by Lisa Conley
Today’s contribution to Huffington Post’s Politics page, “Why the pro-women movement should and will replace feminism” by Amy Siskind, President and Co-Founder of The New Agenda, not only illustrates a narrow definition of feminism but also peddles a junk pluralism that easily becomes apologetic for social discrimination.
First, the problems with her understanding of feminism. Siskind states that today’s feminism is “divisive, proactively exclusionary and [openly] hostile towards women of different ideologies.” She goes on to say that our society will never have gender equality because today’s feminists view some women “as less than equal.” Her case in point, Palin and the debate over whether Susan B. Anthony, one of Palin’s alleged “heroes,” would have been pro choice or not. Never mind that Palin has in the past made Alaskan women pay for their own rape kits, Siskind implies that having a debate over women’s choice is divisive for women and hence gender equality will never exist in the US because of divisive feminists who think themselves superior to certain women (read: politically right, conservative, religious women of which Palin is the supposed archetype).
By steering the conversation into this corner Siskind glosses over the most important fact that levels her entire critique of today’s feminism (which is actually more diverse than the one strand of thought she wants to believe): the difference between people themselves and people’s ideas. One can blast another person’s ideological arguments out of the water, yet still respect them as a person and even fight for their rights to make whatever choices they want. Siskind’s conflation of people and their ideas is the classic straw person argument. She builds up what is essentially a non-issue so that she can offer her “solution” to this issue, which leads me to the second point, Siskind’s junk pluralism.
Siskind’s call for a new agenda, a “’pro-women’ movement led, initially, by women on the right,” that is “less divisive” is in reality a call for a junk pluralism which negates the rights of others through granting legitimacy to marginalizing platforms which have (and this is important) historically restricted the choices of women and the queer community in the name of narrowly interpreted Biblical passages or moral superiority. (Again, here, I am going with the conflation Siskind makes which combines the political right, conservatives, and the religious right of which Palin is invoked to represent.) The right has often used Biblical passages as “proof” that women should be subordinate to their husbands since woman was created from Adam’s rib and gays are an abomination because the book of Leviticus says a man should not lie with another man. When Siskind mentions the word “inclusive” while giving us her option, the new agenda, “The movement is inclusive, current, and refreshingly focused on supporting women” what she really means is inclusive if you’re a middle class, white Christian women with anti-choice values.
But Siskind does ask a good question, albeit in grossly simplistic dichotomous political terms. “Why should we care whether it’s Republican or Democratic women (or both) who lead us to gender equality?” This question is good because it raises nuanced and more important questions. Is gender equality a battle fought only between men and women? What about the queer community? Simply because someone has a vagina, does that make them warriors in the fight for gender equality? Which Republican and Democratic women in positions of political power are fighting for gender equality and what are their ideas?
Siskind’s “pro-women” movement implies that feminists are not “pro- women” just like the political right framed the wording of reproductive rights (pro-life means you love life, whereas pro-choice by default doesn’t support life…) It also assumes that all ideas and political stances are equal- which is not true. If all ideas were too be tolerated as equally legitimate, the Civil Rights Act would not have occurred because there would have been no moral or ethical outrage at the outright discrimination in our country that was both socially and politically accepted. What Siskind fails to understand is it doesn’t matter who the person that leads us to gender equality is (and whether or not they have a vagina), what does matter is their ideas. Some ideas should not be tolerated. Denying people the right to eat at a lunch counter because of the color of their skin should not be tolerated. Denying a person opportunities, the right to marry (or not) whomever they want, doing with their body whatever they want, or a plethora of other choices simply because one has a vagina or identifies as a woman should not be tolerated.
In a gut-wrenching statement Siskind says, “Even if we don’t agree with the ideology of Liz Cheney, Gov. Jan Brewer or Rep Michele Bachmann, it’s refreshing and imperative to finally hear women’s voices in our national discourse.” What is it exactly that is supposed to make the ideology of Liz Cheney, Jan Brewer, Michele Bachman, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham satisfying if “we don’t agree” with them- their vaginas? Let’s consider some of their statements we should all celebrate simply because these woman are in the public discourse.
