Conservative Feminism: An Oxymoron?

The following discussion of "conservative feminism" took place on
WMST-L in December 1998.  The "recent thread" to which the first message
refers can be found in the WMST-L web file Radical Feminism.  For more
compilations of WMST-L messages, see the WMST-L File List.

 
Greetings:
 
This came up in class last week...Is there such an entity as a
"conservative feminist"? Some feminists are more conservative than others,
of course (and as the recent thread on radical feminism has illustrated),
but can one be a conservative, politically, but also be a feminist?
 
niki
---------------------------------------------------------
Nijole (Niki) Benokraitis, Professor of Sociology
University of Baltimore, 1420 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201
Fax: 410-837-6051; Voicemail: 410-837-5294; nbenokraitis  @  ubmail.ubalt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------

 
This is a question that i have problems with.  In Israel we have a number
of women politicians and activists  on the extreme right who beleive in
different status of citizenship for Jews and Arabs (less rights etc.)
Regarding abortions they are agains abortions for Jewish women on
dmographic grounds ( to prrevent the reduction ofJewish births.)  When
they deal with the Jewish population they are fighters for women's rights
and status. For example Communications Minister Limor Livnat of the LIkud
(more right then Bibi) has been hiring and promoting women in her
Ministry. If women's rights are human rights, I find it hard to understand
how these conservitive women can considr themselves feminists. For me
feminsit must be for the rights of all. Marilyn
 
***************************************************************************
* Marilyn P. Safir, PhD         Internet:  msafir  @  psy.haifa.ac.il         *
* Associate Professor           Telephone: 972-4-824-0929/0318w, /5223h   *
* Department of Psychology      Fax:       972-4-824-0966/9014W, /0223h   *
* UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA           Telex:     46660 UNIHA                    *
* Haifa  31905, Israel                                                    *
***************************************************************************

 
 
A political perspective/viewpoint/action that is gender-conscious and
seeks to benefit or improve the status/condition of women (i.e.
"feminist") can as easily be conservative (or reactionary!) as liberal,
progressive, or radical--the distinction lies in what is believed to be
the causes of distress and what would constitute "improvement."
Politically "conservative" women don't tend to self-identify as
"feminists," however, which is another conversation.  See Sue Tolleson
Rinehart's Gender Consciousness and Politics if you need help clarifying
this point to your students?I've used it successfully in some of my
Women and Politics classes.
 
Good luck!
 
Debbie <louis  @  umbc.edu>

 
The term "conservative feminist" here at U of L seems to be used by
students (and some faculty) as a means of distinguishing themselves from
the radical element, which seems to be equated (in their minds) with
deviance, anarchy, and other similar negative connotations.  I agree that
there is a lot more imbedded in this than meets the eye.  It seems to be
buying into the same binary opposite (active vs. passive, knowledge vs.
intuition, etc.) mentality that has characterized patriarchal oppression.
The difference in this case is that the so-called conservative feminists
seem to be characterized as "rational", while the radical feminists
"irrational".  Thus, the designation "conservative feminist" appears to
provide space for young women to embrace the label feminist while
distancing themselves from perceived negative baggage.  In a sense they
are saying that they can be a feminist and still be a "good girl".  This
"good girl" image seems to be very important to a lot of college-age women
and, I have devoted considerable time engaging my students in a
critical examination of this image to reveal its degradation, subjugation,
hypocrisy, contradictions, etc.  In the end, however, each student must
come to their own conclusions and make their own decisions.
 
Another philosophical trend that I have noted among "conservative"
feminists is that they very strongly believe that the best, if not the
only, way for change to occur is through working within the present
system.  Thus, there is a fairly strong aversion to activism or
in-your-face politics.  These tend to be viewed as causing more harm than
good.  I have noticed a similar trend away from activism in the lesbian
and gay communities as well.
 
I admit that I may see this somewhat more drastically than others.  About
5 years ago, I went home to Puerto Rico to teach.  During ensuing period,
I did not have much of an opportunity to keep up with what was happening
in North America.  When I returned to the U.S. mainland this past August,
I was shocked at how conservative the political landscape had become on
all levels. It felt as if I had been gone 50 years rather than 5!
 
Angela Pattatucci Aragon
Visiting Professor of Women's Studies
University of Louisville
ampatt02  @  athena.louisville.edu

 
    After reading what Angela Pattatucci Aragon and Joanne Callahan
contributed to this discussion, it sounds like "conservative" feminism is
becoming what "liberal" feminism used to be. When I first learned some
(working) definitions of the different feminisms, I always thought it odd
that the spectrum seemed to go from liberal to radical -- but I think the
reason it was labeled (defined...) in that way is due to our aversion to
word "conservative."  And rightly so, I might add.  Perhaps, as the times
change and the politics of people (and culture) change, what was once
radical seems only liberal,  liberal seems conservative, and perhaps
conservative seems reactionary.
 
For example--
 
"Another philosophical trend that I have noted among "conservative"
feminists is that they very strongly believe that the best, if not the
only, way for change to occur is through working within the present
system."  (A.P. Aragon)
 
In my feminist theory class, I would have considered the above statement to
be an attribute of "liberal"
feminism (as opposed to radical).  Its very interesting that people who
self-define as conservative feminists feel more comfortable with the word
"conservative."  (honestly, the word "conservative" has always raised a red
flag with me!)
 
