Consciousness Raising

NRO's Lisa Shiffren's not very happy about The Washington Post's "women are dumb" op-ed kick:

As far as I can tell, there is more than enough stupidity out there to go round. When it's a writer with a dumb idea for a column, the idea is that an editor will exercise better judgement. I'm not an oversensitive feminist. But as a rule, "women are really stupid" columns aren't funny even when written by women.

Note the requisite I'm not one of those feminists! disclaimer here. But this is just what it's about. Shiffren, like an awful lot of people, don't think that major newspaper op-ed pages should just be offering up random misogyny as their political commentary and then claiming they were just joking when people get pissed off. That's feminism.

Comments

That's feminism.

The definition of feminism has in the past been, and I suspect continues to be, a matter of broad debate. But I guess now that a man has weighed in....

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 4, 2008 10:12 AM

If Feminists feel the need to tell people they aren't feminists, that really says it all doesn't it?
Maybe making feminism entire about putting right, white women on equal footing with rich, white men was a mistake? Perhaps they would have a wider array of adherents if they had put the focus on at least SOME issues that effect poorer white women or women of color? Lets be honest, few women making 30k a year care if their male counterparts make 33k a year. More of them would prefer government sponsored child-care and assistance to making sure that rich white women can be CEO's and make the same multi-million Dollar salaries that men do. That's not progress, thats the consolidation of power entirely in one class.

Posted by Soullite | March 4, 2008 10:13 AM

Seriously, the mere fact that crap like this still gets printed in the Washington Post shows how worthless most feminists have been. You can't force change without unity. You can not have unity if you're only looking to preserve and expand the privileges of a small minority of women.

I never thought I'd see the day when I was wishing all feminists were more like Amanda Marcotte, but if her views were most standard, I'd imagine their movement would have gotten a whole lot further by now.

Posted by Soullite | March 4, 2008 10:19 AM

Compare to K-Lo, who's typically thoughtful reaction was: "I love it."

Shiffren, like an awful lot of people, don't think that major newspaper op-ed pages should just be offering up random misogyny as their political commentary and then claiming they were just joking when people get pissed off. That's feminism.

I think what Schiffren said is that she is not an "oversensitive" feminist. I think it's a fair distinction to make.

Posted by right | March 4, 2008 10:24 AM

Feminism is a whole political ideology and movement. You're not a communist just because you believe in poverty relief programs, and you're not a feminist just because you find explicit and factually dubious misogyny objectionable.

There is, for instance, a lot of space for someone to A) object to "women are stupid" articles, and B) believe that there are important inherent differences between women's and men's characters. I would even suspect that an intelligent adherent to the whole equal-but-separate-spheres argument (a species of B) would on account of that belief feel the need to object to conflation of B with A.

Posted by Benquo | March 4, 2008 10:29 AM

Maybe making feminism entire about putting right, white women on equal footing with rich, white men was a mistake?

So you think that feminists don't care about poor women? Have you ever thought about why feminists get worked up about abortion rights? You can surf over to a place like pandagon, easily one of the more 'shrill' feminists out there, and you will find plenty of concern for this issue and it's because as abortion rights are limited it is poor and minority women who suffer first and foremost. It's certainly not rich, white women who need abortion available via medicaid.

Now, there are a lot of self-identified feminists who see the insidious work of the patriarchy everywhere. That is probably who Schiffren is distancing herself from.

Posted by mpowell | March 4, 2008 10:31 AM

Loved it and the reaction to it, so far.

Yes, much of the article was tongue-in-cheek but there were some salient points as well. How many of us are sick of the "time to put a woman in the Presidency" as the sole raison d'etre of a clinton campaign? Similarly the cult of personality surrounding the obama campaign is often bereft of issue analysis. This campaign SHOULD be fought & won on serious issues (life and death for our friends/families fighting for our government in iraq and economic stability at home being two of them) -- we should be looking for the electorate to be serious and seriously informed.

Anything that causes this much comment and potentially focuses the marginal electorate on what is (or what I deem to be) important is good news.

Posted by mike c | March 4, 2008 10:31 AM

"think what Schiffren said is that she is not an "oversensitive" feminist. I think it's a fair distinction to make"

Me too. I thought that was far better than the "I'm not a feminist" you'd expect from NRO.

Posted by David in NY | March 4, 2008 10:41 AM

Given that none of it was tongue in cheek, we now know mike c can't actually read.

