In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

If you can’t beat them and you won’t join them, you can at least take their names

Guest: Brigid

In the Washington Post today, Lisa Miller brings what looks like old, unwelcome news to feminists like me:

Now, in a reversal, some conservative Christian women are tentatively claiming the feminist label for themselves. In the reframing, feminism has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose an abortion or with government programs for the poor.

Instead, a “feminist” is a fiscally conservative, pro-life butt-kicker in public, a cooperative helpmate at home, and a Christian wife and mother, above all. Rep. Michele Bachmann is Exhibit A. With her relentless attacks on big government and a widely circulated 2006 video in which she credits her professional success to the submission of her will to Jesus and her husband, Bachmann represents “a new definition of feminism,” says Stephen Bannon, director of “Fire From the Heartland,” a 2010 movie about the female leaders of the tea party.

Recognizing conservative women’s “girl power” image as an underhanded ploy to actually limit women’s power is nothing new; nor is the need to make clear why feminism, if it is honest, must stand for true equality, bodily autonomy, and intersectional justice.

Still, it may be worth noting that this season’s crop of powerful female conservatives have gone from demonizing feminists to taking the label as their own. How this move will play out, both for their political prospects and for the feminist movement in the United States, remains to be seen.

But we don’t have to take it as a loss. After all — Palin and Bachmann will never thank us, but they wouldn’t be here without feminists. And they cannot help but prove us right.

(Hat tip for the article goes to N, who handed it to me over breakfast this morning.)

36 thoughts on If you can’t beat them and you won’t join them, you can at least take their names

  2. The adjective “butt-kicker” implies these fools actually get stuff done. Anyone want to count how many pieces of legislation Michele Bachmann has passed in her entire lifetime?

  3. It’s very modest reform that more liberal Christian groups have embraced for decades, if not centuries. Now, women can be seen and heard, but they can still speak out against their own interests. Does this classify as Feminism?

    Not in the orthodox definition. But I suppose in some respect it’s good to see stuff like this, just like I’m glad that Young Republicans are increasingly LGBT affirming. The Megan McCainss of the world are conservative in basic policy but more socially liberal. Depressing as it might seen, maybe that’s the best we can expect.

  4. The adjective “butt-kicker” implies these fools actually get stuff done. Anyone want to count how many pieces of legislation Michele Bachmann has passed in her entire lifetime?

    That number would be roughly equivalent to the number of pre-born angels in heaven if the godless liberals hadn’t ganged up on her because she is a Christian.

  6. What’s depressing is that people are even fighting over a label as if the *label* were the most important thing. I mean even if the definition of feminism becomes so distorted that it can actually encompass that whole Bachmann/Palin nightmare, it doesn’t mean shit for whether the individual political ideas have merit. Would it be such an alien concept to discuss the pros and cons of ideas on their own?

  7. I believe some conservatives support conservative women as a way to argue that true female power is inherently conservative. The new version tells us to look at all these successful conservative women and contrast that with the male leadership of, say, the Democratic Party. The point is to say, see, all these liberal feminists claim to stand for womens’ empowerment but they aren’t in power themselves. So their claims are invalid; women can’t achieve power by demanding it, they can only do so by being conservative. Even if this means rejecting the intellectual frameworks that have been used to identify sexism, opposing womens’ reproductive rights, saying that the highest aim of a woman is to be a mother, or opposing laws that would empower women.

    To me it sounds somewhat like a really old argument used to oppose women who struggle for empowerment: when abolitionists began to speak publicly in favor of womens’ rights, male authors would argue that womens’ true power is their weakness and moral purity. If they adhered to that, conservative sensibility would protect them. If they demanded rights or tried to be “manly”, they would come to ruin. The ground of the contest has shifted, but the basic tactics haven’t. The conservative parry is still the notion that only by giving up the political rights at stake can women be truly powerful.

  8. *headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk*

    Did everyone hear Bachmann say that women should be submissive to their husbands, then as a shining example claim that she asked her husband’s PERMISSION to go law school?

    I REALLY don’t like telling people that they’re not feminists, or that they are. Telling people what they are/aren’t is douchey. But! But! But! …Can we vote someone out of feminism?

  9. The semi-funny thing about this is that it means RWers will have to stop using “feminist” as an insult, if their own people embrace it as a (wrongly-applied) label.

    And you know…I can serve you a bowl of hot chicken noodle soup and call it gazpacho, but that doesn’t make it fuckin’ gazpacho, because by definition gazpacho is neither hot nor contains chicken or noodles.

