Authentic Feminism: The Founders, The Distortions, and An Exemplary Modern Icon
I was eighteen years young the first time I read Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). I recall sitting haphazardly on the floor of one of the many stacks of the university library, my gaze mesmerized by the intensity of her plea for gender equality, my heart enkindled by her passionate declarations of female potentiality, and my intellect awakened by her courageous summons for the world to embrace the wisdom, virtue, and diverse aptitudes of a vast multitude of then-discarded, demeaned, confined women. I recall feeling prouder than ever to be of the same gender as someone so incredibly strong, so rigorously guided toward her goals to facilitate woman’s right to attain the illuminative education then afforded exclusively to men, to make active and potent contributions to politics, medicine, and philosophy, and to be judged on her integrity and her dignity, not on the sum of her parts. I spent countless hours sifting through the text that particular Saturday afternoon, and a commitment to and passion for the study of feminism was sparked instantaneously. “I am a feminist,” I whispered as I closed the front cover of Wollstonecraft’s masterpiece and ran my right index finger gently over the title. My Columbia University Master’s Thesis, and many essays to follow, examined female solitude, female relationships, the feminine voyage, and writing as perhaps woman’s greatest strengthening instrument. I wish I could say I’ve discovered an honorable modern feminism that echoes Wollstonecraft’s female empowerment crusade.
I regret to inform you that what I’ve encountered instead is a distortion of our founding feminists’ inspiring proclamations and righteous calls to action, a rise to the forefront of many who wear the label feminist but in no way reflect the beauty or majesty of the formative movement, and their relentless push to cripple any woman-be she housewife or Senator, academic or artist-who dares to reject this newfound vision in favor of Wollstonecraft’s moral and philosophical higher order. I invite you to share this brief journey with me…a peek into a few of the many powerful declarations of our founding feminists and an insightful analysis of the contrast between their vision and that of those most widely associated with feminism today. I ask you to cast an open, non-discriminatory, yet rational gaze-very much in line with the Age of Enlightenment which philosophically galvanized feminist founders to action-upon a woman and a leader we have heard a great deal about, her every “if, and, and but” the scrutiny of the mainstream media, and her vision, aptitude, and ethical authenticity questioned perhaps more than any other political figure to date. I do not wish to sift through the pros and cons of Sarah Palin’s energy policy, her small government solutions, or her support of our troops overseas. I instead seek to take a good, hard look at the woman detested by an astounding number of modern feminists far and wide, a woman who has been labeled an anti-feminist and anti-woman by countless females on the left who have been appalled, offended, and insulted by her vision, her essence, and her assertion that she does in fact believe herself to be a feminist.
The word feminism harbors a multitude of dictionary definitions, from Miriam-Webster’s “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes” to dictionary.com’s “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” In addition to Mary Wollstonecraft, considered by many the “mother of feminism,” Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton systematically championed women’s suffrage, as well as woman’s right to own property and seek higher education. The 1848 Convention in Seneca Falls, at which Cady Stanton’s Declaration of Sentiments was approved, was a pivotal step toward the women’s suffrage movement. B. Anthony and Cady Stanton would later found the National Woman Suffrage Association, soon after to become the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Alice Stokes Paul authored the original Equal Rights Amendment in 1923, guaranteeing that equal gender rights be respected and observed under federal, state, and local law. Her passionate work with the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) and steadfast commitment to equal rights secured her legacy as one of the primary activists working religiously toward the passage of the nineteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Exuberant author and suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage championed woman’s natural right to equality of voice and opportunity. She was the founder and president of the Women’s National Liberal Union (WNLU) from 1890 until her death in 1898, setting herself apart from B. Anthony and Cady Stanton in her criticism of the Christian Church. American suffragist Victoria Claflin Woodhull emerged as the first woman to campaign for the office of President of the United States in 1872 and courageously petitioned Congress in person for the right to vote. I have presented here a mere handful of our country’s true founding feminists, one perhaps slightly bolder than another, one perchance more radical, another more secular. However, their undying commitment to women’s rights, with suffrage the imminent goal for most, undeniably united them. Many were also united by one other thing: an opposition to abortion.
