Posted on 01/09/2005 12:30:14 PM PST by Lorianne
arrived at Dartmouth my freshman year firm in my conservative beliefs -- and absolutely certain that I was not a feminist. For me, feminism was a dirty word, signifying a militant, man-hating movement that had degenerated to Marxist goddess-worship. The movement seemed entirely irrelevant, a far cry from the worthy battles waged by first wave feminists like Susan B. Anthony and others who fought for suffrage. Contemporary feminism had forgotten women.
It wasn't until my sophomore winter that I started to really think about what it means to be a feminist. I took a look at myself, an Ivy League student aspiring for law school, and realized that for all my talk of renouncing feminism, I was leading a feminist life. Then I looked up the dictionary definition of feminism: "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes," and realized there was no reason for a person of sense, male or female, to condemn this.
So this is my message to the Class of 2008: If you are put off by the climate of victimization surrounding modern day feminism, if you are dismayed to see abortion treated as sacrosanct, if you plan on voting for Bush this November: that's okay! You can advocate personal accountability, be pro-life, vote Republican and still be a feminist.
Now there most certainly exist those who deny this. Perhaps you have taken a Women's Studies course under one of them. However, to deny politically conservative women the right to call themselves feminists is highly contradictory. Third wave feminism is a movement that supposedly prides itself on its inclusiveness. There are black feminists, eco-feminists, Marxist feminists, Chicana feminists -- the list continues ad nauseum. Yet women who believe in tax cuts are somehow unfit to bear the label.
The concept of a conservative feminist seems novel. Yet there are groups that are dedicated to this idea, such as the Independent Women's Forum and Feminists For Life. The reason no one hears about them is that these groups are constantly labeled "anti-feminist" for promoting stances on issues that differ from the prevailing left-wing feminist line. Yet the purpose of feminism is not to force feed women their positions on a multitude of issues, but to empower women to take their own stances without consulting NOW. If anything, it is anti-feminist to presume that there is only one "pro-woman" stance on any given issue. Women do not all need or want the same thing. To presume that women are a monolithic entity is to deny that women across class, racial and religious lines all have different interests -- and it is incredibly condescending. Why is it acceptable for men to disagree on political issues, but if women disagree it is divisive and one of the two must necessarily be "anti-woman?"
Prominent women such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Lynne Cheney advocate what they call "equity feminism," a conservative form of feminism that maintains equality between the sexes, but not at the expense of men. Yet these women are condemned over and over again by supposedly mainstream feminist groups. Instead of welcoming debate and dissent, they are accused of self-hatred and "selling out."
Across the nation, campus conservatives have done what they can to refute constant claims that conservatism is a stuffy movement that caters only to old white men -- and, perhaps surprisingly, women have been heavily involved. For example, conservative feminism made a very controversial debut on the Georgetown University campus in October 1997. Two female students at Georgetown produced a publication entitled "The Guide: A Little Beige Book for Today's Miss G."
The Guide contained several articles and interviews arguing that modern-day feminism is damaging to women. They commented on overblown statistics and decried an ideology of victimhood. They questioned the wisdom of magazines such as Cosmopolitan encouraging women to engage in the 99 newest sex techniques "sure to make him scream for more," while STDs continue their rampage across America.
What was the campus reaction to The Guide? Their roommates publicly renounced them. Resident Advisors formed a sort of emergency response team to tell freshman women "the truth." Or more accurately, send them to their local Women's Resource Center for some quick deprogramming. Said student Yea Afolabi: "I think it is dangerous to disseminate this type of information on a college campus, especially Georgetown."
Sensible people might ask what is dangerous about the sharing of ideas on a college campus. However, to the radicals, exchange of ideas is a very dangerous idea indeed. There is a saying: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." This applies fully to campus politics nationwide. The Guide sparked conservative women at Smith College and Yale University, among other campuses, to put together similar publications.
This past May I met Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, two women who are active in the third wave movement. They were Dartmouth's "Visionaries in Residence," brought here by the Center for Women and Gender. Politically, I disagree with these women on many issues. However, I have always admired their enthusiasm and dedication to equality for women. Ms. Baumgardner and Ms. Richards autographed my copy of their book Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future. Their message to me was: "Here's to making feminism your own."
This should be the mantra for all feminists. Instead of trying to force all women to agree on everything, we should revel in our differences and encourage women of all political stripes who see themselves as the equals of men to call themselves feminists. Only then will we have a movement that is truly inclusive, and only then will the political movement match its stated goal.
This article appeared in the Dartmouth Beacon.
Go tell it to the Muzzies.
Islamism: Not Just for Terrorists
No, but they have all but cornered the market.
and sadly ANYBODY who wants to go to law school CAN at some ACREDITED law school in this nation.
There are now more law school first years seats nationaly, than there are applicants to become lawyers.
>>and sadly ANYBODY who wants to go to law school CAN at some ACREDITED law school in this nation. >>
Not so. They must have a 4-year degree, which narrows the field by about 80%. Only in CA state can you attend an UNACCREDITED law school (for practice in CA only) with only a smattering of college credits.
>>There are now more law school first years seats nationaly, than there are applicants to become lawyers.>>
While I agree with your point, this line has been used for 30 years, and the argument is false. 9 out of 10 students accepted to law school either don't go, don't finish or don't pass the bar and cannot practice law.
Therefore, stating that ANYBODY can attend, when in fact, the only ones that CAN attend are about 20% (those who obtain 4-year degrees) of the 20% (those who earn GPAs over 3.0 in college & pass the LSAT with a high score) who want to, the term ANYBODY does not qualify.
