College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Wiki-feminism is true mistake

Published: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Feminism is too complicated an entity to be characterized from a few quotes pulled from a Google search or a Wikipedia entry, as fellow columnist Ashley Reynolds represented it in her column, “The feminist mystake,” which ran last Friday. 

Feminism is a political movement, an artistic movement, a philosophical movement and a lifestyle. 

While feminism has roots that go as far back as Ancient world, we generally begin with first wave feminism, an Anglo-American movement in which women — as well as some men — in the United Kingdom and the United States fought for women’s suffrage.

They argued that women, being morally superior to men, should have the right to vote, based upon the Victorian notion that women (at least middle class and upper class women) were the moral gatekeepers of the family. 

However, the movement in each country was different and contained many diverse voices within. 

Although my colleague referred to American first wave feminists Susan B. Anthony, Victoria Woodhull, Alice Paul and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, she left out other feminists from that era, such as former slave Sojourner Truth, and birth control advocates, including anarchist Emma Goldman and socialist Margaret Sanger. 

And, while many first wave feminists were anti-abortion rights, those such as Goldman and Sanger saw the need for sex education and birth control in order to prevent abortions from occurring.

Second wave feminism was not hijacked, as Reynolds claims, from the first wave; it evolved out of the first wave, as well as the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements of the 1950s and 1960s.

While second wave feminism — as well as the third wave — are associated with pro-abortion rights, it is unfair to assume that all second (and third) wave feminists are pro-abortion rights or pro-abortion. 

Pro-abortion rights and pro-abortion are also not the same thing.

Second wave feminism evolved because getting the vote did not make women equal members of our society. 

Feminists such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem fought for abortion rights, an equal rights amendment to the constitution (which failed), equal opportunities for women in higher education (Title IX), equal opportunities for women to pursue careers if they so chose, equal pay for equal work (which still has not happened), equal treatment in the military (also not happened) and other issues. 

Second wave feminism had successes and failures, as well as voices at each extreme of the debate. There were feminists who wanted to take over the world, but many others just wanted the chance to be considered an important contributing member of society outside of the domestic sphere. 

Third wave feminism continues to respond to first and second wave feminisms by including a greater diversity of voices, such as those of Bell Hooks and Gayatri Spivak, who look at the way race, class, religion and sexuality join with gender in systems of oppression. 

This wave is also more global, examining the roots of oppression, the types of oppression and possible solutions to the problem of oppression not only in the United States and Europe, but also in countries in Africa, Asia and South America, that were left out or underrepresented in earlier feminisms.

Now, after giving a too brief and too summarized history of feminism, I want to share something with you: Every feminist comes from a different background and has different priorities, although similar goals. 

As a feminist, I prioritize issues of violence against women, whether that violence comes in the form of rape, the misuse of vaginal words as insults, molestation of children, female circumcision, domestic violence and sexual harassment. 

Every one of the issues I listed is a problem in the United States. 

Female circumcision happens here, but there is more than one way to mutilate a vagina. It can happen through unwanted sex, molestation, sexual harassment and even the misuse of language. 

We have plenty of violence issues to deal with in our own back yards, without the full equality women in many European countries have because of the equal rights’ amendments that did pass. Rape, domestic violence and molestation — particularly of teenagers — are serious problems in this country. 

Until I live in a world without these forms of violence, I will fight them and support abortion rights, stricter laws against rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence, as well as the way language is used to teach women to feel ashamed of their bodies and their sexuality. 

I am just one voice in a movement of many fighting for the equal rights few women of the world have. 

And for your information, we do not have them here, yet, Ashley. I invite you, and anyone else who is interested, to engage in the real feminist tradition, rather than the nineteenth century ideas you used in your column to push your own anti-abortion rights agenda.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

16 comments Log in to Comment

Meg
Wed Mar 10 2010 22:41
So what makes Schlafly a feminist?
JC
Wed Mar 10 2010 21:58
Sean, I'm going to have to disagree.

The Forum page is an important place for students and other members of the OSU community to share ideas and help others understand their sides. And as we, the readers, all participate in that discussion, we learn more about each others' viewpoints, why the other side feels as it does, etc.

One of the great things about the comments specifically on the O'Colly Web site is that -- they're usually coming from someone seeking higher education or someone who has already received a degree. This tends to foster more of a commentary setting, rather than just a bunch of people saying, "Rabble rabble rabble!" like you'll often find on sites such as The Tulsa World and the Oklahoman.

The Forum has a wide variety of viewpoints represented each week, and even though you might not see actual change, you never know the impact that a column has on a reader. But I am going to venture to guess if you ask any of the columnists who write for the paper, many of them are going to tell you stories about e-mails and messages they've received from people thanking them for their insight.
And it's not just people in the OSU community. For example, Sen. Jim Inhofe contacted the O'Colly after a column ran about Afghanistan.

