The New Face of Feminism

The suffrage movement in the early 20^th century was about giving women the vote.  The feminist movement of the 1970s, beginning with Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and cresting with the Roe v. Wade decision, was about giving women career opportunities.  The latest women’s movement, inspired by the election of Donald Trump, is about . . .

Well, that’s a bit of a head-scratcher.  After marching to the polls in 1920, marching to the Planned Parenthood clinic in 1973, marching out to work in hard hats and combat helmets, women are now just marching because.  The worldwide demonstration last January that called out literally millions of marchers was gleefully proclaimed to be the start of something BIG.  But, as critics remarked at the time, the participants didn’t seem to have a focus and couldn’t articulate precisely what they were mad about.  They were just mad.  A march with lots of signs, chants, and yelling is a great way to blow off steam, but it’s terrible for a sustained movement.

Recently I read Here We Are: Feminism for the Real World, a handbook for high school teens edited by librarian and book-blogger Kelly Jensen.  In it, “44 voices write, draw, and speak” about the challenges still facing women today and what feminism means for our time.

In the Introduction we’re told that feminists come in all colors, shapes, creeds, genders and cross-genders, nationalities, and preferences.  “What unites feminists is the belief that every person—regardless of gender, class, education, race, sexuality, or ability—deserves equality.”  It’s about “embracing differences and encouraging change that benefits all facets of society.”

In these pages we hear from transwomen and transmen, the happily married and happily divorced, lesbians, singles, artists, and journalists, but the voices are not as diverse as advertised.  Author Kody Keplinger writes about choosing not to have kids (she just doesn’t want them, okay?), but no one writes about the uniquely feminine joys of motherhood.  “Reproductive rights” are supported uniformly and almost casually, but there are no reasoned arguments for the rights of the unborn.  Muslim blogger Kaye Mirza extols her feminist-inspired faith, but no Christian writes about defining feminism in Christ.  “Embracing differences” turns out to be about preference, not conviction.  As far as conviction goes, these voices are all on the same page.

That’s no surprise, given the state of contemporary public discourse.  I don’t blame the editor or writers, who just assume they are nicely diversified and on the side of the angels.  How many have ever even sat still for a reasoned argument of the pro-life position or biblical complementarianism?  Probably none, because reasoned arguments take a back seat to emotional appeals and crude caricatures.

Here are my main takeaways from Here We Are: 1) “Feminist” now means just about anything as long as it’s progressive. 2) White guys can ride along only if they admit their privilege and move to the back of the bus.  3) Female means oppressed.  “Every woman, cis or trans, experiences gender inequality, discrimination or violence, but the ways they experience it differs because of factors like race, class, disability, or gender presentation.” 4) But oppressed females can imaginatively turn the tables on fan fiction sites, where they get to create pornographic scenarios for their favorite fictional crushes.  (Do you know what “slash fiction” is?  I didn’t, until now.)

Above all, 5) Identity matters more than anything—literally anything, including health, well-being, and common sense.  In a chapter on “Body and Mind” Anne Theriault writes about her experiences with depression and anxiety.  Amid some good advice, like refraining from isolation and choosing relevant role models, she drops this:

You get to decide how you identify.  If you’re dealing with mental health issues but don’t consider yourself to be mentally ill, that’s cool.  If, on the other hand, you feel like mental illness makes up part of what you are, that’s cool, too.  If you want to self-identify as crazy or mad, that’s totally fine.

And that’s totally crazy.   But it’s the logical extension of a “choose your own reality” approach to life.

Meanwhile, reality bites.  David French worries that girls are being goaded toward “fierce” attitudes and

roles not all of them are suited for, while boys are made to feel guilty for the very same attributes.  You can’t push nature very far before it starts pushing back.  Boys will always be boys–are we going to teach them to be responsible boys, or reprehensible ones?  Pornography has exploded with internet technology, especially on smart phones.  Sex trafficking plagues the American heartland.  Girls still obsess over their looks, weight, and sex appeal and their fathers are too often not around to protect and affirm them.  Their mothers are distracted, wondering if they are any happier than their mothers. Women-centered feminism, generally, hasn’t made us happier; perhaps that’s why the movement is morphing to identify-centered feminism, where what you feel is what you are.

Reality: men and women are equally worthy of respect as human beings, yet different in ways that are not superficial.  Exhorting girls to be aggressive and boys to be passive creates viragos and couch potatoes and a world of confusion and frustration.  “Complementarian,” in the biblical sense, doesn’t mean that girls should not be Olympic athletes or scientists or presidents—those are surface distinctions.  It does mean that girls are not equipped to do everything, and boys are not allowed to do nothing.