--
Maria Baldridge
mailto:bbaldr1  @  gl.umbc.edu
http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~bbaldr1
 
UMBC Women's Studies Program
http://www.umbc.edu/wmst
410-455-2001

 
B. Maria Baldridge wrote:
> it sounds like "conservative" feminism is
>becoming what "liberal" feminism used to be. When I first learned some
>(working) definitions of the different feminisms, I always thought it odd
>that the spectrum seemed to go from liberal to radical -- but I think the
>reason it was labeled (defined...) in that way is due to our aversion to
>word "conservative."
 
Actually I believe the etymology of "liberal" in this case does not refer
to "liberal vs. conservative" but to liberal humanism, the
Enlightenment-spawned belief that each person has individual inalienable
rights.  Liberal feminism takes the "all men are equal" rhetoric and
adds women.  There's no concern about deconstructing the terms "equal"
or "individual" or "freedom" nor is the point to  challenge the hierarchy
of privilege this European class-based androcentric system sets up.
Non-human animals, for example, are not granted the same rights and remain
on the "wrong" side of the binary opposition.  So some radial feminists
and ecofeminists prefer to deconstruct these terms and/or abolish the
binary opposition altogether, instead favoring a paradigm of connectedness
over hierarchy and privilege. In reference to U.S. political parties,
"Liberal" politicians are not interested in such a radical overhaul of the
system nor of the definitions of what it is to be human. So actually, yes,
they are "conservative" too.
 
Diana York Blaine
Department of English
University of North Texas
dblaine  @  unt.edu

 
Feminism is no longer in its infancy. At the beginning, it was all radical
as far as the mainstream was concerned.  But with maturity and its
acceptance within the mainstream comes the natural desire to stratify and
differentiate.
 
My question is, do we gain more for women by recognizing a conservative
manifestation of feminism than by refusing to acknowledge that they too
consider themselves feminists?
It seems to me that those who consider themselves radical or "true"
feminists and who
reject women who see themselves as conservative, came through the movement
in one way or another. Conservative feminists are latecomers. Perhaps they
missed the movement altogether
and adopted "feminism" as they sought to get jobs that paid equally to what
men get paid or otherwise adopted one aspect rather than the whole program.
 
I am speculating here, thinking out loud, trying to understand why this
latter group would want to call themselves feminists or associate
themselves with women who reject their claim to the term.  I am thinking of
the Rockefellar republicans who would scarcely recognize their party today.
Especially today:-(
 
Perhaps the conservative claim to the term is totally bogus. What do they
become? Independents?  I don't think I like the sound or the implication of
that one.
 
Rosie 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rosa Maria Pegueros
Assistant Professor             PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
Department of History              pegueros  @  uri.edu
    & Women's Studies Program
Department of History
University of Rhode Island         Phone:(401) 874-4092
113 Washburn Hall             Fax  :(401) 874-2595
Kingston, RI 02881
 
"Politics is great entertainment--better than the zoo,
better than the circus, rougher than football, and even
more aesthetically satisfying than baseball."  --Molly Ivins

 
Dear Women's Studies List:
 
> "Another philosophical trend that I have noted among "conservative"
> feminists is that they very strongly believe that the best, if not the
> only, way for change to occur is through working within the present
> system."  (A.P. Aragon)
>
> In my feminist theory class, I would have considered the above statement to
> be an attribute of "liberal"
> feminism (as opposed to radical).
 
That is an attribute of liberal feminism. However, phrases like "working
within the present system" are moot.  Since we are all in "the system",
we have no choice but to work through "the system".  Fundamentally,
liberal feminists think that legislation, reform, and education are the
answers to women's oppression.  Radical feminists do not disagree, but
they realize that patriarchy goes much deeper than antiquated laws and
bad socialization.  Only radical feminism has dared to look at the whole
of our patriarchal social system.  Liberal feminists dare not say that
'p' word, although they will not argue with anyone who says we're still
in a patriarchy. It's just that they're so focused on getting that bill
passed and making sure people buy into a women's project that they dare
not alienate "the masses".
 
If radical feminists had instituted Take Our Daughters to Work Day, they
would have also had a complementary program like Make Our Sons Clean
House and Take Care of Kids Day. ;-)  When accused of "reverse sexism",
they would have said very plainly that in a patriarchy, the only way
we'll ever begin to change is to "role reverse" from time to time.  They
would have had no qualms about saying that "Take Our Children to Work
Day" only perpetuates the present system since it does not openly
critique patriarchy.  Liberal feminism focuses on the here and now.
Radical feminism takes a holistic approach and dares to say that men
must take their share of responsibility for "the system".
 
> Its very interesting that people who
> self-define as conservative feminists feel more comfortable with the word
> "conservative."  (honestly, the word "conservative" has always raised a red
> flag with me!)
 
That's because they don't know the roots of liberalism.  Today's
"conservatives" are classical liberals who believe that government is
the problem and that individuals left to their own devices will bring
about a more humane society.  If your students want to meet some true-
blue liberal feminists, introduce them to Patricia Ireland, Eleanor
Smeal, and Hillary Clinton.  To a certain point, I believe Republican
women can be liberal feminists.  Tanya Melich and Olympia Snowe are good
examples.  However, history has shown us quite consistently that
classism and poverty cannot be solved by individualist strategies.
Sexism and classism are so closely related that a Republican feminist
may feel some conflicts of interest.  Of course, our welfare system is
also based on an individualist model, but someone like Pat Ireland would
feel less "cognitive dissonance" in protesting welfare reform than a
Republican feminist who distrusts government and is under tremendous
pressure from her party.  Nevertheless, Connie Morella did tell her
party patriarchs that some welfare reform provisions were too harsh.
 
Personally, I think "conservative" feminism and "post-feminism" are new
euphemisms for anti-feminism, "traditionalism", and patriarchalism.
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1  @  airmail.net