The Very Slippery Totem Pole: The Trashing of Feminism

A Response to PTLeena's Article 'Feminism or FeMANism' at Associated Content

Richelle Hawks
Recently, PTLeena published a controversial article at Associate Content entitled Feminism or FeMANism? This article is one of the latest in this venue of a slew that essentially superficially expresses an implied, assumed, or stated negative and derogatory view of feminism, while subversively expresses ignorance and a near-complete lack of understanding of the actual components, function, and complexities of feminism.

The idea of feminism seems to have become an distant abstraction, an object-it's a thing. Names of feminists are never mentioned, nor are specific theories, or quotes. Instead, the vaguest and wildly inaccurate, trite deductions are tossed about. For example, PTLeena writes, "We terminate pregnancies to show that 'we have control over our bodies'" This is a dangerous, dismissive, belief steeped in loaded rhetoric. It's a perfect example because it makes use of real feminist lingo, yet is so head-bangingly insipid and false. It's as if the words and phrases themselves have made an impression, yet no real meaning or truth has been gleaned.

When deconstructing the sentence, one finds a very twisty path back to the reality of the situation. Pregnancies are not terminated to 'prove' anything-they are terminated to end an unwanted pregnancy. The notion that women have abortions simply to show off control over their bodies is highly offensive and belies all the highly emotional, painful, difficult dynamics associated with it. The idea of 'showing' we have control over our bodies is a real one though, and a centerpiece of feminist agenda. The ideas expressed in the sentence are a thoughtless 'shake-n-bake' reading of real feminist agenda, and might be key to understanding the phenomenon of trashed feminism.

Feminism seems to somehow now inexplicably and generically stand for 'man-haters', or 'woman-haters', depending on the argument at hand. The irony is almost painful. That feminists have long sought to end discrimination and hatred of anyone based on gender identity is innate to the cause and inarguable. Early on, modern feminists truly had their work cut out for them. The regulated oppression was pervasive and institued, and the struggles ahead were seemingly insurmountable. Men held the power legally and socially, so men were the ones to which arguments had to be addressed. This created a sense of us vs. them, men vs. women, and it was unavoidable. But never the sole purpose. Feminism has always been about women. It's about empowering women by paving a clear, even pathway so compulsory social roles are not taken on habitually and mindlessly. It's about full opportunity and freedom and choice-whatever that may be.

Much has been made about 'feminism's devaluing of femininity.' Simply put, it's an oxymoron. Feminism seeks to devalue only inequality, injustice, and archaic, ineffective and harmful roles of subordination. But, 'femininity' can be defined in a myriad of ways, and if inequality and subordination are chosen or embraced as its signifiers, then it would follow logically that feminism would devalue that brand of supposed 'femininity.'

In her closing statement, PTLeena states, "we've turned feminism into feMANism, completely forgetting what it really means to be a woman. Let us not forget that sometimes it is okay to be lower on the totem pole." This is a frightening statement, I believe, coming from a young, modern woman. In keeping with the tone and gist of her article, to be 'lower on the totem pole' implies men are higher, and hold more innate value than women. Truly, this is the traditional, albeit dysfunctional and archaic, notion of 'what it really means to be a woman.' This is 'femininity,' at least from a very androcentric point of view. Being less than and 'underneath' men is what feminism has sought to overcome. For those who welcome this blatant inequality, feminism will always be an easy enemy.

Published by Richelle Hawks

I live with boys in a big, old house on a pretty steep hill near the Mohawk River in upstate New York. I sell used and rare books, write for UFO Digest, Women of Esoterica, and have a weekly column at Binna...  View profile

53 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Alyce Rocco5/31/2007

    Wonder if St. Joan of Arc, Madame Curie or Jesus' female "companion" were femMANists?

  • Richelle Hawks5/4/2007

    hee hee

  • Heather B.5/4/2007

    Honey, if you think women didn't sleep around prior to the feminist movement, you need to reread some history books...lmao.

  • Richelle Hawks4/29/2007

    keep your pants on james.

  • James Desch4/29/2007

    I fell in love circa '92, & to this very day have a special affinity for the word OBTUSE. My affinity was born from the "chef-d' oeuvre", The Shawshank Redemtion". Remember the scene? "As for the library, we'll seal it off brick by brick. We'll have us a little book burning party, & jump around like a bunch of wild...Do you get what I'm saying? Do you catch my drift? Or, am I being to obtuse?" It was appropriate then & it was certainly felicitious now! Keep up the dynamic discourse, as it was a pleasure watching a sound mind in a sound body go to work, platonic Alessandro di Cagliostro notwithstanding:-)

  • Richelle Hawks4/29/2007

    ya, sure.

  • Richelle Hawks4/28/2007

    Surely you are not proposing that the preposterous arcane elitism of the monarchy reflects social norms? You are getting your information from your relatives and TV, PTleena. There were many groups of women that were 'promiscuous' before the 1980's. Anything non-monogamous is promiscuous? What about a woman who is not in a relationship? Is she 'promiscuous' if she has sex twice a year with different partners? That would certainly fall under your parameters. Your definition is unrealistic and unaccomodating.

  • Richelle Hawks4/28/2007

    i still question your functional knowledge of feminist dynamics. Your simplistic and dismissive definitions, such as the one you have given for sexual liberation below are indicative of that. also, you use loaded language that rather conspicuouosly alludes to a judgemental or evangelicalesque agenda. Promiscuity? How do you define that? You seem to have equated sexual liberation with promiscuity. On another board, you indicated flatly you do not have sex. Is having sex promiscuous? Where do you draw the line? Do you really think that prior to the women's movement that women were not afforded condoned promiscuous behaviors? Are you that unaware?

  • Richelle Hawks4/28/2007

    And your ideas about men and women and progression/liberation are troubling and seemingly obtuse. From a literal reading of your sentences, one can only deduce you do not have the remotest of a semblance of a functional understanding of the dynamics of the feminist movement. I'm not sure what else to say. "Why is why women are more sexually liberated." what? more liberated that who? than we used to be? than contemporary men? It just doesn;t make any sense any which way you flip it. I just don;t think that you can effectively comment on feminism until you have a working understanding of its components. It would be like me writing about cold fusion and proposing that if scientists would just start using dry ice in their experiments, it would be a lot colder. Perhaps sadly, I don't really understand the basics of cold fusion, and my argument would reflect as such. But, if I spent some time reading about it from a direct, scientific source, I would begin to understand its histor

  • Richelle Hawks4/28/2007

    Touche. I dare say I have attempted to watch it, but I cannot fairly make it through an entire episode. I did, in fact, read the fabulous book entitled "Oprah Winfrey and the Glamour of Misery." I am quite interested in observing and measuring the Oprah phenomenon pt, but not as one who partakes. By nature I am a scavenger and alchemist in their most Platonic form, and it tends to be how I do most everything. I am not capable of watching Oprah in the way I believe you have suggested. If you detect a note of snobbery, go ahead and play that entire little ditty if you like, but it I assure you this aspect of my personality surely has its drawbacks and I do not boast my admitting this. I want to clarify too, that I did not state you should walk into a women's studies class, but a library. Your response to my suggestion is pretty much what i felt you would say. There is so much more than pop culture, mass sentiment to feminism. What you see on Oprah are responses to the academic c

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.