book?
You seem to also have completely ignored Kassic’s basic point about: Valenti doesn’t want anyone else to tell her how to be a feminist, but then Valenti immediately turns around and tries to tell other people how to be a feminist.
By doing so, Kassic points out an inherent contradiction in Valenti’s preference for an ideological basis for feminism. Any inherent contradiction represents a serious criticism, and Valenti’s unwillingness to respond to, much less address and resolve, these criticisms is an equally serious failure.
So I for one would have very much liked to see a genuine, robust debate between the positions espoused, respectively, by Valenti and Kassic, as well as other members of the panel, to discuss and potentially resolve these disagreements and contradictions.
I can understand that this particular panel may not have been Valenti’s preferred forum for such a discussion. However, the underlying disagreements about “what is feminism” are real and genuine and will not go away.
@Not a Feminist So you haven’t answered by question about your original post… Also, I’m not trying to “tell other people how to be a feminist.” I’m just pointing out that working against women’s rights and interests goes against the very definition of feminism. That’s not ideological, that’s fact. I mean, what “position” are you interested in hearing me debate against? That battling against women’s rights is somehow feminist? Come on.
@Not a Feminist? I’d really like to see where Jessica says that you have to agree 100% with her on everything you are not a feminist. I haven”t seen it, in fact the only person I have seen make that claim is Kasic.
Edit above:
[...] Jessica says that you have to agree 100% with her on everything or you are not a feminist [...]
sorry forgot the not in there.
“@Not a Feminist I’m a bit confused by your comment – if you don’t believe women are oppressed then why would you need to “restore balance among the genders?â€
For two reasons.
First, because gender imbalances can have many different causes. It is simplistic to assert, without any evidence, that the primary (or only) cause of gender imbalance is oppression.
Second, my assessment of gender balance isn’t frozen in time. Rather, my assessment evolves, as the data itself do. We do not live in the same society that existed in the 1980s. Our gender balances have indeed shifted considerably in the last 30 years.
@Not a Feminist?
I agree with you that society has changed in the past 30 years, there’s no denying it’s gotten better, but we are not there yet and if we are not careful, gender balances can regress. The rise of Palinesque “feminists” is an example of this, should these women get into serious positions of power the Gender Balance is in serious danger of regressing.
Ms. Valenti: “I’m not trying to “tell other people how to be a feminist.â€
Really? As a matter of principle, your definition of feminism goes well beyond equality of the sexes — you assert your ideological viewpoint and preferences, and then claim that people who don’t agree with your preferred ideology are anti-feminist.
As a matter of practice, your book is filled with prescriptive language, such as bromides against married women taking their her husband’s last name (this is but one of many such examples). What are these prescriptions, if not your views on “how to be a feminist”?
I’m just pointing out that working against women’s rights and interests goes against the very definition of feminism. That’s not ideological, that’s fact.
I suspect Kasic would take sharp issue with your assertion that she is somehow “working against women’s rights and interests”. But I can’t speak for Kasic, so I will not try.
I will say that in your efforts to exclude the Kasics of the world from feminism, you are also excluding people like me, who agree and have been working for decades in favor of gender equality, but don’t agree with your ideological premises.
@Not a Feminist I NEVER wrote that women who take their husband’s last names aren’t feminists – I just wrote that I thought it was a bad idea. If you want to debate me on the points of my book, you should actually read it.
Your argument seems to be that it’s some sort of radical position to think that people who claim to be feminists should believe in feminism… If that’s the case, why don’t you tell me what you think makes a feminist? You seem to be taking a lot of offense but not offering any definition of your own. Or do you think that anyone can claim the label? Even women who fight against pro-woman policies? Really?
Ms. Valenti: “Your argument seems to be that it’s some sort of radical position to think that people who claim to be feminists should believe in feminism.”
No, that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. I’m not defending Kasic, or Palin, or any of the other people that you decry as faux feminists.
“why don’t you tell me what you think makes a feminist?”
Here is my simple definition of feminism: The “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.”
And a feminist, according to this simple definition, is anyone who recognizes a gender imbalance and takes steps to acknowledge, understand, and redress those gender imbalances.
And that’s it!
Why do you insist on going further and including a whole bunch of ideology purity tests, above and beyond that simple definition? Why isn’t that simple definition sufficient?
To put it in different terms: Do I really have to swallow and parrot the feminist ideology about patriarchy, rape culture, oppression, etc in order to work towards gender equality for all members of our society?
And perhaps this is the crux of the matter: Does it mean I’m working “against women’s interests” if I perceive a gender imbalance, and disagree with you on how best to redress it?