In Susan B. Anthony’s publication, The Revolution, Elizabeth Cady Stanton affirms, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” In the same publication, the following statement is signed “A”: “. . . Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death…” It has been heavily-debated whether or not that statement can be attributed to Susan B. Anthony herself. In Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, Victoria Woodhull asserts, “The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.” Alice Paul’s assertion that “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women” has long been echoed by modern pro-life activists, and our “mother of feminism,” Mary Wollstonecraft’s doctrine with respect to abortion is clearly reflected through her Vindication, leaving little open to interpretation: “Women becoming, consequently weaker in mind and body, than they ought to be . . . either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in everything demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.”
So what exactly has become of feminism, the feminism that inspired me to great heights that September afternoon in the library some ten years ago? In his article “The Seduction of Feminism,” David Reardon juxtaposes the feminism of our Founding Mothers to the neo-feminism of the 1960’s movement: “…this ‘neo-feminism’ is far removed from the ideals and goals of the original 19th century feminists, who were strongly rooted in the traditional Judeo-Christian concepts of morality and justice.” He goes on to state that abortion was “…the antithesis of feminism’s egalitarian principles until the mid-1960’s.” So what changed? Reardon affirms: “It was then that population control zealot Lawrence Lader convinced a reticent Betty Friedan, the founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), to adopt abortion as a central element of ‘neofeminism’. Lader…was the founder of the National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) and has repeatedly supported the State’s right to force women into unwanted abortion for population control and eugenic reasons.” As a result of Friedan’s concession, Reardon asserts that NOW acquired the support of “…population controllers and leaders of the sexual revolution who in turn provided financial and political muscle to aid the budding feminist movement.” In other words, loyalty to the founding movement took a back seat to the proliferation of NOW’s newfound message, in which “…the freedom to choose is paramount…what the choice means, whether or not the child is a person, or how the abortion affects women in the long run, is immaterial” (Reardon 3). As James M. Wallace, author of “Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion” states, “For too many modern feminists, ‘a woman’s right to choose’ to kill her preborn child for any reason at any time during pregnancy is not only an inviolable right, but is the highest feminist sacrament, thus the ultimate fulfillment of true womanhood.” If that’s the ultimate fulfillment of true womanhood, then women have been done more than a horrific injustice.
So ultimately, what do we have here? We have a founding movement in which women devoted their days and nights to the acquisition of women’s rights, systematically struggled for the application of Rousseau’s Enlightenment fundamentals to both genders, and maintained that a woman’s choice of abortion reflected a weakness she’d come to inhabit (thanks to exploitation, sexual objectification, and a society that repeatedly indoctrinates women with the notion that abortion is their ticket to liberty). Who, in our current political society—more specifically, what woman—most closely echoes the convictions of these very brave, never forgotten heroes of herstory?
In November of 2008, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in the course of an interview with Greta Van Susteren, began a statement with, “I consider myself too, a feminist, whatever that means…” The mainstream media quickly hurried to get their word out that Palin didn’t have a shred of a clue what the movement represented-of course rarely, if ever, providing the culmination of her statement. I will do so for you now: “In fact, I subscribe to Feminists for Life. I’m a pro-life woman who wants to make sure that, you know, we cherish the sanctity of life. And this group, Feminists for Life, sort of encapsulates all that I believe in with that – with the pro-life movement. But I would like to see more of these feminist women open their minds, too, and not be, perhaps, narrow-minded in consideration of a working mom who represents much of what they have fought for all these years, also, with equal opportunity and – and I would like them to just be bold and brave and kind of at least explore someone like me. And I guess ‘like me’ means I – I am a conservative in terms of not believing that government is the answer to all of our problems and challenges. I believe that individuals and our families, and then on the local level, a local government, can make better decisions than – for what we need and what our priorities are than what big government on a federal level can make for us.” A feminist for life? Huh. I wonder what Wollstonecraft would’ve had to say about that.
