The most important understanding to have about Feminist Theory is that it primarily examines women’s social roles and experiences in any place, time, or circumstance, that its scrutiny of gender roles is meant to highlight the inequality and shortcomings of gender stereotyping, and that its critique of social inequality often leads to promoting reform in areas where women have commonly been discriminated against. Hence Feminist Theory is not about perpetuating ideas and social behaviors that prevent women from rising beyond the old ways and old thinking to reach their potential or about rallying against the roles that are already open and available to women. It is not against women serving coffee, especially if the one serving coffee was hired as a waitress; it is against the controlling attitude that dictates that serving coffee is the only job women can do and should do even if they were not hired to be waitresses. I say these things now because when one reads Jane Austen, one should know that breaking out of the confinement of sexism and wanting more out of life for her sex are paramount matters in her novels as well as matters of importance to her own lifestyle. Moreover, they comprise the very heart of the issues that Feminist Theory addresses. Based upon this, some might even say Jane Austen was a Feminist, albeit a prototype feminist — and then again, some people, most vehemently, will disagree. Such is the spirit of a careful reading within a book club made up of Jane Austen fans who most assuredly want to use her as a validation of their own chosen lifestyles. But I dare say, some women go too far in pursuit of their own interests, and forgetting that we are all women, will resort to vile accusations against those who disagree with them. And then there is the group, rather small nowadays, who will take the more academic approach to Jane Austen and, assuming that a critique of her work means using one of the theories learned in literature class, will proceed to critique her work using one of those theories, usually the Feminist Theory, because after all, Jane Austen was among the first to criticize her own social class and the static roles of both men and women, the very issues that fall quite naturally to that theory to address. I fall in with that rather small group, the group that isn’t bothered by academic theories or doesn’t fear feminism. But it’s the word “feminism” or “feminist” that really irks the other side. They cannot seem to get over their own biases and putting Jane Austen in the camp of feminists is a bridge too far for them, even a prototype is too much for them to handle, even when they admit that there were a number of social inequities that needed to be addressed and brought to light, even when they understand that Jane Austen did exactly that.
But Jane Austen was not a Democrat!
So true. And therein lies the beginning of their biases. So how to respond to that?
As it turned out I didn’t have to ponder that long when one of the women opposed to the label fired off an email to me. Below is my response; I think even without knowing the contents or the bent of her email, you will be able to follow my remarks and gauge the tenor of hers.
I wrote:
Feminists are not the first to “bend” to a political party or are unique in doing so. Nor are they any more “selective” than members of any other organization. In fact, when it comes to methods and organizational prerogatives, feminists follow the established paradigm. Their difference, though, is that they provide a voice for issues (and causes?) that affect women, and they were the first to recognize differences as strengths (NOT weaknesses) and were the leaders when it came to bestowing respect upon women who chose non-traditional paths. They were maligned in the process and have not recovered from the pejoratives that seem to label their efforts whenever they try to do what is good and right for women.
To single out the feminists for having a “selective nature” seems to be accusing them of something bad when in reality such a nature only makes them human. What’s so wrong with being selective anyway? Are you suggesting that they shouldn’t be selective? On what grounds? What about other organizations — AARP, for example? Should AARP not be selective? And what about selective moms who select Jiff? My point is not to mock you but to ask you to explain what you mean. There are a number of feminisms, by the way. To paint them all with the same stroke of the paint brush seems to promote the same attitude of those who indulge in card-stacking against women. Feminists do strive to level the playing field for women, to help them overcome the jeers and naysayers that would have us all believe that women do not belong anywhere in the public arena because by tradition, the public arena was a male domain and thereby off-limits to women. The women who dared to enter that arena have always risked being labeled as “unfeminine” whether they were in reality or not. But what does “unfeminine” mean anyway — that a female has not lived up to someone’s definition of the “little woman”? Jane Austen was accused of being unfeminine because she did not have enough feeling in her stories and because she did not marry. Maureen O’Hara was the only female to be a part of the men’s club that included John Wayne and John Ford, “real men” of a particular generation, because they respected her for being “one of the boys.” She could hold her drink and salt her language as well as they could; is she unfeminine? Gertrude Bell opposed the vote for women on class idealism, but she broke a number of records in mountain climbing and garnered much respect worldwide for her prowess in a number of “manly” activities — even traveling the desert without a male escort, mapping it and honing the respect of a number of tribal leaders in the process. Even T.E. Lawrence sought her out for advice. So did Churchill. She never married, but had at least two affairs (one with a married man). Was she unfeminine? The women in the army dress like men, talk like men, and do the jobs of men. And a number of them find the army very suitable. The military is hardly feminine by anyone’s definition. So are they unfeminine? Perhaps the issue is not so much femininity, but a definition that is so narrowly defined that it cannot but preclude certain individuals — a definition that was not created by God.
You may want to check out Caroline Norton while you’re on the Victorian website — and check out the marriage laws of Victorian England. Scorn and public ridicule tend to be the reaction to any woman who wants to affect change or who promotes an issue of inclusion. That hasn’t changed much over the years. What surprises me, though, is that women can be convinced to work against their own best interests. For example, there were a number of women who were just as convinced that they shouldn’t have equitable marriage laws or access to education or any other benefit that men had. I guess that is much like the woman who is being beaten and then fiercely defends her husband for beating her.