@Not a feminist okay, so given your definition of feminism – which I totally agree with – isnt it true that someone who works against the goals of social, political and economic equality is NOT a feminist?
Interesting discussion and comments; thanks for this opportunity, Jessica. I identify as a feminist, although I struggle with how to define that term myself. I’m a believer that casting too wide a net, ie “all women are feminists”, results in a weak and unproductive movement. However as we can see in this discussion most attempts to more narrowly define feminism are met with disdain from at least one active sect of feminism.
However after reading some of Allison Kasic’s work, it seems like there is a reasonable argument for claiming she is not a feminist. I understand the frustration when the definition is defined by ideology, but I think a basic tenant of feminism is that the experience and treatment of women is different than men. And Kasic’s main theme is that policy addressing any presumed difference between genders is misguided because it creates a separation that isn’t/shouldn’t be there. Even the tagline of her organization is “All Issues are Women’s Issues”, and if that’s true it can’t also be said that no issues are specifically women’s issues? Can we agree that the belief there are some issues specific to women is the foundation for feminism? And if so, Kasic’s ideology needs a new term… I suggest “schmeminism”.
Well, Not a Feminist can go off in a huff ( “or a minute and a huff”– Groucho Marx) if she wants to , but if she could stay just long enough to answer this question: if patriarchy is b.s. And women weren’t/aren’t systematically oppressed, where in hell did all those inequalities, rape statistics, women-as-brood-mares reproductive laws, and hateful-but-acceptable images of women come from– you know, those things you yourself have been fighting against? Did the stork bring them? Do you deserve them for–I dunno– forcing Adam to eat that banana? Is it Mere Coincidence that all of these social disadvantages fall exclusively on you XXs?
Just an innocent query from a mutant (XY) feminist.
I agree with Jessica’s choice– she wouldve been conceding that Kasich andvher viewscare “feminist”. I think this is an ad hoc sort of thing, though– if you don’t GO to the panel, you can’t ‘pie’ her, either….
I feel so completely torn over this issue, especially after writing “Girldrive” and talking to (and relating to!) conservative women. On the one hand, “conservative feminism” makes me livid. It does seem to take us down a rabbit hole of debating previously certified facts, rather than pushing the conversation forward. And I agree that it’s way different for someone with your profile–i.e. a feminist in the public eye– to be engaged in this debate, rather than, say, Alison’s lefty feminist neighbor who calls her out in casual conversation.
On the other hand, it’s a truly watershed moment when you talk to someone face-to-face rather than through the computer, through a newspaper, through a nearly impenetrable partisan line. When you can unflinchingly ask the questions you only ask in a rhetorical way to your liberal friends. If you can do this in public, it’s even more effective. On the roadtrip for Girldrive, I found myself hugging a woman who worked at a crisis pregnancy center, and laughing with a nun-to-be who thought birth control was a sin. It’s not like I agreed with them any more than I did before our conversation–and believe me, I argued with them the whole way–but it felt so good to *humanize* these voices and criticize them from that angle rather than to refuse to engage with them. Whether we like it or not, these voices *are* gaining traction and it’s best to look them in the eye and talk directly–sometimes in their own spaces so that we’re not just arguing in an echo chamber.
Still, I get that this sort of panel might not be the time to have this discussion, because as you mentioned, you don’t “accept the terms of the debate.” Would it be different if the topic was “Can a conservative woman be a feminist?” Or would that still be like debating that the sky is red? I feel like there’s a really thin line between legitimizing a ridiculous claim, and having the balls/ovaries to call that shit out and defend your movement in a public, high-profile, and/or mainstream space. Ya know?
Sorry for the long-ass comment…as you can see, I often have a back-and-forth internal dialogue about this!
Hey Nona, if the panel was specifically about feminism’s definition I DO think I would have given more consideration to participating. (Even though I would still find the argument ridiculous.) In this case though, agreeing to be on the panel was accepting the idea that Kasic was a “young feminist leader.” And outside of feeling like it would be hypocritical of me to participate, it also just really bothers me knowing how many amazing young women who are real feminists – like yourself – could have been on the panel and offered words of wisdom. It feels like a kick in the teeth for all of the young activists working for change out there – they lost a space because of a misguided attempt at “balance.” As for being able to defend your movement in a public, high profile space – I made this very argument in WaPo not too long ago, so I didn’t feel any urgency around making my position known at a panel – my perspective is already out there.
