What DOES a Feminist Look Like Anyway?

As I took my hot pink “This is what a feminist looks like,” t-shirt out of my drawer this morning, I had an impulse to alter it. I wanted to stick a picture of Sarah Palin on the back of it and add a caption in BIG, BLACK indelible ink, “NOT THIS.” But then I asked myself, “By what privilege or right do I make that assertion? How does one indeed decide or define what or who a feminist is? And who can lay claim to it? Does it take one to know one?”

 

I live and work in an environment in which simply saying something doesn’t make it so. One must mount an argument based on points of reason and evidential support. I knew that my intuitive t-shirt alteration must be backed up by more than simple assertion. ONE thing Palin’s nomination has done (among others) is that it has engendered yet another collective conversation about feminism and sexism and just what the heck these terms mean. These discussions are taking place everywhere. The following are just two examples of conversations experienced by two of my friends:

 

I have been bombarded by my friends here about the whole Sarah Palin thing.  They keep asking me if I'm voting for her, and I look at them like they've lost their minds.  "F*** NO!" is my response most of the time.  The conversation usually continues with...
 
Them: "But I thought you were all about women's rights and stuff."   
Me:  "Exactly.  That's why I'm not voting for Sarah Palin."
Them:  "But, she's a woman."
Me:  "Yes, a woman that reinforces the most oppressive patriarchal ideals and a woman who, if elected into office, would be detrimental to the rights and values that women in the past and present have worked so hard to achieve."
Them: "Oh, really?  I guess I don't know that much about her, other than she's a woman."

 

And this from a friend who received this from a friend:

I just had to tell you about a conversation that I overheard table side tonight. I was making a Caesar at one of my tables and my other table to their left were talking about politics (there were two couples). The two women were talking about Palin. One of them in a loud voice said, "She is a real feminist. Not like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem, who made us feel bad for staying home and taking care of our children." They then went on to say that they cannot wait for the debates because she is going to make mince meat out of Obama because she is so much more intelligent than he is and a much better public speaker.

 

Obviously, a woman who thinks that Palin and Obama are going to engage in a debate cannot be taken seriously on any political commentary. And a woman who judges Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan not to be “real feminists” cannot be taken seriously on the issue of feminism. What is really disturbing about this conversation is the authority with which this woman made a judgment about what a “real feminist” is and that a real feminist is one who makes one feel good about oneself. Someone needs to tell this woman that saying something doesn’t make it so.

 

But then, a friend emailed an article written by Richard Baehr from a web site that supposedly has its finger on the pulse of American politics (realclearpolitics.com). This writer made the following statement:

 

“…(Palin) who offers a different version of feminism than the only one allowed to be respected in its pages.”

 

Riiiiight. And a vegetarian who eats calves’ livers offers a “new version” of vegetarianism. To see this claim about Palin actually in print by a supposedly respected political commentator offended me even more. It is additionally frustrating to hear people speak of Palin’s nomination as some kind of progressive feminist moment because she is a woman aspiring to high political office. This perception reflects a view that is in fact contradictory to a feminist history that argued against the notion that all women are alike, i.e., essentialism that sees one woman as just the same as another. No two women are the same, just as no two men are the same. And to assess an act as feminist simply because it is performed by a woman is as erroneous as assessing an act as patriarchal simply because it is performed by a man. Feminism does not have as its primary principle the ascendence of women (over men or otherwise). Rather, it is engaged in a confrontation with a system that would extend unequal protection, privilege, and rights under the law. Feminism is characterized by a struggle with unjust systems of domination and exploitation. Its progress is NOT measured primarily by the elevation of women within that system who agree to work for those systems of domination. In fact, this move is antithetical to its goals.

 

Ultimately, feminism HAS a history and a tradition. And although there is certainly room for variations on this tradition (and there have been many in its development as theory and movement) there are some fundamental elements of feminism that cannot be compromised and still be called feminism. When has the idea of a thing been so bastardized that the claim of identity ceases to be valid? Case in point: Christianity has undergone many changes and reformations and developments in its long history but some things remain constant. There ARE some fundamental criteria required in order for one to declare, “I am a Christian,” and maintain the validity of that statement. One cannot make this statement and follow up by stating, “But I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead.” The speaker of such a statement would have fallen so outside the foundations of the claim that the claim itself ceases to be relevant and valid. The claimant has in fact become something else, but the thing that she is, is not a Christian. One could not claim, “I am a Marxist, but I believe that capitalism is good for people.” Or, “I am a vegetarian but..(already cited).” “I am a Muslim but I do not believe that Muhammad was the Prophet of God.” These statements are contradictions in terms. And the second qualifier of each statement invalidates the assertion of the first. “Sarah Palin is a feminist,” is one such statement.

 

Feminism does have foundations. They are theoretical. They are political. And they are ethical. Firstly, central to feminist theory is “the radical idea that women are human beings,” and (secondly) as such, are entitled to the same rights, protections, privileges and opportunities that are extended to other human beings. The feminist movement is a political revolution, which seeks to bring that equality to realization under the law; socially, politically and institutionally. Ethically, the feminist movement seeks justice, not only for women but for  all living beings and creatures that would be exploited and abused by unjust systems of power. The feminist movement has a tradition of engagement in efforts to end violence against women and all other beings; to respect the earth; to protect the weak and the vulnerable.

 

Sarah Palin? A “new version of feminism?” This statement is a contradiction in terms so contradictory it is internally invalidated.

What kind of “feminist?” One that prohibits abortion even when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? One that would place the defense of a Book above the defense of human beings? Above justice? One that would perceive the earth and its animals as mere pawns for human exploitation? One that calls upon the name of God to justify war, which historically offers up innocent women and children as unwilling sacrifices? One that re-victimizes women who are victims of rape by making them pay for the State’s evidence against the rapist? One that would create those very circumstances in which abortions may be necessary because she opposes contraception and sex education? Shoot. That's not a new feminism. It's the old patriarchy. Sarah Palin is no feminist and saying that she is doesn’t make it so.