Posted by Rob | March 4, 2008 10:43 AM

mike c nails it. the decision to vote for the presidency should be based solely on the strength of the candidates' desire to keep us engaged in a thousand years war just so we can feel good as a nation that we are making sacrifices for the most transcendent cause of our generation.

Posted by gregor | March 4, 2008 10:43 AM

Another pointis that Shiffren herself is not much of an ally in the cause of feminism. But it's worth noting that there are some kinds of misogyny that we can get a much larger group than normal to condemn.

Posted by mpowell | March 4, 2008 10:46 AM

Presumably Ms. Schiffren would prefer to see an investigative piece on how communists coerced white women into mixed marriages with black men.

Posted by Tim | March 4, 2008 10:47 AM

While it's obviously ridiculous for someone to smear all women as silly and stupid, I would think Lisa "Obama is a product of Commie miscegenation" Schiffren ought to embrace the argument. At least she could point to the article and say, "See? It's not just me."

Posted by nitpicker | March 4, 2008 10:51 AM

Schiffren isn't really a feminist, I think. There's a "good for me, but not for thee" note common to a lot of successful conservative female writers and activists. Phyllis Schlafly comes to mind in this regard. Schiffren, particularly, and not only on this issue, seems to embody some of the more reflexive aspects of paleo-conservatism with, at least to me, undetectable self-awareness.

Posted by AemJeff | March 4, 2008 10:54 AM

I am an oversensitive feminist.

Posted by southpaw | March 4, 2008 10:59 AM

The notion that the appearance of such misogynistic writings as the Washington Post's editorial is the fault of the feminists is ludicrous. How about you blame patriarchy for a change? Considering the political backlash from the right against feminism over the recent years, it is not surprising that women feel cautious about declaring themselves feminists. The left, I am afraid, also has a skimpy record in embracing feminism: the fight for gender equality. The current political discussions on both sides of the political spectrum unfortunately demonstrate how entrenched misogyny is in our political culture.

Posted by Zee | March 4, 2008 11:17 AM

I agree with Matt's understanding of what feminism is. But there is such a thing as oversensitive feminism. Here's a good example (actually maybe it's more delusional than oversensitive):

"The issue that's not being talked about in this campaign is the blatant sexism," Wagner [a regional director for NOW] said, her words echoing off the granite walls. "There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they'll take a black man over a woman. I never thought, in 2008, that we'd still be dealing with this."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302990_pf.html

Posted by Geoff | March 4, 2008 12:30 PM

I agree with Matt's understanding of what feminism is. But there is such a thing as oversensitive feminism. Here's a good example (actually maybe it's more delusional than oversensitive):

"The issue that's not being talked about in this campaign is the blatant sexism," Wagner [a regional director for NOW] said, her words echoing off the granite walls. "There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they'll take a black man over a woman. I never thought, in 2008, that we'd still be dealing with this."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302990_pf.html

Posted by Geoff | March 4, 2008 12:31 PM

But I guess now that a man has weighed in....

Heh. Indeed

Posted by libarbarian | March 4, 2008 2:09 PM

"Considering the political backlash from the right against feminism over the recent years, it is not surprising that women feel cautious about declaring themselves feminists. The left, I am afraid, also has a skimpy record in embracing feminism: the fight for gender equality. The current political discussions on both sides of the political spectrum unfortunately demonstrate how entrenched misogyny is in our political culture.

Posted by Zee | March 4, 2008 11:17 AM"

Very true. Every time I hear anyone say something like "I'm not a feminist, but..." I want to scream. The political discourse in this country has made feminism = Dworkin = man-hating feminazi instead of what it is for most feminists, believing men and women are equal in character and, when given the chance, equal in potential and should be allowed an equal chance to pursue that while also fighting against misogyny and violence towards women.

"Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they'll take a black man over a woman. I never thought, in 2008, that we'd still be dealing with this."

Posted by Geoff | March 4, 2008 12:31 PM"

Wow, Wagner has gone off the deep end. A lot of people would have wanted to vote for Colin Powell in 1996 instead of Clinton, after all. What really is wrong with choosing a black man over a woman, especially on the issues? I could see her point if, all things being equal, it was a white woman against a black man, but what is her point even? I'm not really even sure if she has a train of thought here. NOW, which I usually support, has not come out looking well in this election.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 2:12 PM