The pro-life group to which Sarah Palin belongs, Feminists for Life of America (FFL), is a non-profit international organization. Founded in 1972 in Ohio by Pat Goltz and Cathy Callaghan, it is currently based in Alexandria, Virginia. Goltz was interestingly cast out of the Columbus, Ohio chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1974 because of her assertion that abortion violates true feminist dogma. FFL has encountered some pretty lethal criticism for promoting a pro-life agenda. Marcy Bloom, author of “What Does ‘Feminists for Life’ Tell Us About Palin” attests that FFL “…completely manipulates the feminist terminology of empowerment.” Really? Well let’s have a look. FFL affirms that basic human rights begin at conception, and because of that Wollstonecraftian tenet, have instated a College Outreach Program which seeks to not only educate students on the history of founding feminists-heaven forbid-but to identify difficulties encountered by pregnant women and struggling mothers. They advocate the rescue of women trapped in situations of domestic violence, the protection of women and children from sex trafficking, increased employment and educational opportunities for women, micro-loans and business assistance for low-income women, child care for the working poor, forced labor regulations for women and children, and health care for mother and child-from prenatal care to assisted delivery and postpartum care. My personal favorite attack against FFL-an organization which, by the way, I hold no personal ties to whatsoever-is Ruth Rosen’s declaration in “Sarah Palin and Feminists for Life” that FFL “…is a cunning attempt to convince young women that choice means giving up the right to ‘choose.’” Really? Encouraging women to “give up the right to choose” by advocating loans for struggling pregnant women who, due to financial malady, may otherwise be left with nothing but the option to abort? Or by voicing support for health care for mother and child so as to potentially enable a teenage or single mother…or perhaps a woman who recently lost her job…to bear a child she may very well like to mother?
Now on to Sarah Palin, who proclaimed in late September of 2008, “I’m a feminist…who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway. And I’m very, very thankful that I’ve been brought up in a family where gender hasn’t been an issue.” Hold on a second. A woman who believes that she has every opportunity to succeed as a man? But wouldn’t a victimized portrayal of women as perpetually unable to compete with the men who physically and emotionally suppress them have been more appealing? Perhaps to Couric, but not to Palin.
Sarah Palin, who has been painted as everything from a member of the Religious Right to a small town know-nothing to an anti-woman, has faced the blazing wrath of feminists in a way I’ve never witnessed before. Let’s take a look at some of the things that have been written about this Idaho-born mother of five. Vickey Allen, author of “Sarah Palin: Anti-Woman ‘Feminist’” states, “She seems unaware of her gender, regurgitating the misogynistic party line of the Republicans.” I didn’t know that small government, low taxes, and constitutional integrity were misogynistic. I’ll have to look into that. In “Why Sarah Palin Offends Feminists,” Victoria Anisman-Reiner states, “Palin is controversial precisely because she is a woman who espouses the anti-women politics of the gun-toting, Christian Right…” Once again, I wasn’t aware that those who support the second amendment and/or are pro-life are inherently woman-haters. In “A Feminist Appalled by Palin,” Sarah Seltzer asserts that Palin is representative of an anti-choice movement that “…is not about saving unborn children, but rather about controlling women’s sexuality, and subjecting women to second-class citizen status.” So are you suggesting, Ms. Seltzer, that encouraging women to make responsible choices, to be accountable for their actions, and to comprehend that a baby shouldn’t be discarded as readily as the morning newspaper, subjects women to second-class status? Let us remember that personal responsibility was one of the key founding tenets of the feminist movement, and any woman who truly appreciates the blessing of being born a female should innately value, protect, and nurture her sexuality as a gift to bestow upon any other being. To teach women that carelessness is acceptable because your local abortion clinic is waiting in the wings to remedy your mistake is a fierce disservice to women. Gloria Steinem, a leader in the modern feminist movement, weighed in heavily on Palin at jezebel.com: “It’s such an insult…having someone who looks like you and behaves like them-who looks like a friend but behaves like an adversary-is worse than having no one.” Pardon me, Ms. Steinem, but are you suggesting that women and men are on perpetually opposing teams, that men are our adversaries, that we must overcome them in an effort to uphold our dignity? I certainly hope not, as that terribly polarizing view breeds division, not unity. Steinem devoted an entire op-ed in the LA Times in September of 2008 to Governor Palin, pleading with readers to ignore Palin as a tribute to those “…who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote.” I hate to break it to you, Ms. Steinem, but those early suffragists would very likely be voting for the woman for whom you possess such fascinating scorn.