    Likewise, they can serve me a hot steaming plate of submission to the patriarchy and repression of my bodily autonomy rights and they can call it feminism all they want…but it ain’t no kind of feminism I’ve ever tasted.

  10. Nahida: *headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk headdesk*

    Did everyone hear Bachmann say that women should be submissive to their husbands, then as a shining example claim that she asked her husband’s PERMISSION to go law school?

    Not only that, she went into tax law even though it was something she hated because he told her to.

  11. Not only that, she went into tax law even though it was something she hated because he told her to.

    I thought god told her to do tax law.

  13. According to Slate, it was god speaking through Marcus Bachmann.

    I don’t quite know what to make of the fact that we’re discussing whether or not a presidential candidate’s god or husband told her to go into tax law…

  14. FashionablyEvil: I don’t quite know what to make of the fact that we’re discussing whether or not a presidential candidate’s god or husband told her to go into tax law…

    Scary isn’t it? :S

  15. To me it sounds somewhat like a really old argument used to oppose women who struggle for empowerment: . . . the notion that only by giving up the political rights at stake can women be truly powerful.

    Pretty much. They enforce a double standard and demand that women seek only the type of power that’s dependent on male approval and subject to male veto, and say that this is totally the same value as the power that men have, and then use their approval and veto power to require that the expenditure of women’s power serve patriarchy’s interests.

    I don’t think either of them would’ve gotten near as far if they weren’t so vociferously pro-life, or anti-feminist. If Palin were just a female Tim Pawlenty, saying very little about abortion or women or her own family at all, just having a quiet governorship with the occasional budget fight and the occasional concealed-carry law for conservative credentials, I don’t think she’d have ever seen a shot at the Presidency.

    It’s almost the political version of “tits or GTFO” on the internet—unless her womanhood is going to be specifically useful in and of itself, why give her a spot that could go to a man?

  16. I don’t quite know what to make of the fact that we’re discussing whether or not a presidential candidate’s god or husband told her to go into tax law…

    The whole point and goal of Patriarchy is that they be effectively the same thing.

  18. Michelle Bachmann continues to make every woman in Minnesota feel embarrassed. *Sigh* I’m tempted to suggest to the Legislature that every citizen in the Eighth District be forced to issue a written apology before they get their stupid bridge. If they can write at this point.

  19. The whole point and goal of Patriarchy is that they be effectively the same thing.

    Gross.

    True, as Annaleigh said. But also gross. Like, reading that made me wrinkle my nose and go “Ugh”.

  20. Kyra:
    I don’t think either of them would’ve gotten near as far if they weren’t so vociferously pro-life, or anti-feminist. If Palin were just a female Tim Pawlenty, saying very little about abortion or women or her own family at all, just having a quiet governorship with the occasional budget fight and the occasional concealed-carry law for conservative credentials, I don’t think she’d have ever seen a shot at the Presidency.

    Yup- a strong exhibit for this argument although she’s a Senator, is Kay Bailey Hutchison.

  22. Ashley:
    I see. Because we don’t have enough definitions of feminism as it is. Blah.

    I don’t think it’s that there are many different definitions, just that there are many different types of feminism. 1st wave, 2nd wave, 3rd wave, lipstick feminism, radical feminism, post feminism, post-post feminism. And everyone thinks their way is best, etc.

  23. This is precisely what happens when you try to bring people to feminism who aren’t sufficiently politicized by expanding the definition to the point where people don’t see the term as threatening. I take this as further evidence that feminism is an ineffective issue to organize around. Sad, but true.

  24. Part of any successful movement will entail infiltrators AND traitors alike. It’s up to the ‘movement’ participants to ensure its success. Of course this post does nothing to address the singular focus of certain women in making sure they address their needs at the expense of others, the hypocritical messages offered to the masses that the leaders didn’t do privately, the vilification of femininity, the competitive jockeying against and disdain for men, the racism and other issues that women who refer to themselves as feminists engage in. Yet the ‘problem’ is supposed to be women like Bachmann alone? A look in the mirror is required first!!

  25. Being a feminist who believes women are inferior and should be submissive is like being an atheist who believes in god and goes to church. You’re just….not.

  27. Amanda Marcotte:
    Being a feminist who believes women are inferior and should be submissive is like being an atheist who believes in god and goes to church.You’re just….not.

    Oh this was my thought. I wonder what the reaction would be if, for example, I declared myself a Republican for believing in small government – beginning with deregulation of certain recreational drugs, all sex work, who can and cannot marry, etc.

  28. I wonder what the reaction would be if, for example, I declared myself a Republican for believing in small government – beginning with deregulation of certain recreational drugs, all sex work, who can and cannot marry, etc.

