I have a piece published on the ABC Drum website today (full transcript below the fold) making the case for the traditional mode of feminism, which emphasised the promotion of economic and social freedoms for women (and men) through the elimination of legislative obstacles, in response to a piece by a University of Sydney student writing a PhD thesis on Antonio Gramsci:
Putting aside her tendency to namedrop personalities and organisations that the Australian left loathe the most, such as Sarah Palin and the Institute of Public Affairs, Elizabeth Humphrys has revealed just what it is about feminism that receives so much public scorn and disrespect these days.
Notwithstanding our clear ideological differences Humphrys and I at least seem to be in agreement that the term ‘feminism’ has transitioned into what is now largely a dirty word, albeit for different reasons.
According to the third-wave feminist strictures of Humphrys, feminism as conventionally understood in academic circles today is inexorably tied up with patriarchy theory. While this is an abstract, and rather contentious, basis for rejecting the feminism label, it is surely her right in a society that upholds freedom of conscience to adopt such a stance.
Earlier conceptions of feminism are also not to Humphrys’ tastes since, it is claimed, they fail to adequately consider how race, religion, ethnicity and socio-economic status might serve to conflate the experiences of oppression still being felt by women.
The third, and final, key objection by Humphrys to the term feminism is that some women who subscribe to non-socialist thought have described themselves, in some form or another, as feminists. Indeed, there seems to be no greater source of revulsion for leftists than to see classical liberals or even conservatives labelling themselves as a feminist.
So in response to all of these issues, what does Humphrys do? She consigns feminism to the dustbin since it is tainted in her mind, embraces the possibly equally tainted second-wave feminist label of ‘women’s lib’ as her own, and then asks ‘who is up for a fight for real emancipation from gender discrimination’ as any self-respecting third-wave feminist probably would.
No wonder why a number of commenters to her original piece expressed confusion!
By contrast I am a feminist, and trying to restore that now-tarnished word to its former glory, because of what many women’s libbers, second- or third-wavers today refuse to acknowledge: feminism, properly so called, is inextricably linked with the great liberal aspiration of extending the bounds of human freedom more generally.
The early feminists from 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by figures such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltairine de Cleyre and Suzanne La Follette, saw their primary objective as being to break down legal and other barriers preventing women from realising equality of opportunities alongside men in economic and social realms.
These and many other first-wave feminists saw governments as obstacles to the realisation of greater freedoms for women. Accordingly, a number of influential feminists of earlier generations tended to be, although not exclusively, of classical liberal persuasion with a corresponding disposition against large, intrusive governments that restricted individual and group rights and freedoms.
Despite long and sometimes bitter campaigns the early feminists eventually earned hard-fought wins for freedom; the legacy of which immeasurably benefits all women in advanced countries today.
Without diminishing the achievements of the early feminists, these pro-liberty gains were secured in part with the support of men sympathetic to the feminist cause. I am not only referring to those important male philosophers and activists siding with the principles of feminism, such as John Stuart Mill in the 1800s and even John Locke as early as the 1600s.
In fact, women could not have won significant gains in equality of opportunities in education, marriage, property rights and work, for example, without the acquiescence of male legislators in often limited-franchise parliaments, who found the basic argument that ‘women’s rights are people’s rights’ impossible to ignore any longer.
However, not satisfied with the freedoms already gained for women to work, attain a worthwhile education, own property, set up a business, and vote, the second- and third-wave feminists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries fundamentally changed their strategic focus regarding their relationship with their historical enemy the coercive, misogynist state.
Armed with new campaign slogans such as ‘the personal is political,’ feminists since the 1960s have increasingly moved away from advocating the abolition of old legislative obstacles to equality of opportunity to the imposition of new legislative obstacles on business, non government organisations and other bodies to enshrine specific gender policy objectives.
This has been reflected across the OECD in the form of workplace gender composition quotas, gendered hiring discrimination, pay equity ratios, and the like, combined with affirmative action bureaucracies to monitor existing policies and devise new ones.
These initiatives have tended to operate against the best economic interests of women, for example by raising effective costs of their employment.
Government legislative edicts also exhaust opportunities for competitive, free markets to discover new and innovative ways of satisfying the economic and social needs of women, and insidiously perpetuate the false idea that women cannot thrive without the visible hand of government preferment.
As a result, feminism has become a shadow of its former self. The movement diminished from being a liberatory, emancipationist cause into just another lobby group attempting to squeeze discriminatory favours out of government.
Contrary to the view of Humphrys the great deregulatory moments in modern history have shown conclusively that a transition to laissez faire economic policy, typified by more private enterprise and less government control over employment and other market conditions, has worked to improve the circumstances of women and men at large.
It is for these reasons that I’ll continue to argue for social and economic policy that does good for women, and all people, rather than call for larger government that hurts more than it helps.
Just heard the announcement by Julia Gillard of the Young Australian of the Year. The winner started her acceptance speech by saying “in Australia, only 10 percent of engineers are women.”
Yawn.
Who cares?
I switched channel.
C.L.
25 Jan 12 at 6:58 pm
I think kids these days (men and women under 25) just ignore feminism as a word used by misandrist old women without real jobs who need a good f…
.
