(Reprinted from the Chronicle of Higher Education,
June 21, 2002)
The Political Intolerance of Academic Feminism
By Mary Zeiss Stange
I met Rosemary several years ago, at a workshop
in Texas on "Becoming an Outdoors Woman." Bunkmates, we stayed up
late the first night, chatting. We had little in common. I was fortyish,
no children, a feminist, a professor at a northeastern liberal-arts
college, politically left of center. She was older, mother of four,
a born-again Christian, had just completed an undergraduate psychology
degree on her way to a master's degree in counseling, and politically
conservative. But we did share a passion for hunting, which had brought
us to this outdoor-skills-training workshop. "I don't know about being
in these classes with all these women, though!" Rosemary confided.
"I've always hunted with men. I am an equal in my husband's deer camp.
I can tell stories and take a joke with the best of 'em." Maybe, I
ventured, she'd never heard some women's hunting stories? She laughed.
"I don't think women know any good ones."
Over the next two days, Rosemary learned otherwise. Sunday afternoon,
as we were packing, she exclaimed, "This has been great! I feel so
fulfilled. I mean, I feel empowered." (That, with a wink and a nudge,
for my feminist benefit.) "Imagine," she continued. "With men, you
have to compartmentalize. With other women, it's possible to talk
about babies and bullets in the same conversation. I'd never have
believed it."
The discipline of women's studies could learn a lot from that workshop.
We were a hundred women working, exploring, and playing together,
united by shared interests, desires, and curiosities. One couldn't
say that our conversations were nonpolitical. But on some deeply important
level, political differences didn't matter. What if academic feminism
could capture some of that spirit? We need to find some new and powerful
ways to put babies and bullets into the same conversation, to broaden
and deepen the kinds of conversations we should be engaging in.
Academic feminists have yet to adequately address the issue implicitly
raised by the millions of women like Rosemary: how to reach politically
conservative yet "liberated" women, many of whom testify, "I'm not
a feminist, but ..." Some of those women may be feminists without
knowing it, although putting it that way implies a certain condescension.
Others are openly hostile to feminism.
I care about those women. Over the past dozen years, doing research
on female hunters and gun owners and enthusiasts, I have interacted
with hundreds of them. They will never take a women's-studies course,
or read a feminist book or magazine. If asked why, they will assure
you it's because feminism has nothing to say to them. More often than
not, they are right.
For all the time, energy, and ink we academic feminists have expended
on categorizing oppressions and defining what a woman (or a feminist)
is or isn't, exploring sex and gender, and delineating distinct cultural
perspectives, we have an alarming tendency to evade one obvious fact.
Feminists are a minority who speak for a majority of women who cannot
or will not hear us. It is as if we lack a common language.
That struck home when I read Margaret Talbot's provocative argument
last fall in the New York Times Magazine that multiculturalism,
since the 1980s, unwittingly has tended both to reinforce a sense
of "us" versus "others" and to celebrate a superficial sense of cultural
diversity. She pinpointed linguistic ignorance as the main block to
true inclusion: "The upbeat ethnic-festival approach ... allows you
to leave out a lot of groups, like those that speak difficult languages
or live in rough neighborhoods of the world or don't seem to treat
women particularly well."
Feminist scholars have struggled to be inclusive when it comes to
every conceivable form of "otherness" (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
class, age, appearance, education, ability). Every form of otherness,
that is, except one: politics. How ironic, given that our movement
began with the assertion that the personal is political.
It's in this regard that Talbot's indictment of multiculturalism translates
to American academic feminism: By and large, we have not learned to
communicate with those whose politics differ sharply from our own.
Either we don't see them or we stereotype them. Such women include
those, like Rosemary, who identify themselves as Bible-believing Christians
or who are religious fundamentalists. Or who are political or social
conservatives. Women's studies, to the extent that it has identified
itself with a politically liberal or progressive perspective, has
tended to discount or dismiss counter political perspectives as inauthentic,
unenlightened, or antagonistic to feminist goals.
To invoke a religious analogy, we are happy to proselytize for the
feminist cause, recognizing that that cause takes different forms
in different ethnic or social contexts. But those whom we cannot convert,
we criticizeor we feel sorry for them, because of their nonbelief.
