Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

ROOT: Despite misconceptions, feminism remains an important aspect of society

Published: Monday, February 20, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 01:02

"I'm not a feminist or anything, but I think women should earn the same amount of money as men."

 
"Is it sexist that these women say they'd let Chris Brown beat them?"
 
"Wow, it's sexist to say a woman should expect to be raped if she's in the military, right?"
 
These are all (paraphrased) conversations I've had in the past week or so. And by no means was this unusual. I jokingly call myself a "token feminist" and occasionally I'm specifically called in to see if something is sexist. 
 
What's unusual is that so many people are completely unsure if something is sexist and are afraid to label it as such. In the same vein, college-educated upperclassmen have no idea what feminism is and make an "eww" face when they say the word. 
 
Here's what feminism is, according to Merriam-Webster: "The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."
Boom. That's it. Really.
 
So, if you believe women should receive equal pay for equal work, you're a feminist. If you believe calling a man "pussy" is sexist, you're a feminist. If you believe people should make their own decisions regarding their health and bodies, you're a feminist. If you believe women aren't extensions of men and are their own separate and unique beings, you're a feminist. 
 
Congratulations and welcome to the wonderful world of feminism. 
 
So why is there all this confusion about the term? Why do so many who agree with feminist ideals refuse to acknowledge they're feminists? 
 
The answers are nuanced, complicated and vary depending on whom you speak to. But no doubt, part of the trouble comes from the actual history of feminism, specifically the radical feminist branch of the feminist tree. Another place is in the popular media (TV shows, movies, etc.), which have "Straw Feminist" characters. A third place is the prevalence of misinformed lunatics speaking about feminism, like Bill "You can't explain that" O'Reilly and Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh.
 
Radical feminism became popular during what feminists call "The Second Wave." The wave lasted from the 1960s until the 1990s, though some feminists argue it ended in 1980s. (For the record, we're in the Third Wave.) It was really only popular for about five to 10 years. As writer Rachel Fudge explains it, "The ‘radical' part came from its proponents' background in the student left, civil rights, and antiwar movements, and was coupled with ‘feminist' to formulate a radical approach to women's liberation."
 
Indeed, radical feminists spoke out about once taboo subjects like rape, abortion, porn, violence and how limiting gender roles really were. Radical stuff, in the 1960s. 
 
Some of those who fit under the radical feminist umbrella were thinkers like Andrea Dworkin. Dworkin argues in her book "Intercourse" that women having sex with men in a patriarchal society is inherently degrading to women and dooms women to inferiority.
 
Thank goodness there's room for disagreement and discussion in the feminist community. Again, radical feminism is a branch among feminist theory, and it's one most mainstream feminists reject. 
 
But this is where part of the misconception comes from. And while I respect radical feminism as a part of feminist history, I reject many of its notions on sex, porn, power and female superiority. (Radical feminism sometimes comes dangerously close to female supremacy, which is as stupid as male supremacy.)
 
Misconceptions about radical feminism are what often bleed into popular culture into a trope called "The Straw Feminist." As Anita Sarkeesian of feministfrequency.com explains, the "Straw Feminist" is a "deliberately created, exaggerated caricature of a feminist that is used to undermine and ridicule feminist movements."
 
Here are a few examples: Betty DeVille from "Rugrats" (better known as Phil and Lil's mom), the woman in "Legally Blonde" who complains about the word "semester," Femme Fatale from "The Powerpuff Girls." The list could go on and on. 
 
As Sarkeesian said, the troubling thing is that many of these characters bring up legitimate concerns. (Except the semester thing. Semester, by the way, has nothing to do with the word "semen.") And their portrayal makes it impossible to take them seriously.
 
Ditto for news media, especially with hosts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh, who purposefully misunderstand what feminists stand for — equality for people of all genders. 
 
And there's a lot to gain from this misunderstanding, too. Keeping people, especially women, away from a philosophy of empowerment means that the status quo is maintained and people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh will stay on top. And more importantly, it keeps women away from access to power.
 
Why else would the stereotypes about ugly, hairy, fat, slutty, angry, lesbian, bra-burning feminists persist? No sane person would want to identify with those stereotypes. 
 
But the fact remains that we need feminism. When we have hearings on contraception with only old, religious white men in our nation's capital, we have a problem. When we have young women who say they'll allow a pop star (Chris Brown) to beat them, we have a problem. When we have pinheaded people saying women in the military should expect to be raped, we have a problem. 
 
The answer is feminism. We need feminism and feminists. Stand up and fight for your equality. 
 
Rhiannon Root is a senior news-editorial and history major. Follow her on Twitter @rhiannonroot and reach her at rhiannonroot@dailynebraskan.com. 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

Anonymous
Wed Feb 22 2012 23:06
I agree with Rory that while I agree with your overall message, simply saying that feminism = belief in equality is simplistic and counterproductive. The word assumes more nuances than that, which are going to stop short of convincing most people of what you're trying to say. "Feminism" implies a need for affirmative action. Is dis-empowerment due to societal/cultural hurdles that are the majority's job to address? Or will it take a cognitive shift outside of anyone's active power? I'm a male and I'm a feminist, but I wish your column had complicated things more. The end-goal of feminism is obvious, yes - equality - but it implies a certain stance toward reaching equality that you don't explore enough here.
Rory Larson
Wed Feb 22 2012 20:45
Rhiannon, I think I'd mostly qualify as a feminist by your definition, with a few reservations on some of your examples. But I think the claim you make for the broad inclusivity of feminism- "what feminists stand for [is] equality for people of all genders"- is inconsistent. First, the term is derived from the Latin for "woman". It intrinsically means "womanism", or "the women's movement". That immediately gives it a gender bias. To say that feminism stands for equality for people of all genders makes about as much sense as to say that aryanism stands for equality for people of all races. Individual members of these movements may stand for these things under the assumption that the designated group is oppressed and that equality means improving its status, but the etymological implication is that they are advocates for that specific group. Second, you yourself point out that "radical feminism" sometimes approaches female superiority, which indicates a position of non-equality between the genders. Yet you still acknowledge radical feminism as a branch of feminism, which means that feminism does not necessarily imply a stand for gender equality.

I think we're better off understanding feminism as advocacy for women and women's rights, in a world in which women suffer many disadvantages that might reasonably be ameliorated. Trying to seize the moral high ground by equating it with gender-neutral concepts and positions only leads to confusion.

Anonymous, I understand that you have some disagreements with Rhiannon's article too. I would urge you to think them through and post when you are able to present them clearly in a non-hostile way. We all take pot-shots at politicians and major media figures because they are symbolic and will not generally hear what we say anyway. But in a college newspaper like this, the author of the article almost certainly will read what you write back to her, and you have the opportunity to intelligently critique her views and improve your own as you try to convince her that your position is better. Or you can simply vent your spleen, hurt her feelings, and come across to the world as a selfish, arrogant adolescent who discredits his own views. I think you would be much more interesting to read if you chose the first way, and made it a point never to write a critique that you were ashamed to sign your name to.

Best, Rory

Anonymous
Wed Feb 22 2012 19:09
I am a feminist.

And I am a young, white, religious college woman who opposes the HHS mandate. Birth control is all about male power - NOT about feminism. Birth control makes it SO much easier for men to use women! Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Anonymous
Wed Feb 22 2012 17:14
If you think that feminism can be explained by websters then you are living in Xanadu. UNL is pretty close to Xanadu. I see your a Senior, well good, reality is about to kick your butt.
There are just so many things about your opinion that I wish were right but in reality are total crap!






log out