What do I think about feminism?
Feminism has been defined by S Haslanger, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, as “an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms.” And this expresses the nub of the problem I have with it, in that it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. I mean, you can’t both seek to end sexism in all its forms and seek justice for women. Because that’s sexist. It may well be that sexist intervention is necessary in order to redress the balance of social justice in favour of women because there isn’t a level playing field at the moment – but that still is sexist. To act in favour of one gender is sexist. That’s what sexism is. So you can’t act in favour of women and at the same time say you are trying to end all sexism, for in fact you are advancing and perpetuating sexism: just operating in favour of women rather than traditional sexism which has operated in favour of men.
So that’s the first problem I have with feminism. It’s a contradiction in terms. It’s not what is says on the tin. Not only is it sexist, but it’s sexism in denial.
And I don’t like sexism. Back in the bra-burning days of the 1970s, I can remember women storming men-only clubs as a demonstration of protest against inequality and sexism. Later, when I became a Methodist minister, which I was for about fifteen years, our District synods were meticulous and passionate about acting in favour of women. They vigorously defended the interests of women, whom they saw as victims of social, cultural and religious discrimination. I hadn’t been a minister long before I was invited to join a special sub-group of ministers having their own retreats and meetings – women ministers. What? What happened to equality, to inclusive church, to our militancy against sexism? Feminists seem to have a blind spot here. They can see the problem with other people (men) excluding them, but they can’t see that the identical problem exists with them excluding men.
I do understand about the social problems women can suffer. I understand that domestic violence is often (not always) an aggression of men toward women. I understand that women often carry the double burden of childcare and breadwinning, and often are left to bear the responsibilities of the home by men who sire a child and leave. I understand about the frequency of abuse of female children by adult men. I understand about women often earning lower wages for doing the same job as men.
But sexism cuts two ways. In family disputes and divorce hearings, the courts can be unkind and unfair towards fathers to the point of immorality and corruption. In the media and in casual conversation everywhere, it has become acceptable to make men (especially white Christian middle-class men) the butt of jokes and discourtesies which would be unthinkable towards women (or black, Muslim, or working-class men). No movement which fosters ridicule and contempt is truly a movement for equality. Ridicule and contempt are forms of bullying, and pave the way to more hard-core forms of bullying to follow in their wake.
In many families, men are still the main breadwinners, and though this makes the wife of an unreliable man more vulnerable, it gives the wife of a reliable man both security and freedom to raise her children and care for her home and family. I realize that the home and family in question are the children and home of both the man and the woman, but I know that as a woman I would do anything to stay home with my family, and I think that is true for many women but not true for most men. Therefore I believe the traditional arrangement of a man going out of the house to work while his wife is the homemaker, is the best fit for most men and most women.
I believe that the courtesy and gentleness of men towards women – carrying her heavy bags, opening doors for her, standing to allow her to sit on a crowded train – were beautiful things, without which society is poorer. I believe that the pride of a man in protecting and providing for his family was a noble thing, and we have not improved society by scorning it.
I believe that the ‘feminine touch’ of a woman around the house enriches life, and men can rarely replicate it. For me as a woman, it is a joy to nurture and care for my household, making sure they are comfortable and our home is warm and welcoming, tidy and (fairly) clean.
My husband is glad to lend a hand around the house, and I am glad to chip in my bit of earning money. Neither of us is helpless left alone to earn our living and run a home. But to serve and care for each other sweetens life; it makes everything feel worthwhile.
I care very much about people in different cultures around the world who are downtrodden and oppressed – but I care about it just as much if they are men as if they are women or children. It makes no difference what their age or gender – if they are suffering, unhappy and afraid, if they are cold and hungry and worried, if they are trapped by circumstances and bullied by their neighbours and families, then I want to change it. In fact I see no reason to limit that concern to the human species. In the words of the Metta Sutta (the Buddha’s words on loving-kindness):
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!
In writing these thoughts about feminism, I am aware that I expose myself to criticisms that in societies all over the world women are oppressed by men. I understand that. But I think the problem is not men, but oppression, not gender but violence. Ephesians 6:12 – For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (KJV) People are never our enemy, though some kinds of attitudes and behaviours are. Feminism has served us very poorly in insidiously creating an accepted view among women that men are a problem, a nuisance, a valid target for ridicule and scorn. Indeed I wonder if this tendency to criticize, ridicule and hold others in contempt has always been a particular temptation to women, and maybe that was why St Paul taught so firmly about women regarding their menfolk with reverence, submission and respect. I don’t know about you, but I know that I’m not very good at getting this one right. Mea culpa.
A primary outcome of the feminist movement has been the independence of women from men. Feminism has encouraged women to allow nothing to stand in the way of their personal fulfilment - even when that means abortion, divorce, whatever. Such impediments to personal fulfilment cease to be seen as social ills in themselves, in the feminist agenda.
An aspect of this independence is following a separate career - which developed quickly from being an opportunity to being a duty. Women working outside the home brought in second incomes which in turn increased the level of mortgage loans available, which in turn drove up the price of accommodation – not for two-income households only, but for all households. This has left many families forced to place their children in nursery out of (at least perceived) financial necessity created by the increased cost of accommodation, when they would have preferred to care for their own children at home. What feminism gave with one hand it took away with the other - the freedom to be your own woman and strike out alone, only to find that the price of accommodation had sky-rocketed so you couldn't afford it. Feminism plays into the hands of the rich in the way that traditional family life did not. Feminism allies unfortunately with free-market economy to tip the scales very heavily in favour of the already advantaged. I think. I'm not totally sure. I'm thinking that in a traditional society, where a house with a garden was more affordable, the home-maker wife of a dustman could grow veggies and keep hens just as well as the wife of a teacher. And home-makers were not always deprived of the means to earn a second income. Taking in lodgers, seamstress work, selling handcrafted items, writing books, making baked goods and sugarcraft, market gardening, millinery - there are many ways to expand domestic income without dismantling traditional homes.
Even so, in spite of all my reservations, I recognize that because of the political victories of feminists I can vote, own a house, go to university, take out a mortgage and find a career in almost any field. If it hadn’t been for the work of feminists not so many families would need a mortgage in the first place. It doesn’t matter who I vote for, somehow it’s still a politician that gets in. The career I did go in for (ordained ministry) had a lot to do with the wrecking of my first marriage. I learned almost nothing at university. But hey – I guess I’m grateful, I know it’s hard for me to imagine how grim my oppression would have been without several decades of social revolution.
But I should not be cynical about this. The feminist revolution has undoubtedly brought freedom of opportunity to women. Couples can still choose to be counter-culture, preferring a traditional home and marriage if they wish, without being trapped in that as the only option. It's just that however hard I think about it, the price of abandoning those traditions that safeguarded and shaped our society seem to me too high. I don't know. What do you think?
Oh - and can you tell yet? I am not a feminist.