I think you make a really good point about in person debate, though. But I guess my question would be: what does humanizing the opposition do for our own activism? (And I don’t mean this as a way of saying it does nothing – I’m genuinely thinking about what the answer might be) Perhaps it makes it better because we can make our own arguments with more compassion…but I also think it can backfire (at least for me!). An example, a while ago I did a debate at a college about hook up culture with a woman who worked for an organization that is trying to stop same sex marriage. I think I did a really good job at calling her out for her discrimination and how shitty it was, etc and linked that to hook up culture. But here’s the thing: she seemed like a genuinely lovely person. She was very polite to me, made small talk with me before and after the debate and even sent me an congratulatory email when I got married. But as nice as she was, and as much as the experience humanized her – she is still someone who is hurting women and who is hurting LGBT Americans. So is she REALLY a good person? Do I really want to think about how nice she is, or do I want to eviscerate her positions because I know it’s the right thing to do? I don’t know if I have any answers here, but I’m just thinking aloud a bit…
But I absolutely agree with you about not preaching the choir and debating in spaces that are conservative – it’s something I do a lot through my speaking engagements. I would say that the majority of the talks I give are at conservative colleges where I’m frequently challenged and criticized. I think if we want to change hearts and minds we have to go into spaces that aren’t feminist (or that are explicitly anti-feminist). But this panel was not the right place to do all this, IMO.
Ms. Valenti: “… given your definition of feminism – which I totally agree with …
Good! Glad we agree on the definition of feminism.
Btw, it may come as a surprise, but Kasic appears to agree with that same definition of feminism.
… isnt it true that someone who works against the goals of social, political and economic equality is NOT a feminist?”
Aren’t you essentializing to a ridiculous degree here? Few decisions in life can be reduced to such starkly simplistic terms.
Examples:
o A married person’s decision to divorce his or her spouse could easily increase income inequality and deprive a child of access to both parents, but might be desirable for other reasons.
o A nation’s decision to go to war will almost certainly increase gender inequality — more men will die or be maimed and wounded, and more women will be unable to find partners — but may be necessary for the nation’s security.
o Etc.
The point is that “gender imbalance” is not sole vantage point, or criterion, from which to view or assess any given action or decision. People are not simplistic, black-and-white, monolithic creatures.
* * *
After having had this exchange, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that it is pointless to argue about labels — whether Kasic is a feminist or not, or is suitably feminist or not. That seems fruitless to me.
I would much rather engage in meaningful discussion about what gender imbalances exist in our society, what their causes might be (based on empirical observations and evidence-based argument, mind you! Not ideology), and what effective policy interventions would redress those imbalances.
Ronald Linville: if patriarchy is b.s. And women weren’t/aren’t systematically oppressed, where in hell did all those inequalities, rape statistics, women-as-brood-mares reproductive laws, and hateful-but-acceptable images of women come from”
Short answer: I don’t know.
Slightly longer answer: You don’t know either. No one really knows, although social scientists do have some ideas.
The real point: Why do you assume that the primary, or sole, cause of these issues is “patriarchy? Did you even bother to consider other hypotheses, gather empirical data, and make evidence-based arguments?
Or did you just latch onto to the one explanation that happens to fit your preconceived ideological preferences?
(Here’s a clue: The other side does this too. Try arguing with Phyllis Schlafly, and see if you get anything resembling a fact-derived, evidence-based argument out of her.)
Is it Mere Coincidence that all of these social disadvantages fall exclusively on you XXs?
Um, are you encouraging women to compete in the Oppression Olympics? If so, no thank you.
Ms. Valenti: In this case though, agreeing to be on the panel was accepting the idea that Kasic was a “young feminist leader.â€
Have you explained in writing your specific objections to treating Kasic as a “young feminist leader”?
(I ask, because the three links you provide in your original comment above all have to do with Sarah Palin, not Allison Kasic.)
It’s quite a serious accusation that you’re making, that Kasic is not a feminist because she’s working against women’s rights and interests. I would like to see what evidence you have for your claim.
This reminds me very much of Bishop Spong’s recent viral manifesto (http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/10/manifesto-from-our-friend-bishop-john.html) – especially this part:
“In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by “fair-minded” channels that seek to give “both sides” of this issue “equal time.” I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery . It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.”
I agree that inclusion in panels like this one only serves to validate organizations like the IWF. There are not “two sides” to the issue of full humanity for women, and putting the IWF on a “feminist” panel is as ridiculous and offensive as putting a segregationist on a “New Civil Rights Leaders” panel would be. I’m glad you withdrew.