Liz Cheney on Obama saying the death of nine people aboard an aid ship to Gaza was tragic, “Yesterday, President Obama said the Israeli action to stop the flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip was “tragic”…There is no middle ground here. Either the United States stands with the people of Israel in the war against radical Islamic terrorism or we are providing encouragement to Israel’s enemies — and our own.”
Michele Bachmann on civic participation, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”
Michelle Malkin on her expertise of epidemiology and belief that immigrants are disease-ridden, “I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration.”
Ann Coulter on environmentalism and unlimited greed, “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
And to really drive home how pro-women Ann Coulter is, here’s Ann on purity, “”Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let’s just call it for what it is. They’re whores.” And Coulter on women voting: “I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”
So you see, these women might not have the most agreeable stances, but one thing they do have is a vagina! Never mind they are spreading their bigotry on the national scene, we should all jump for joy!
Right?
Wrong.
Interesting that it’s clowns like this woman who tend to be criticized on here, rather than anti-feminists who are at least sophisticated enough to form an argument. But primitive as Siskind shows herself to be, your attempt at a rebuttal is not much better.
To start with your paragraph on toleration. One can tolerate ideas without endorsing them and this is the spirit of the First Amendment. So in that sense every expression of ideas (excepting fighting words, time place and manner, etc.) is “equally legitimate”, even if some people find some of the ideas stupid and offensive. Though I’m well aware that many progressives want further restrictions on free speech, I don’t think that’s what you’re going for when you say “some ideas should not be tolerated”. I think you mean that actually putting into practice some of these ideas–like racial discrimination–should be outlawed. OK (though I don’t necessarily agree with your examples). But that’s outlawing behavior, not ideas. More to the point, Siskind criticizes a set of ideas she calls feminism, which shows that she does not view all ideas and political stances as equally plausible or equally beneficial, as you claim she does.
“Side One has made Argument A in the past, Argument A is a bad one, therefore Side One is wrong.” I would expect this kind of inference from Siskind, but there it is in your post: “The right has often used Biblical passages as “proof”….”. Undeniable, but irrelevant–and not just because no one claims that a wife is her husband’s slave, which I guess is something like what you meant by “subordinate”. The argument from the Bible is the worst argument from the right, but what about the better ones (e.g. many women are happier when their husband makes most decisions for them; woman should stay at home because they have a comparative advantage in homemaking, etc.)? Maybe they’re not convincing, but it’s Siskind-like to act like they don’t exist.
“Siskind’s call… is in reality a call for a junk pluralism which negates the rights of others through granting legitimacy to marginalizing platforms which have (and this is important) historically restricted the choices of women and the queer community in the name of narrowly interpreted Biblical passages or moral superiority.” What does this even mean?
“what she really means is inclusive if you’re a middle class, white Christian women with anti-choice values.” 1) “anti-choice”–and you talk about the right’s partisan framing, jesus. The right is “anti-choice” about abortion in the same way that it’s “anti-choice” about rape: the act is just wrong and you should not be allowed to do it. 2) Your list of luminaries at the end implies that Siskind is in fact too inclusive, rather than too exclusive. Whether you believe that on reflection or whether it’s just part of your attempt to smear the pro-women movement by giving the least charitable interpretation of its views, I couldn’t say. At the very least, many of those women are not middle-class, and I’m sure there are people who agree with the pro-women movement who are non-white, non-middle-class, non-Christian, and non-”anti-choice”.
But you’ve totally misunderstood Siskind’s remarks about it being “refreshing and imperative” etc. She pretty clearly meant that it’s nice to see that women are in positions where they are a part of public and political life. So the point is not that their ideologies are good or interesting because they are women, but merely the fact that they are prominent commentators even though they have vaginae. This banal observation is supposed to function as a way of summing up how far the movement of Anthony has succeeded, and as a way of gathering consensus between pro-women people and feminists.
I wonder what your reaction says about today’s feminism. Divisive, proactively exclusionary, and hostile towards women of different ideologies all come to mind.
Skimpole, I think it’s important to address your statement that “[t]he right is “anti-choice” about abortion in the same way that it’s “anti-choice” about rape: the act is just wrong and you should not be allowed to do it.”