Countless other articles could easily be mentioned, but the pattern remains the same. Sarah Palin does not support abortion in most cases (she does condone it in instances where the mother’s life is in jeopardy), and because of that, has been unilaterally pegged by far left “feminists” as opposed to women’s rights. Misinformation with respect to her support of contraception (she does, but numerous articles cite that she doesn’t) and the teaching of evolution in schools (she supports student exposure to both Creationism and Evolution, though many on the left have disregarded her assessment of evolution as an accepted principle in order to disguise her as the radical Religious Right force she is not), abounds. Her signed legislation expanding Alaska’s Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and proud reverence for the unique capacity of woman to bear the gift of life, have been repudiated by NOW and modern feminist leaders terrified of her charm, charisma, and ability to inspirit crowds to great altitudes. Ann Althouse, author of “Sarah Palin is Great for Feminism,” states: “Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who’ve been scorning feminism-because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.”
Sarah Palin, the youngest governor in Alaskan history and the first female Governor of that state…the first woman to be nominated for Vice President on the Republican ticket… a devoted mother of five who married her childhood sweetheart in 1988…a Mayor who kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk during her first year in office and would pull a name once per week, pick up the telephone, and ask “How’s the city doing?”…a Governor who did not accept the Alaska state commission’s recommended pay raise of $25,000 for herself because she felt the money could be put to better use for her state…a woman who believes in herself and her convictions, and wants “…women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported…”…that’s the Sarah Palin the mainstream media is scared to death for you to see. The critics are right in that she is pro-life, and hence stands beside an enormous population of women and men who agree with her stance, including Norma McCorvey, “Jane Roe,” who won her abortion over thirty years ago and has since become an outspoken figure in the pro-life movement, pleading with a federal district court in Texas in 2003 to reopen her case and consider over 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who regret their abortions, to support her insistence that abortion hurts women. Norma never did get that abortion in 1973, but instead put the infant up for adoption. Throughout the wide array of outrageous family and personal attacks Palin faced during both the campaign and the months that followed, ranging from her physical appearance to her intellect, many of which harbored outright malicious sexism, NOW was deafeningly silent. It was only when David Letterman crossed the universally sinful barrier of commenting on her fourteen-year-old daughter’s sexual activity, that the organization released a brief statement condemning the comedian.
So what does all of this mean for women, for feminism, and for the future of our country? Upon revisiting Sarah Palin’s statement that, “I am a feminist, whatever that means,” I can’t help but wonder if I’d have said the same thing. After all, what does it mean these days? Does it mean that one must condone abortion? Has a movement whose birth was so profoundly inspirational, whose leaders possessed uplifting intellectual and moral fortitude, been reduced to a single-issue agenda? Does it mean that a pro-life woman will be labeled an anti-feminist simply by nature of her pro-life ideology?
The future of feminism remains to be seen. What I can say is that I haven’t lost sight of Wollstonecraft’s passion and am so deeply grateful that those founders paved the way for a world in which I can proudly challenge any man both physically and intellectually from a place of mutual respect and admiration. Marcy Bloom closed “What Does ‘Feminists for Life’ Tell Us About Palin” with the following statement: “To the Republicans, I say-do not ever pander to me and don’t you dare insult my intelligence. Do not give us a candidate who opposes everything that enhances the lives, health, and opportunities for women and children. But that is what you just did and shame on you.” No, shame on you, Ms. Bloom. Shame on you for falsely suggesting to your readers that Sarah Palin, a mother of five who wasn’t born into the lap of luxury by any means, “is completely out of touch with the realities of the lives of women and families.” And shame on you for suggesting that any person or organization that supports life is inherently anti-woman.
I can only hope in the months and years to come that women of all walks of life, of all parties and families, of all economic and social classes, take a moment to revisit what so many courageous women risked their reputations, their comfort, and sometimes their lives, to fight for. I pray that they see to it that the authenticity of their purpose and selfless beauty of their vision remain unscathed by the countless revisionists determined to corrupt that pure, righteous movement to suit their party or personal platforms.
Sarah Palin, I stand by your belief in women. I stand by your faith in the magnanimous potential of all human life. And, most importantly, I stand by your Wollstonecraftian integrity and unapologetic homage to the foundations of one of the greatest movements to grace our country’s history.
Cross-published as an essay series and in its entirety at The Examiner:
Reviewed by CONSERVATIVES4PALIN at http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-authentic-feminist.html