Now granted, I got a 3.95 through school because, for the very reason you stated, law schools generally do not care about your undergraduate major. However, looking at others in my college classes looking to law school, most didn't make it. Again, the term anybody does not qualify.
If your point is that anyone who is willing to work hard and get the grades (and the money) can do law school, I will have to give you one more thumbs down. NOT everyone CAN do law school, even if they bust their butt in college.
The real litmus test for law admissions and study at any law school is the LSAT, required of most accredited law schools, and most CA state unaccredited law schools. If one can do well on that, with only partial regard to their GPA in school, they have a chance. Given that, few average students make an LSAT score worthy of any law school admissions board.
True.
If this is the same gal I think it is, I would think she's more of a poster girl for a NOW type feminist, instead.
actually the basic requirement, not to be so flippant, is HAVING a four year degree and taking your lsat.
Grades and scores are more for where you will attend law school these days.
Getting in is one thing finishing is another. However your chances of finishing "A" law school is far far far better today that it was only a few short decades ago. (no look to you left look to your right and one of you will not be here)
Judging from some of the recent grads in the courthouse, the present litmus test is not GPA but a pulse and obtaining student loans.
Sounds good to me. I have noticed that like leftist and democrat politics in general. Radical feminism ruthlessly enforces absolute obedience to party-line orthodoxy and therefore can only grow more radical and exclusive (and smaller and sclerotic). This is part and parcel of why the dems are being dominated by an ever-narrowing and fanatical "base." Contrasted to the "big tent" of the republicans, so well illustrated by the inclusion of Rudy, Arnold and Zell speaking at the '04 convention. There is no reason why feminism per se has to mean man-hating, marriage-denigrating, abortion, lesbianism, wiccan-worshipping, etc. A hideously snobbish institution that, while it may profess sisterhood for all, really only gives a damn about educated, upper-crust, urban career gals and that sells it's soul to any politician who will pay them, er, lip service. The Independent Women's Forum has gone to considerable lengths explaining how their reflexively statist attitudes are formed because, being militantly childless, they look to the nanny state to care for them in their dotage. There is no mystery as to why single women vote dem.
I would very much like to see the rise of a feminist movement that does not see the universe as a brutalist, zero-sum entity where boys and girls are locked in a Hobbesian struggle for hiring and promotion, taxpayer swag, child custody and government enforced quotas and bennies in all imaginable areas of existence. A family-friendly, marriage-positive (as opposed to only "sex-positive") feminism that concerns itself with the real, everyday issues women face.
Having said that I can't think of anything positive to say about the aforementioned duo:
____________________________________________________________
"This past May I met Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, two women who are active in the third wave movement. They were Dartmouth's "Visionaries in Residence," brought here by the Center for Women and Gender. Politically, I disagree with these women on many issues. However, I have always admired their enthusiasm and dedication to equality for women. Ms. Baumgardner and Ms. Richards autographed my copy of their book Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future. Their message to me was: "Here's to making feminism your own."
____________________________________________________________
I've looked over "Manifesta" and it is a trite, shallow, faux-trendy tract trying desperately to polish up the moldy old turd of "third-wave" feminism to sell to Gen-X & Y. It flails about unevenly and, as stated previously, seems written with no effort to appeal to women outside the rarefied "Cosmo-girl" demographic. "Visionaries in Residence" or no, I really think the fame and talk-show appeal of those two is of the type that [not to put to fine a point on it] will only last until the crow's feet start to appear.
Where's your radical feminist ex-girlfriend now, Beckwith? Growing old alone in that proverbial apartment-stinking-of-kitty litter, I'll warrant. Or maybe not exactly; there was an unintenionally hilarious article in the local gay rag castigating the media for not mentioning Susan Sontag's later lesbian relationships in her obituary. Perhaps by mistake the author, one Dyana Bagby, let slip a quote from a Guardian interview in which Sontag said by way of explanation:
"'Shall I tell you about getting older,' Sontag told the Guardian, laughing 'When you get older, 45 plus, men stop fancying you. Or put it another way, the men I fancy don't fancy me. I want a young man. I love beauty. So what's new?'"
So she turned lesbo only after the boys stopped chasing her. How glamorous is that? Guess they can't all live it up and then marry a millionare when they turn sixty like Gloria S. did.
Remember Amy Richards from a couple months back with the pro-abortion "because I don't want to buy mayo from Costco" fame.
IMO it's difficult for many younger conservatives, both men and women, to appreciate what the situation was like prior to the "Woman's' Movement" – a lot of the early efforts were over stuff that seems pretty "common-sense" today.
For example back in the early 70s my wife - who was a fashion designer and making several times the average family income - was refused a mortgage unless she could get a male cosigner, back then a woman's income was not counted on such applications, and this was perfectly legal.
Ditto for getting a charge card at the stores which sold her clothes!
A few years later, after the passage of Federal lending non-discrimination laws, all that silliness was over.
Still, every once and a while I ask her:
"Wouldn't you rather have just wanted another generation or two until free market forces caused lenders to voluntarily change their lending policies?"
"Don’t you feel that people think less of you because some meddling government bureaucrat forced private lenders to evaluate your fitness as a borrower according to the same criteria as a man's?"
But for some reason she won’t answer.
Instead just sticks out her tongue at me, and makes rude noises.
Uppity, that girl.
This article does raise some interesting points.
While certainly the liberal feminists are (to use an old joke) "Ms.-Guided," some of their tenets make sense. While gender roles and differences exist, there is plenty of room -- and need -- for feminine influence. Women, now better educated & empowered, can influence the world in many ways.
There is, in fact, a part of Jewish belief that the advent of the Messiah will come through the women. Certainly, may it come soon, but it seems to be unfolding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.