@not a feminist I have to say, I’m hesitant to continue this with you anymore because you’re not really making any sense. You give your own definition of feminism and then when I work within that definition you say I’m “essentializing.” You give examples of inequality that don’t really make sense given the conversation. And then when confronted with your stance on patriarchy/systemic oppression and why women are at the shit end of the “gender inbalance” you talk about, you make a bizarre statement about “social scientists have some ideas.” At this point, it’s feeling pretty fruitless to argue with someone who isn’t making logical arguments…so this will be my last comment to you. As to your question about why Kasic specifically isn’t a feminist, if you do some searches on Feministing for the organization she works for, IWF, or look into her work yourself – the reasoning should be clear.
Katwoman: There are not “two sides†to the issue of full humanity for women, and putting the IWF on a “feminist†panel is as ridiculous and offensive as putting a segregationist on a “New Civil Rights Leaders†panel would be.
This is absurd. Who on earth in the IWF is arguing against the “full humanity of women”? Please cite actual evidence for this claim.
If you can’t come up with any compelling evidence, then your comment appears to be a strawman argument.
Ms. Valentini: @you’re not really making any sense … it’s feeling pretty fruitless to argue with someone who isn’t making logical arguments…
I am genuinely sorry if I have wasted your time. Let me try to avoid that mistake.
I freely indicated my definition of feminism was a “simple” one — a working definition, a back-of-the-envelope definition. More importantly, you said you agreed with the definition. And Kasic says she agrees with it also!
So where is all the tension and debate coming from? From ideology. From labels. And it seems completely unnecessary, and non-productive.
Which is why I would appreciate it if you could try to answer my basic question: “Do I have to swallow and parrot feminist ideology about patriarchy, rape culture, and oppression in order to take action in favor of gender balance?”
Ms. Valenti: As to your question about why Kasic specifically isn’t a feminist, if you do some searches on Feministing for the organization she works for, IWF, or look into her work yourself – the reasoning should be clear.
I did a Google search for references to IWF at feministing.com, and the last reference appears to be from 2008. There are some previous entries from 2007, 2006, and earlier.
As for Kasic, Google says there are only three references on feministing.com to her name, one from 2007, and the last two from this month, regarding the MOVE panel.
I.e. most of these feministing.com pages are quite old — dating from 2008 or earlier. Some of the outgoing links on these pages (e.g. to iwf.org, or to reuters.com) no longer work.
Do you have any more recent links you can provide, explaining your critique of the IWF’s positions?
@”Not a feminist”:
Ugh, you’re the worst kind of feminist. The kind who tells people self-righteously, “oh I’m a feminist, but not the radical crazy kind”. What is you’re beef with the “ideology” that we systematically oppress women? That it creates a “culture of victimhood”?(don’t know what that really means in the first place, I think I read it on National Review).
“Um, are you encouraging women to compete in the Oppression Olympics?”: Who less is competing? The blacks, the Jews? Get off your high horse.
The IWF is a libretarian clusterfuck that basically denies, and or downplays, any inequality that exists between groups because they don’t want the goverment to have to pay for anything. It’s one thing to say ” I believe that inequality exists, but I don’t believe it’s the government job to rectify it”, it’s a whole other thing to deny it all together.
“Freshman sitting through days of orientation are presented with grossly inaccurate rape statistics–a scare tactic employed by radical feminists to present men as the enemy and women as their victims”
This is straight from the IWF website. I don’t really know what to say about it, it’s a really disturbing statement. I remember when I first started out with feminism, I wanted to deny that date rape and domestic violence existed because to acknowledge them was to somehow state that women were inherently weak. I think that the IWF is still stuck in this stage of thinking. And reading their forum, and “not a feminists” comments on rape culture makes me realize just how important your work is! Thank you Ms. Valenti!!!!
I don’t know maybe it’s because I’m young and things personally affect me, but reading through the IWF, as well as not a feminist’s comments, have really depressed me. Yes I understand we are much better off than we were a century ago, hell even fifty years ago. But we still have remenants of a patriarichal thinking in our culture (which oppresses both men and women), and changing these things will make our world a better place. Why is that so radical to say? Why does believing this make me an ideologue?
I’m in law school, and during our unit on rape in criminal law, basically 99% of my class stated that guys are taught “no means yes” (which was a shock to me) and that while date rape is sitll technically rape, date rape laws are bad because they undermine the basis of heterosexual interactions. Remembering that, and reading some of the comments to this post, really makes me wonder if there is anything that can be done. I don’t the whole thing is just really depressing. Ok last comment I promise lol.
“Do I have to swallow and parrot feminist ideology about patriarchy, rape culture, and oppression in order to take action in favor of gender balance?â€
Disclaimer: Young, male feminist here. This conversation boggles my mind. To try and clear some of this up (if I’m mistaken in anything here, don’t hesitate to let me know):
First off, you seem to think that an “ideology” must be, by definition, a system of beliefs held to with irrational fervor and faith. That’s … not even close to true. The fact that we rationally conclude that patriarchy exists, that women are oppressed, etc. does NOT mean that we are “parroting” something without questioning it.
