One of the reasons I started this blog was to encourage a dialogue among women, and I find there to be no better way to start that than a response to an interview I read early this morning. Boston University recently interviewed an alumn of theirs, Susan Venker, who has recently finished her book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know-- and Men Can't Say (WND Books). While I will state right now that I have not read the book, (yet) the interview, which you can read here, sparked some interesting thoughts.
Although from the get-go I was hesitant to be completely on board with Ms. Venker, mostly because of the stigma-ed way in which she is introduced by her interviewer, most of my issues lie in response to her interview answers and less to her over-all concept. I am always attempting to be true to what my mama taught me as a little girl (and private university education has somewhat re-enforced): to have a strong argument, no matter what it is, you need to acknowledge both sides of the story. Throughout the interview Ms. Venker continuously references "feminism"; however, nowhere in her answers does she define her view of feminism. I find this to be an especially pertinent issue considering she ties it closely to many negative concepts including "self-pitying" and "narrow minded" view points. I hesitate to jump all over her responses right out of the gate simply because it appears to me she is using "feminism" as a blanket term for the negative aspects she doesn't agree with instead of fully explaining who she is talking about. This only serves to further pigeon hole her in the interview making it challenging for the reader (or at least for me) to really be sympathetic to either side of what she is arguing because it is so ambiguous. You mean you want me to either side with an un-defined group you think is irrational, or side with you? No thank you.
I take greater issue with this lack of definition because it is just one of the reasons that I began this blog. To agree with Ms. Venker on some level, "feminism" does get a bad wrap from a lot of people. When I told my close male friends that I was starting a blog and what it was about they took one look at it and said in rather joking or intimidated tones, "oh yeah, its a feminist blog". Which brings to the table the bigger issue in my mind: why does the idea of "feminism" have to be so scary? It almost seems that like any other movement or argument, the concept that sticks in people's minds is the most radical part. Ms. Venker seems to draw on this in her interview, referring to one small faction of the feminist movement to define her entire "enemy". But it seems to me that her idea of the enemy is a little out-dated. The feminists of today are not all angered, man-hating, bra-burning females be-moaning their lack of domestic and work-related rights. The feminists I see are women who have learned to appreciate themselves and their abilities, and who have been taught that they have options. They are women who have been taught that there is power in believing in your ability (as cheese-ball and motivational-speaker-y as that sounds), and that there is value in relationships in which both people's needs and goals are recognized, not just that of one person's. I find nothing in these ideas that is self-pitying or negative, rather that they are empowering. And not just to American women; women all over the world see value in these concepts (in fact, in quite a few non-western cultures these ideas are the foundation of domestic life). Why is it seen as negative to associate yourself with these values by people who are otherwise forward thinking?
I am interested to hear what others think on this matter. I welcome your comments, questions, and rants; share them with everyone! Again, if you missed it the first time around you can read the interview RIGHT HERE.
EDIT: Today is Women's Day! I totally forgot! Isn't that a little ironic? (This is not something I made up. I promise. See: http://www.internationalwomensday.com/ . More on that later.)
Although from the get-go I was hesitant to be completely on board with Ms. Venker, mostly because of the stigma-ed way in which she is introduced by her interviewer, most of my issues lie in response to her interview answers and less to her over-all concept. I am always attempting to be true to what my mama taught me as a little girl (and private university education has somewhat re-enforced): to have a strong argument, no matter what it is, you need to acknowledge both sides of the story. Throughout the interview Ms. Venker continuously references "feminism"; however, nowhere in her answers does she define her view of feminism. I find this to be an especially pertinent issue considering she ties it closely to many negative concepts including "self-pitying" and "narrow minded" view points. I hesitate to jump all over her responses right out of the gate simply because it appears to me she is using "feminism" as a blanket term for the negative aspects she doesn't agree with instead of fully explaining who she is talking about. This only serves to further pigeon hole her in the interview making it challenging for the reader (or at least for me) to really be sympathetic to either side of what she is arguing because it is so ambiguous. You mean you want me to either side with an un-defined group you think is irrational, or side with you? No thank you.
I take greater issue with this lack of definition because it is just one of the reasons that I began this blog. To agree with Ms. Venker on some level, "feminism" does get a bad wrap from a lot of people. When I told my close male friends that I was starting a blog and what it was about they took one look at it and said in rather joking or intimidated tones, "oh yeah, its a feminist blog". Which brings to the table the bigger issue in my mind: why does the idea of "feminism" have to be so scary? It almost seems that like any other movement or argument, the concept that sticks in people's minds is the most radical part. Ms. Venker seems to draw on this in her interview, referring to one small faction of the feminist movement to define her entire "enemy". But it seems to me that her idea of the enemy is a little out-dated. The feminists of today are not all angered, man-hating, bra-burning females be-moaning their lack of domestic and work-related rights. The feminists I see are women who have learned to appreciate themselves and their abilities, and who have been taught that they have options. They are women who have been taught that there is power in believing in your ability (as cheese-ball and motivational-speaker-y as that sounds), and that there is value in relationships in which both people's needs and goals are recognized, not just that of one person's. I find nothing in these ideas that is self-pitying or negative, rather that they are empowering. And not just to American women; women all over the world see value in these concepts (in fact, in quite a few non-western cultures these ideas are the foundation of domestic life). Why is it seen as negative to associate yourself with these values by people who are otherwise forward thinking?