This doesn’t add anything to the conversation because it’s obvious. Yes, anti-choicers are against choosing abortion because they think it’s wrong; we call them anti-choicers because we think it is not wrong. Someone who opposed, uh, choosing to wear pants would also be “anti-choice” because they oppose something that we don’t think should be opposed. We think their calling us anti-life or pro-death (as you suggested in a former comment, I believe) is inappropriate because we are not opposed to life or promoting death because abortion does not equate with death (in our minds). So whichever side’s “partisan framing” is truly “framing” (as in, stretching the truth) depends on which side is “wrong.”
Actually I’d say both sides are doing a lot of partisan framing. It’s pretty much inevitable in talking about abortion. You frame it as a question of freedom, They frame it as a question of life. One response to that fact is to recognize that the labels are distracting and just call each side by what it wants to be called, rather than trying to make petty points through name-calling.
But I think calling a person you disagree with “anti-choice” is particularly misleading because it makes it seem like they want to dominate people (women) and tell them what to do–basically like calling them paternalists or authoritarians. That’s not really the case, though. They accept (some do, anyway) something like Mill’s harm principle, that a person can do what she wants with her body and her life so long as it doesn’t harm other people. At that level of abstraction that’s hardly an “anti-choice” position . The difference is that they think a fetus is another person, and thus that in abortion as in rape another person is harmed, so they think abortion is wrong. You make it sound like they are fundamentally against people (women) being able to make significant choices for themselves, when in reality all they are committed to is that on this particular issue there is only one acceptable course of action.
I’ve never heard of people being called “anti-life” (though I’m sure it happens a lot), but you see how that misrepresents your position. Well, you do the same to your opponents. A more accurate name would be “anti-abortion”, since it is that particular thing they oppose and not the principle of individual choice in general.
By the way, the pro-death thing was a joke, the point being that no one ever labels themselves something that sounds bad. But I suppose there probably are people who seriously call anti-anti-abortion activists by that title. I never underestimate the ability of fanatics to lose touch with reality.
@ Skimpole,
When I say some ideas should not be tolerated, I mean hateful bigotry and discrimination against a certain group of people based on characteristics they can not change (not their ideas) should not be given legitimacy in the public arena.
For example, the KKK shouldn’t be given a legitimate media outlet on which to broadcast their hate for other races. For the most part, society in general agrees with that and doesn’t allow the KKK that public platform. On the other hand, someone like Palin who bases most of her rhetoric on civic illiteracy, misinformation, blatant lies, and fear-mongering does currently have access to the public but simply because she has attained that status, it does not mean her ideas are helpful to society. In fact, her ideas are usually divisive, politically manipulative, and full of hate. We shouldn’t congratulate the holders of these ideas for sharing them publicly and lowering the standards of public discourse.
The implication from Siskind’s article (and perhaps I did not make this clear) is that she thinks we should rally behind women like Palin simply because they are women in the spotlight and women have been excluded from said spotlight for so long. I think that is junk pluralism because it grossly neglects the hateful speech and ideology of people like Palin, Malkin, Coulter, etc.
You said, Siskind’s banal observation is her “way of gathering consensus between pro-women people and feminists.” According to the title of her article, she is not looking to build consensus but to supplant feminism which she thinks marginalizes the political right- the people she said should lead the pro-woman movement.
And tangentially, “The argument from the Bible is the worst argument from the right, but what about the better ones (e.g. many women are happier when their husband makes most decisions for them; woman should stay at home because they have a comparative advantage in homemaking, etc.)? ” Are you seriously equating working at home with having no say over the decisions made in your household? I think most feminists support women in choosing to do what they want- work outside of home or in it, even choosing to let their husbands make all the decisions, but the whole point is they choose themselves and have the option.
Columnists usually don’t choose the titles to their articles, and second-rate tabloids like the huffpo usually don’t miss an opportunity to rack up page views.
To start at the end: no, I wasn’t equating anything with anything. What I was trying to do was come up with an interpretation of “women should be subordinate to their husbands” that some people on the right would actually endorse. An example of something that no one endorses is that women should have “no say over the decisions made in their household”. One plausible one is “Women should stay at home and be dependent on their husbands for financial support”, so I suggested an argument for that. Anyway, it isn’t your readers’ job to make you sound plausible, it’s yours. And you haven’t done a great job of it here.