More importantly, take a look at how feminists (and anyone else, for that matter) actually use the word “patriarchy.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy
You state that there is an imbalance of power between genders. Do … do you think that women have more power, and men have less? No? Okay, so you do agree that there is a power imbalance between genders, and that men have disproportionately more power, women less. Congratulations, you agree with us that patriarchy exists! Similarly, if women hold disproportionately less power than men do, then women, by definition, are being oppressed.
I believe that inequality exists, but I don’t believe it’s the government job to rectify itâ€, it’s a whole other thing to deny it all together
In essense, then ph, is that you find libertarian, or small government, ideology as “unfeminist”. You may disabuse me of my assumption, but it would seem your requirement of a True Feminist is the willingness to embrace using Government force to solve any issue, public or private, that you define as “gender inequality”.
You get to make the definitions, you get to use the Government, and dissent is always “against women’s interests.”
Is “Feminism” about equality or is it just a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left? Certainly the oft-repeated, risible phrase “social justice” would indicate the latter.
Non-Left, equity feminists are asserting that Feminism doesn’t have to be Leftism. That is the real, foundational argument here, regardless of the red-herring ad homenims tossed that non-Leftists are “anti-woman.”
Pf was attacking the IWF for denying inequality exists not for not wanting government subsidies equality. Read the quote . It’s one thing to say †I believe that inequality exists, but I don’t believe it’s the government job to rectify it. It’s a whole other thing to deny it all together.”
Lara
ph starts by dismissing libertarianism so my question remains. And to add a little nuance, as far as I’ve read, IWF doesn’t deny “inequality” as defined by Left-feminism.
i.e. if more women then men choose to stay home for the first few years of their child’s life, is that “inequality”? Yes it is, but only be description, not due to “patriarchal oppression that the Government must solve for us!”
The difference, as I see it, between IWF and Left-Feminism is one of advocating for equality of opportunity individuals to choose where their talents and dedication will take them and equality of “outcome” regardless of individual choice and effort.
Either one tolerates the fact that a choice culture is going to have “inequalities” of outcomes due to individual differences, or one is going to advocate a culture that punishes success in order to make everyone “equal”.
If one demands that True Feminism is the latter, then Feminism is, indeed, nothing but Leftism masquerading as “women’s rights.”
PIMF – I’ve garbled a sentence. Let me repost:
“IWF doesn’t deny “inequality,†only as it is defined by Left-feminism.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/who-gets-to-call-herself_b_782336.html
this was inspired by you and others…..
Darleen, I still feel like you’ve really missed ph’s point. Yep. Even the second time round.
I am going to take the opposing opposing view here–I think it doesn’t make sense to refuse to participate but NOT to call on other feminists on the panel not to participate or for the panel planners to reconsider their invitation of antifeminists. You can’t destroy the IWF’s “feminist” cred on your own; therefore your decision to neither participate nor to engage other feminists on the question renders the action just symbolic. Given how you feel, I think it would be respectful to the idea that there is a a feminist “movement” and respectful of your fellow feminist leaders to tell them why you’re not participating and ask them to consider doing the same.
My opinion is that there is probably a time to debate the IWF people, and that you are probably correct that doing so under the banner of “young feminist leaders” isnt it/ is inappropriate. But your strategy doesn’t make sense unless you try to make it a real, operative strategy!
@kate I agree, it would have been more strategically beneficial – and I considered publishing this post weeks before the panel and asking the other panelists to join me. But because of how swamped I am with new motherhood I knew I wouldn’t be able to do an action like that justice and considered this the next best thing. (And indeed, it did get a decent amount of press – all of the stories that covered the event also mentioned this post) I did let Shelby and Lena know I would be dropping out, and why, a couple of weeks before the event – I didn’t hear back from either of them on it.
darleen,
the libertairian “equality of opportunity” trope is anti-actual equality. To claim that women are primary caretakers just because they want to, and that we shouldn’t see if something else is at play because it might require the government to take some actions, is anti-feminist. Countries that have put effort into destigmatizing stay at home dads, and even give paternal leave on par with maternal leave, don’t have as many women stay at home with children, and have more men doing it instead. do you seriously think that’s coincidence, or that it’s not an imbalance that needs correcting? and more importantly, do you seriously think that not wanting to correct this imbalance still qualifies you as a feminist?
i am sympathetic to the new motherhood thing looking headlong at it myself. it seems like your decision did spark debate, so my black-and-white thinking was perhaps a little off.