I am interested to hear what others think on this matter. I welcome your comments, questions, and rants; share them with everyone! Again, if you missed it the first time around you can read the interview RIGHT HERE.
EDIT: Today is Women's Day! I totally forgot! Isn't that a little ironic? (This is not something I made up. I promise. See: http://www.internationalwomensday.com/ . More on that later.)
4 comments:
Hello! i just read this article, and then saw your blog post about it. Good timing.
But yes, it is very evident that Venker is shying away from dissecting and conveying her concept and definition of feminism. This bothered me also. At least in the interview, she assumes most everyone has the same understanding of it, and so she moves directly to using profoundly defensive statements to prove her point.
Rarely do I feel that polarizing arguments are effective, and this is the case here. Although I understand the root of her argument and partially agree with what she is trying to say, the manner in which Venker presented her work/ideas do not invite conversation, they only shut down what she does not hold to be true.
Venker has demonstrated that confidence without the courage to dissect details creates a voided argument.
What disappointed me the most about the BU Today interview with Ms. Venker was the timing. While opposing views are encouraged to keep the dialogue for women's advancement strong, it was poor taste to air such radically polarizing statements on a day declared to celebrate women's accomplishments and raise awareness about women's challenges the world over. Not to mention, Venker herself compares her view to other 'refreshing' alternatives "such as Fox News." I'll give her all the credit she wants for that.
I agree with all your points.
I consider myself a feminist, and had trouble even getting through the article because of her generalizations and, very importantly, her lack of proof. She made a lot of claims about the EFFECTS of "feminism" (her idea of it, anyway) without talking about any actual proof, the philosophy of the concept, the history, political effects, social changes that have been documented, etc. To me, you can't make claims about the effects of an idea or movement without having proof about your claims of the effects.
Some of her claims that she doesn't provide this kind of backup for in the interview are: The claim that equal pay rights in the workforce have negatively affected both businesses overall and the government, saying that giving more monies to causes such as prevention and aid for battered women "gets us off track": what the fuck does that mean? Claiming without actual proof that feminism has caused the increased divorce rate in the US AND all forms of promiscuity in general! The list goes on.
As I read this, it sounds to me like another conservative person making an "argument" based on what sounds like invented or hugely exaggerated facts or ideas just to support their agenda, which ultimately to me seems like a religious one at it's base.
When people create examples and "proof" such as these, it to me is clearly an example of a person who had a very strong conviction based on religion, upbringing, learned morals, etc. and then searches for ways to support their core beliefs.
Show me a person who believes this who used to be neutral, did some real research, and then made conclusions such as hers based on the things that they LEARNED, and then maybe we can talk!
Wow I for one am impressed how much you must have held back on this Adrien. Honestly, I find her completely absurd. The whole lack of defining feminism isn't just her problem though. The word has always seemed so out dated to me, people try and use it as a word to invoke these caricatures of looney over the top women from the 70's or something. It just isn't accurate or relevant to today's population.
And what is with this crazy notion that divorce is a bad thing? Happy marriages don't end in divorce. It isn't like if we just didn't have the option to divorce that this world would be filled with happier marriages.
She also is seeming to try to make the point that a lot of raising domestic violence awareness or sexism in the work place is getting us off track and hurting America. What track? It isn't like once people stopped talking about Darfur all the time I immediately went looking for something more relevant to be 'aware' about and Oh look the people who did care stuck with it and now Sudan has had a peaceful vote for secession.
Hell we still have about a 25% income disparity between the genders. Although women now make up a larger part of the workforce and are graduating college at a 3:2 ratio over boys. Much higher in post grad education. Sooo either we are all screwed or I don't know actually utilizing half of your populations potential isn't hurting our economy. Just a thought.
I mean really, you can go ahead and say that some of the original feminist movement involved a loose bolts or two or that at times it was over zealous and allowed other important issues to suffer for its own gain. Heck demonize the whole movement as a bunch of bra burning crazies. I don't really care you are only painting yourself irrelevant. However if we are talking about today, don't say feminists don't care about anything outside of america. If you want to try and find a modern definition for the term it totally includes not just pro choice advocates but also a strong focus on "child brides, sexual slaves, girls subjected to female genital mutilation, and women targeted in so-called honor killings"
My only complaint about the feminist movement is that I can't just be polite and carry the damn groceries to the car. I'm not dumb I know you can too, you somehow lived by feeding yourself before you met me. :P
Post a Comment