Contrary to what you have written, feminists do speak for all women. But women are not one-dimensional. They are complex beings with sometimes subtle differences and sometimes huge differences even among a particular culture or ethnic group. Over here I see a number of women who do not fit the conservative definition of femininity: Samoan women are hardly designed to be Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Bunnies. A number of Hawaiian native women are not the petite dark-haired beauties that populated the calendars and postcards of yesteryear (an image conjured by a westerner, no doubt). Some could easily pass for Sumo wrestlers. And some could easily tote a cargo weighing a couple of hundred pounds or so on their shoulders. Their voices aren’t soft at all, but does that mean they shouldn’t be heard at all? Yet, too, there are some women who enjoy the status quo and do not want women to work for change — it would jeopardize their positions, they believe. In other words, in the world of needs and desires for women, one size definitely does not fit all — and one definition of feminism is not sufficient. To suggest otherwise is to make women no better than stereotypes or caricatures — and thereby easy targets of jokes, and just as easily dismissed as unimportant. Such is the deal on a great number of talk radio programs and “news” programs that indulge in “tokenism” hiring practices. These businesses, through sophisticated PR rhetoric, would have us believe that they have done right by women because they have hired one, but they would never speak up for her. Such businesses are led by those who invoke the letter of the law but revoke the spirit.
The feminist movement is about people, so of course, it aligns with a political party that tends to the needs of people, rather than to the needs of big business. And really, can you honestly say that the Republican Party has done anything but malign the feminists? It would be ludicrous for the feminists to align with the Republicans; feminists are their favorite whipping group for what’s wrong in society. Do you then blame the feminists for exercising their sensibility in this matter? What have the Republicans done for women anyway? Didn’t Ann Coulter say that she would give up her right to vote if it meant that Republicans would stay in office forever? (She’s such a fine example of femininity!) Don’t the ratings of Rush Limbaugh go up every time he bashes women or refers to women in leadership positions as Femi-Nazis and racists? (And he’s all for furthering the causes of women!)
Though we do owe the feminists of yesteryear much gratitude for furthering the rights of all women, we do them a great disservice when we believe that their hard work did not require them to be hard or unrelenting or to confront the ideals of womanhood held by both men and women of their day. The biases and hostilities they had to contend with are lessened today only because time has made them so. Being removed from the immediacy of these events, we have the luxury of reviewing them in a less emotional manner and can make rational judgements about them. The fear of their turning society upside down and destroying the home is gone, only to be revived by today’s headline-seeking detractors and ratings-consumed talk show hosts bent on keeping us all in an irrational state of mind — again. However, were we to look at the agenda that today’s feminists have — without the hostility and the hair-on-fire rhetoric — we would see an agenda that is more diverse and yet just as inclusive as the suffragettes’ goals of yesteryear. Here is a list of a few issues that the feminists promote (and in a number of cases, they have been the first ones that brought these issues to light and have since comprised the largest number of supporters who still fight for these “causes”)
(1) Health care for all — especially in areas relevant to all women: breast cancer awareness/mammograms, cervical cancer prevention/immunization, birth control & hormone therapy (and if you believe that feminists only promote abortion when it comes to health care, you may want to check out www.feministsforlife.org )
(2) Economic equality and opportunity — here and abroad (check out the websites devoted to international feminism, and check out the work done in third world countries; the work of feminists in Iran and India may also be of interest to you; Hilary Clinton has been involved in many of these international groups and is perhaps better known in those countries for her humanitarian work for women)
(3) Educational opportunities for all women — especially in math, science, and sports — areas not traditionally open to women; women’s groups have sponsored math and science and space camps for girls; have given out numerous scholarships to women in sports and other fields to encourage women to continue their education as well as to broaden the economic opportunities for women
(4) Date rape awareness and counseling — very controversial even today; many men and women do not believe that date rape happens and if it does then it must be the woman’s fault; even campus security will not intervene; in other words, young women cannot depend on the status quo network to come to their aid in this matter — gender does matter in this area and it isn’t the female gender that is respected in these cases; do you think even the church has a history of defending women in date rape cases? I am so sorry to say that in these cases, the church leaders have been more prone to throw the first stone. So where is a young woman to turn? If not for feminists, there would be no one.
I strongly feel that we need to get away from the caricatures of the feminists drawn by those who feel so threatened by equality that they resort to distortions and propaganda to divert us from the truth of the issues. By dehumanizing feminists, they make a story of the harm feminists have caused. They present feminists as monsters that are bent on destroying the home and society. But that is just not so. Feminists want there to be homes and societies where all people are safe, not just for those int power or in the mainstream. And to have these ideas realized, there must be a few who guard against the tyranny of the status quo, the tyranny of the extremists, the tyranny of the powerful. They are the ones most often maligned and marginalized. They take the hits for us, so that ideas that are now thought of as foolish or unnecessary (or worse — subversive) will not always be thought of in those terms. Even Susan B. Anthony spent some time in jail. And Elizabeth Blackwell was accused of betraying her sex when she became a doctor. Ms Rivera did much to raise the professional aspect of the secretary when she refused to take coffee to her boss — at the time, some people spoke of this as a nonsense issue; women were supposed to get coffee for men. But it spoke volumes, no thanks to the ones who tried to trivialize it. And the feminists were there to support her and all women, to rally behind them all, and to speak up when the din of the attacks became too loud to hear the woman’s side of the situation. When Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the like make up the din of the attacks against feminism, can we really hear what the feminists themselves have to say? Can we understand what they are about or what their goals are?
Tags: book clubs reading Jane Austen, feminism, feminist theory, Jane Austen, Jane Austen and today's women, Jane Austen as feminist, women's literature
