When I was thirteen years old, there was a gubernatorial race in my home state of New Jersey, pitting Republican Christie Whitman against Democrat Jim Florio. Full of the knowledge that had been drilled into me incessantly that women can do anything, I said to my Mom, "you’re going to vote for the woman, right?" She replied, "no, I’m voting for the Democrat."
I was surprised by this – there was something more important than voting for the woman? These Democrats were clearly better off for us female-kind if my Mom was going to vote for them. It had never occurred to me before that there might be women out there who weren’t on board with the whole idea that women not only can but should want to do anything they set their minds to.
Which brings us to our diary topic tonight. The most dangerous kind of misogynists are women who actively work to enable further systematic hatred of women. Women who perpetuate an ideology that runs counter to their own human rights and basic interests, who deliberately seek to undermine the hard-won social gains of women in this country and world-wide, they do a different harm to all of us than any male ever could.
Allow me to explain why below.
Legalese:
Feminisms is a series of weekly feminist diaries. My fellow feminists and I decided to start our own for several purposes: we wanted a place to chat with each other, we felt it was important to both share our own stories and learn from others’, and we hoped to introduce to the community a better understanding of what feminism is about.
Needless to say, we expect disagreements to arise. We have all had different experiences in life, so while we share the same labels, we don’t necessarily share the same definitions. Hopefully, we can all be patient and civil with each other, and remember that, ultimately, we’re all on the same side.
The dictionary definition of misogynist is fairly simple:
misogyny: mi·sog·y·ny
Pronunciation: m&-'sä-j&-nE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek misogynia, from misein to hate + gynE woman
: a hatred of women
I would like to expand on this definition for my purposes tonight, in part because I think it’s a little basic. Misogyny takes our basic run-of-the-mill sexism, in which people are judged primarily on the basis of their gender and what the judge-er errantly believes to be "true" about this gender, and ramps it up considerably in terms of attitudes towards women. Sexism involves a wide gamut of incorrect assumptions about men and women alike; most "sexist" attitudes towards women termed as such (at least in this diary series) when one assumes that we women are less capable, qualified, etc. because of our gender. Misogyny moves past these basic errant assumptions (which may be the result of ignorance or limited experience and not contain any vitriol per se), and moves to the level of hatred for women.
Misogyny comes in many forms. One might hate all women just for being women. One might hate all women who fail to conform to a specific kind of femininity. Societies and cultures that force women into specific roles or greatly limit their opportunities can be considered misogynist. Those individuals who permit tacit or outright acceptance of violence against women (particularly at the hands of men) can also be considered misogynists.
Tonight, I’d like to focus on a specific form of misogyny, one which uses systematic, socio-political techniques to oppress women, to deny them not only rights and opportunities but basic equality.
If you hate women, you are a misogynist.
If you seek to deny rights to women because they are women, you are a misogynist.
If you seek to disenfranchise women because they are women, you are a misogynist.
If you actively enable this denial of rights and disenfranchisement, you are a misogynist.
If you are that last kind of misogynist, and you are a woman, you are the topic of tonight’s diary.
::
The most dangerous kind of misogynists are those women who actively enable the denial of rights and disenfranchisement of women. Why are they worse than the men who do the same thing, you ask? Quite simply, because women who are deeply invested in enshrining their own subjugation allow those who would seek to keep women down to point at them and say, "See those women? They don’t want their rights. They aren’t interested. So what’s the big deal?"
Women in the anti-choice movement who strive to have our fundamental right to choose stripped away.
Women who support abstinence-only education, which prevents young women from learning how to control and protect their own bodies.
Women who refuse to let their daughters receive a decent education.
Women who refuse to vote for another woman, because they don’t understand why she’s running in the first place.
I could go on, and I’m sure many of us can detail anecdotes of individuals who fit each of these descriptions. My point is, these women do a very different kind of harm to female-kind than any man ever has. Imagine if every woman demanded equal pay, and refused to show up to work until it was granted. Or if every woman marched on her local town hall demanding paid maternity leave, mandatory Pre-K education, or insurance coverage for mammograms. If we, as women, could present a completely united front in our fight for gender equality, we could get so much further, so much faster.
Meanwhile, conservatives point to people like Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, "Jane Roe" of the original Roe v. Wade decision, and many others who have invested their lives’ works in undermining feminist and humanist efforts to eradicate the power imbalance between the sexes. "She’s not using her rights, she doesn’t even want her rights! So why do you want them? Why do you even need them? What are you bra-burning feminazis so mad about?!"
As long as women can be used as a symbolic weapon against other women in the fight for gender equality, we’re all in trouble – men and women alike.
::
It’s worth at this point, I think, making a side point about ideology as it pertains to my point.
With any ideology into which one is interpellated (i.e. one which you participate in, whether aware of it or not), one can do one of three things: actively perpetuate it, passively accept it, or fight against it. Take, for instance, the effort to obtain women’s suffrage. Those women had to work against an ideology that said that women should not vote. At the time, there were those who actively perpetuated that ideology by vocally trying to prevent women from gaining the vote; there were those who passively accepted the status quo regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed; and there were those who actively fought against that ideology, and eventually won.
These female misogynists of whom I write are in the first category: they are those who actively work to keep womenkind down. Those in the second category, those with a passive acceptance of misogyny, sexism, patriarchy, etc. are a completely different issue, and I do not want to lump women who simply have not yet taken up arms on either side in with those who devote their lives to fighting against womens’ rights and advancement.
But where do these female misogynists come from? They cannot be merely ignorant of the sexism that pervades our society or unable to recognize it, for they are active participants in an effort to deny equality to women. What makes a woman devote her life to keeping other women down? What about those who do not recognize it as such – for instance, "Jane Roe" of the landmark SCOTUS decision, who went on to become a signifiant anti-choice activist, likely believes that she is "saving lives" rather than keeping women oppressed.
I’d also like to note that the whole notion of specifically targeting another group of women does not sit comfortably with me. I do not like the idea of blaming the failure of feminism and gender equality on those women who want us to remain subjugated. So perhaps my question is, how can we overcome the problem of women who choose to fight so vehemently against our progress? As long as there are conservative women who enable the larger conservative agenda against women, are we just shit out of luck?
Tonight, I’d like to discuss the issue of women who deliberately undercut feminism. Where do they come from? Can they be marginalized to the point of no longer having any relevance? (Ironic, the notion that we might need to disempower the few women that seek to disempower all women.)
To swing back to my opening anecdote, what about female Republicans, particularly the elected kind? What makes a woman decide to sign on to a political party and ideology that rests on keeping women down, except when otherwise useful to their overall aims?
Finally, I’ve always been interested in the larger project of getting all women on board with the fight for gender equality. How do we reach women who are currently in the position of passively accepting an ideology that oppresses women, and convince them to take a stand on the side of feminism? From hard-core anti-choicers to those simply unwilling to recognize how sexism pervades so much of our society and its institutions?
I welcome your thoughts and comments on what can be a difficult issue.