But ... no one is listening, and this page doesn't matter, right?

sean
Wed Mar 10 2010 20:27
Please realize that these articles are a waste of time for both the reader as well as the author. Arguing for this or that on the internet, or more specifically a schools new website wont change anything. If it is outside your realm of influence it is irrelevant.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 20:11
I thank God everyday that I was born male.
Alli
Wed Mar 10 2010 20:01
Great article. A very well-rounded counterargument to Ashley's article. I read somewhere that "the right way to fight criticism you don't agree with is not censorship, but more criticism." As Karen pointed out, there are many ways to follow feminist ideals, and though some, like Ashley, may not agree with some of the more extreme views of feminists who have achieved notoriety, it is certainly not a reason to vilify an entire group of people simply striving for human rights and equality. In fact, feminists have made it possible for women like Ashley and Karen to even have a voice at all in a published newspaper. Though we may not agree on particularities like abortion rights, we all owe a great debt to the women throughout history who fought to empower our generation of women to reject societal limitations on gender and feel free to pursue the kind of life we want for ourselves.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 17:21
"Ahhhhhhh."

There's my sigh of relief that there are still good people at OSU.

JC
Wed Mar 10 2010 17:09
Let's go over some things Karen Sisk didn't say in her column.
- Karen did not say Ashley Reynolds should not have spoken her opinion.
- Karen did not say to be a good feminist, you must support abortion rights.
- Karen did not say men cannot be feminists.
- Karen did not say she ranks herself above men.
- Karen did not say women should be ranked higher than men.

Karen did say "Every feminist comes from a different background and has different priorities, although similar goals."
Meaning — some feminists are Republicans. Some are Democrats. Some are independents. Some support abortion rights. Some are against abortion. And some think the reproductive debate should focus less on whether a bunch of middle class women can get abortions and instead, look at whether women of all backgrounds have access to birth control, prenatal vitamins, gynecologist they can afford and trust, etc.

Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 15:09
As head of the household, I sometimes let my wife read these people.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 15:03
Talk about taking things out of context. All Phyllis Schlafly, like Reynolds, believes is that what modern feminism has become isn't true feminism. Phyllis is an equity feminist. She is a wife, mother of 5, constitutional attorney, and national organization founder that single-handedly defeated a piece of legislation. She certainly isn't out to say that women are inferior or should be oppressed.
Meg
Wed Mar 10 2010 14:50
Phyllis Schlafly would be very surprised to learn she's a feminist. This is the woman who said feminism is "the most dangerous, destructive force in our society today." You don't qualify as a feminist just because you're a woman, or because you think women are only slightly inferior to men.
Richard Alpert
Wed Mar 10 2010 14:26
You would think that true feminists who valued women's rights would be praising Ashley for not only speaking her mind, but the fact that women are able to freely speak their mind. And Ms. Sisk (I feel like I might offend her b/c she will probably think I am putting her in a box by adding the "Ms." before her name although I am doing it out of respect) states that all feminists come from different background and have different goals, so my question is: Can Ashley not be one of these feminists with goals and viewpoints that may differ from your own?
Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 14:18
you know, feminists do have a very noble cause, but i feel like it is sort of tunnel-visioned. I want women to have equal rights just as much as everyone else, but there's some cases where it doesn't always work. take the military for example. if two men are on a battlefield under fire they can probably work together. the same for two women. but if you put a man and a woman together, and the man will instinctively try to protect her. It's not sexist, its nature. and as far as Title IX goes, i don't understand how setting quotas for girls and minorities but not guys promotes equality. it sounds like just the opposite. just think about it.
Kelli
Wed Mar 10 2010 13:15
Women like Karen Sisk need to recognize that women like Phyllis Schlafly and Ashley Reynolds (and myself) are feminists too, even though they disagree with the brand of feminism promoted here. And Ashley absolutely does NOT need to stop pushing a pro-life agenda in order to be a feminist.
Liberals are big on tolerance until it means being tolerant of conservatives.
Male OSU alum
Wed Mar 10 2010 10:46
Well said! I had thought things were (slowly but surely) moving forward at my alma mater, so Ashley's article was of great concern to me. You've given me hope in OSU's future.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 10 2010 09:26
right on.
Laura
Wed Mar 10 2010 09:24
This was an excellent article in that the author stated her purpose and her viewpoint, but did not push an agenda. I was surprised and pleased to read something that did not come across as "preachy," nor did it put down the viewpoints of others of perhaps differing opinions. In fact, the only attack was on those who fail to do elementary research before judging their peers.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In