Religionist that I am, however, I am suspicious of such missionary
activity, and recognize its practical limits.
Why are there no conservatives among us? Or, why is it that as soon
as an erstwhile sister adopts a conservative perspectiveElizabeth
Fox-Genovese comes to mindshe is summarily shunned? Consider
the careers of Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi, whose feminist credentials
periodically have been questioned over their apparent agreement with
the "other side" on some issues. And then there's Camille Pagliawhat
exactly is she, politically, anyway?
I want to be clear that, in invoking those examples, I am not advocating
those women's ideas. I agree with the critic who reviewed Fox-Genovese's
Feminism Without Illusions under the title "Illusions Without
Feminism." I question Wolf's take on presidential candidates as sartorially
correct alpha males, and I am mystified by Faludi's thesis in Stiffed.
I neither know nor especially care what Paglia is or wants to be.
My point is that academic feminism's predictably antagonistic response
to feminists who appear to break liberal ranks has the unintended,
and highly unfortunate, side effect of leaving us wide open to the
criticisms of genuine anti-feministsChristina Hoff Sommers,
Katie Roiphe, Daphne Patai, Karen Lehrman, Rene Denfieldall
of whom win ideological friends and influence people with their claims
that feminism is exclusive and in disarray. Theirs are the voices
that attract popular media attention. Theirs are the voices that women
like Rosemary hear, and believe. And in our noncomprehension of her
politics, our apparent disregard for her voice and her views, we reinforce
that belief.
Second-wave feminists customarily have argued that it is imperative
to present a united political front. Such adherence to the feminist
party line is at best passé, and has in the long run done us more
harm than good. It has allowed academic feminism, for all our talk
of multiplicity and inclusiveness, to skate dangerously close to the
edge of intolerance, particularly with regard to conservative-seeming
arguments among ourselves about polarizing issues like abortion, pornography,
or armed self-defense against abuse. Too often academic feminism has
invited the stereotype of political correctness, and it has fit rather
too snugly.
Can one be a conservative and a feminist? I honestly don't know. I
know I used to argueI admit, as a devil's advocatethat
Maureen Reagan had a right to claim to be a feminist. I think Laura
Bush is performing laudably these days, although how much of that
is spin is anybody's guess. I know I was embarrassed several years
ago when, at the last big reproductive-rights march in Washington,
the crowd booed when the speaker from Republicans for Choice ascended
the podium.
Can one be a conservative and a feminist? It shouldn't be so hard
for me to pose, or to answer, that question, after more than a generation
of thinking, writing, and teaching about feminism.
So why do I bother? Because I want to spend more time talking with
women like Rosemary. Because I'd like to find a way to have in academe
the kind of genuine interchange among women joined in a common pursuit
bridging social and political differences that was possible at a 4-H
camp in central Texas. The classroom can provide the ideal setting
for that kind of interaction, and the discipline of women's studies
offers the right methodological and conceptual tools. Indeed, it happens
in small ways all the time. That's what keeps us going.
But to bring more women into the conversation, we professional feminists
need to learn to speak, and to hear, another language: one that comprehends,
without necessarily trying to change, certain political and cultural
perspectives that most of us, as individuals, may not share. That
means not imposing our structures of thought and belief on politically
"other" women, hearing their take on feminism, learning from it, and
allowing it to enrich our understanding of the many forms women's
empowerment can take. There are models for that: The evolving literature
on global feminism provides one; the current debate on black conservatism
among African-Americans another.
The one thing we must avoid at all cost is reinforcing stereotypical
ideas and values better relegated to the last century. I said at the
outset that it's a matter of putting babies and bullets into the same
conversation. Babies evoke the traditional view of woman as nurturer,
and bullets suggest a liberated, powerful feminism. Or is it that
bullets represent co-optation by traditional views of power over another,
versus babiesthe radical healing power of matriarchal mutuality?
Must we choose metaphorical sides? I don't think it mattered to Rosemary;
she knew what she was talking about. We need to learn to speak her
language.
Mary Zeiss Stange is an associate professor of women's studies
and religion at Skidmore College. She is the author of Woman the
Hunter (Beacon Press, 1997) and co-author, with Carol K. Oyster,
of Gun Women: Firearms and Feminism in Contemporary America (New
York University Press, 2000).
|