    You’d be a left-libertarian and the GOP would welcome you with open arms all the way up until your vote was cast and they started barking about Jesus. But by then it would be too late. Then you’d get bitter and vote Libertarian for a couple of election cycles until you realized that they didn’t have a prayer at the national level and at the local level you accidentally voted for a pro-lifer. You might get all worked up about Ron Paul until you found out he was a racist. You’d get swept up in the change rhetoric only to find out that the party-in-opposition was basically the same as the party-in-power. Eventually you’d stop voting because its a sucker’s game and only grants legitimacy to an irredeemable lie and….

    Sorry. Kind of a ranty revery that was.

  30. William: You’d be a left-libertarian and the GOP would welcome you with open arms all the way up until your vote was cast and they started barking about Jesus. But by then it would be too late. Then you’d get bitter and vote Libertarian for a couple of election cycles until you realized that they didn’t have a prayer at the national level and at the local level you accidentally voted for a pro-lifer. You might get all worked up about Ron Paul until you found out he was a racist. You’d get swept up in the change rhetoric only to find out that the party-in-opposition was basically the same as the party-in-power. Eventually you’d stop voting because its a sucker’s game and only grants legitimacy to an irredeemable lie and….

    Well don’t sugarcoat it for her now…

  32. Huh. So we’ve got the “I’m not a feminist, but I believe in [X feminist idea]” crowd, and the “I am a feminist, but I don’t believe in [X feminist idea]” crowd. Can we try smooshing them both together and see if they explode? 😀

  33. I don’t know. I feel like there ought to be room for what might be called “Ainsley Hayes Feminism” (so – named for the “West Wing” character). Surely, there are women out there who are at once pro – choice, supportive of GLBTQ rights, sharp – tongued and as fiscally conservative as any card – carrying libertarian. I’ve met a few. If the numbers have grown, it has to be because of the truly global character of today’s 18-34’s.

    I’ve brought this “West Wing” scene up before in discussions, and I think it gets at what I’m trying to address. Ainsley Hayes and some other staffers are writing a UN speech or somesuch, and the W.H.’s Dep. Communications Director is bugged because a subordinate working with Hayes has called him out on a joke he used in front of Hayes, the newest hire. Ainsley just keeps shrugging it off, and the other staffer won’t let it go.

    Staffer: “I think you let your sexuality diminish your power.”
    Ainsley Hayes: “I don’t even know what that means.”
    Staffer: “I think you do.”
    Ainsley Hayes: “And I think you think I’m made of candy glass.”
    Staffer: “What kind of feminism is that?”
    Ainsley Hayes: “Mine.”

    This is not to say Hayes doesn’t have her breaking point, as she is cussed out and given dead flowers by a couple of punk – guys she works with, but I think the lesson of an Ainsley Hayes is that women ought to be able to name their views and boundaries without being instantly subjected to their harmful “call – out culture” about which Jill has written so eloquently here.

    Are all conservative women feminists? No. To be pro “Reparative Therapy,” as Bachmann is, for instance, is to be anti – feminist and anti – woman (as well as anti – science, but we’ll let that go for now) because surely, that practice has done many women enormous emotional and physical harm. To oppose abortion without exception is to be anti – feminist and woman because a woman’s health is not taken into account. These are a couple of examples.

    I’m kinda new around here, so be gentle. Or not.

  34. Pingback: Daily News Drop | The Progressive Playbook

  35. Bagelsan:
    Huh. So we’ve got the “I’m not a feminist, but I believe in [X feminist idea]” crowd, and the “I am a feminist, but I don’t believe in [X feminist idea]” crowd. Can we try smooshing them both together and see if they explode? 😀

    I realize this comment was perhaps not that seriously meant, but just to nitpick I would like to point out that both these groups contains a lot of reasonable people.

    * “I am a feminist, but I don’t believe in [X feminist idea]”
    Is this 100% of all self identified feminists? Since there are so many different schools and types of feminism, everyone should be able to find some feminist idea to disagree with.

    * “I’m not a feminist, but I believe in [X feminist idea]”
    Depending on how you define feminism and which ideas you classify as “feminist ideas” this should be quite a lot of people also.

    As to the specific “feminists” discussed in the OP, Amanda Marcotte nailed it.

  36. Palin calls herself a feminist, Bachmann does not. Palin doesn’t claim to obey her husband, and said husband isn’t a gay repairer. Bachmann’s anti-abortion stance is fanatical, Palin’s is ambiguous and evasive. I don’t see the problem with admitting that conservative feminism really is a species of feminism.

Comments are currently closed.