For example: It’s still unclear what you’re talking about not tolerating. Is it ideas, speech, or actions? Even though you said ideas originally, I do not (cannot) believe you’re advocating putting thoughtcrime on the books. Certainly you think that discriminatory behavior should not be allowed, which is a mostly uncontroversial view though not one I agree with. So I guess you mean speech? In that case, I don’t understand what you mean by “society” giving groups “legitimacy”. The very fact that anyone can say anything in a public place means that no view gains “legitimacy” simply by virtue of being expressed in a public place. That guy on the corner of Prospect tells me I should repent; has “society” given him “legitimacy” by allowing him to speak his mind?
Or maybe you mean that the media–that is, private businesses–should not let certain people/groups express their views. “FOX should not let Sarah Palin appear on their shows” is the sort of thing you mean, I think. Great idea, my only question is, who decides which people are not allowed to appear on TV or in print, and which ideas are helpful or hurtful to “society”? You? What your position amounts to is the claim that certain people who disagree with you should not be allowed to be heard or seen, because their ideas are full of hate and intellectually worthless.
I won’t even mention how disgusting and arrogant and illiberal this view is, nor how unconstitutional it would be for the government to implement it, nor how stupid it would be to implement it if they could (what happens when the Republicans control the Senate?); instead I’ll just mention how needless it is. What’s on TV and in newspapers is what people want to hear. When’s the last time the KKK was on? Who would watch a channel that praised it? If, say, the NYT has writers who frequently make false and/or nasty claims, then it loses credibility–as in fact the NYT did after the Nifong affair.
To the extent the public agrees in despising something, it’s never heard from. Then when the public disagrees, you hear from multiple viewpoints. Humility and common sense would suggest that when millions of people disagree with you, it might be worth considering whether you’re actually right. You take a rather different view, where the fact that millions of people disagree with you means it’s all the more urgent that you silence the people they listen to.
@ Skimpole,
By granting legitimacy I mean acting as if the ideas of Palin and her ilk are legitimate, should be listened to, will improve society, etc. We act, as a society, that the divisive ideas of Palin are credible by giving her air and print time. It is my position that she, or the other women Siskind listed, should not be able to spread her hateful speech in the public arena. It does not have to be your position, but it is mine.
I kind of just don’t know what to say to someone who flat-out rejects the principle of freedom of speech. My snarkiest response would be to quote your post and replace Palin with Thomas Paine or Frederick Douglass. How is reform/progress supposed to happen if the only ideas that can be discussed are the ones an established authority has certified as beneficial to society?
It makes no sense to say that “we as a society” (how I loathe that phrase) give Palin credibility. “We” don’t give Palin airtime. I don’t. You don’t. Shirlz doesn’t. Lebron doesn’t. There was no referendum on whether Palin should be allowed to exercise her First Amendment rights–unless you count the ratification of the Constitution, which you evidently don’t care about. It’s individual outlets like FOX that put her on. If FOX puts Palin on, and you think Palin is awful, don’t take FOX seriously–as progressives don’t. It isn’t written in stone that because FOX or NYT says something it has to be true or worth listening to (“legitimate”, as you would say). Rupert Murdoch puts Palin on the air; a guy stands on the corner of Prospect and tells me to repent. I don’t really see too much of a difference between the two. How has “society” given “legitimacy” to the former but not the latter? Maybe you’ll say because Palin has a wider audience. So give the Prospect guy a big-ass megaphone. Is he more “legitimate” now?
Talking about the “legitimacy” of speech is literally meaningless in the US, because there are no content-based restrictions on speech. The government does not endorse any particular opinion as legitimate or as illegitimate. So since it isn’t the government, who or what exactly is conferring “legitimacy” on Sarah Palin? Who or what do you mean by “we as a society”?
Are you European?
Siskind’s question about whether right wing women can lead women to equality just as well as left wing women might be good, but the fact that she and her supporters feel the need to change the feminist movement into a ‘pro-woman’ movement only proves that they are mindful to label themselves feminist, and therefore in due time when the patriarchy begins to oppose the concept of pro-womanism, they will be sure to alienate themselves from that struggle as well.
I’m opting out of such a fickle pro-conservative campaign
This video from The Nation sums up the problems of blindly accepting women like Palin under the guise of junk pluralism.
http://www.thenation.com/video/katrina-vanden-heuvel-and-melissa-harris-lacewell-year-woman