25 Jan 12 at 7:20 pm
Any discussion about ‘feminism’ which does not focus on Islam is pointless and unreal.
cohenite
25 Jan 12 at 7:22 pm
if ‘The bigger problem is that the IPA are the highest profile lobby group for orthodox neoclassical economic reform in Australia’, Humphrey should declare victory and repair to the pub.
$2 million in budget? If that is all the capitalists can string together to fight the good fight, capitalism is a dead carcass hanging in the wind.
Sorry guys, the IPA is a bit player. why the Left gets so excited about it, who knows.
Jim Rose
25 Jan 12 at 7:22 pm
Her problem is that she is a socialist, which is why her ‘feminism’ is so muddled and anxious. What a boring person she sounds.
Peter Patton
25 Jan 12 at 7:24 pm
well as a woman my response to ‘feminism’ as espoused by this author is ‘introversion’ and ‘conceit’
and the question what has she done other than use verbiage
I’d rather see a good day’s work done
val majkus
25 Jan 12 at 7:31 pm
She lost all credibility with me once she started banging on about ‘policy’. No wonder she doesn’t understand Camille Paglia, Madonna, or Sara Palin.
Peter Patton
25 Jan 12 at 7:38 pm
Humphrey refers to the growing gap between men’s and women’s wages in Australia in recent times and links to data that is 11 years old? why?
the gender pay gap declined in the Howard years and rose again after 2006
Jim Rose
25 Jan 12 at 7:38 pm
Jees Julie, you make a lot of sense!
For a sheila.
Winston Smith
25 Jan 12 at 7:42 pm
Great piece
Sinclair Davidson
25 Jan 12 at 8:55 pm
I’m going with JACK.
jumpnmcar
25 Jan 12 at 10:13 pm
feminism has become a shadow of its former self. The movement diminished from being a liberatory, emancipationist cause into just another lobby group attempting to squeeze discriminatory favours out of government.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
25 Jan 12 at 11:14 pm
ooooppps. Blockquotes wrong way round. Funny, how did that happen? Bed time probably.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
25 Jan 12 at 11:15 pm
An article in the Aus last month showed that the public sector is where the greatest inequality in wages exist* which seems to suggest the market values workers based on ability over gender much better than our wonderful government.
*top 5-10% of income earners in the private sector were still mostly males.
sean
26 Jan 12 at 12:01 am
Feminism went into terminal decline when it started knotting childrens issues and family law up into the same bundle. Bottom line, women have kids, kids and workplaces don’t mix, women lose out. To pretend that other things are more important is a nice face saving exercise but here we are discussing the fact that women don’t/can’t break into fields of expertise for no other reason than they would rather be looking at minutiae, see fashion as a primary career weapon and have a multitude of social distractions (not the least loneliness) that constantly get in the way of actual success. Desexualising feminism only serves to stunt a womans most competitive toolset whilst granting them no advantages.
Simon
26 Jan 12 at 12:29 am
Pink Lego blocks. PINK LEGO BLOCKS!! Let the howling commence.
spot
26 Jan 12 at 12:59 am
That’s just sexist.
Gab
26 Jan 12 at 1:03 am
Sanity: Pink Lego doesn’t equal ‘gender apartheid’
“The ‘women’s movement’ has lost its way.”
spot
26 Jan 12 at 1:21 am
Lizzie I wonder how much feminism went from being a liberatory political movement to being a subject taught at uni?
Peter Patton
26 Jan 12 at 9:38 am
The Mover & Shaker Feminists have found safe places in the parallel universe of academe and the various “caring about social issues as defined by us” sub-industries. But everyday women are finding out that their ability to “have it all” depended on paying childcare workers (other women) a pittance. Now that pay rates are increasing the already guilt-inducing long day care routine is likely to lose more gloss as costs chew up the second income – presuming it’s not the only income.
There was a time, long demonized by these same people, when the man’s income could provide a family home and a woman could enjoy to the full her children’s growing years. It might have involved living a little less opulently, but it was better than they made out, and now might even pine for. The family has been systematically undermined for decades, along with Christianity, until we now have endemic family dysfunction to add to all the other forms of societal disintegration.
Back to those well-paid, high-flying opinion-making feminists for a moment: their absence from the cutting edge of the Islamic culture debate has been bleeding obvious for years. It’s not enough that they rediscover the evils of big government. They have to answer for how they spend their time now, and what the west should and should not put up with as this other culture continues to trash women’s rights over here as well as over there.
blogstrop
26 Jan 12 at 10:39 am
Lizzie, women have had the ability to fart out loud ever since we came down from the trees and learnt how to distil alcohol from grains. (Like men.)
The fact that they choose to not do so, in general, is a colonic limitation they have thrust upon themselves.
The Methane Liberation Front – The MLF movement, needs you women to just relax a little.
Winston Smith
26 Jan 12 at 12:00 pm
I followed and contributed to both discussions in the last few days about feminism on the Drum.
I was very suprised by the full and frank expressions of distaste for feminism by the majority of contributors. The pendulum appears to be turning against the self interest that feminism represents.
I hope that in the coming year the opinion polls will publish the male/female divide in voting intentions for the federal elections. Could it be that as the population age older men will think of their sons and grandsons and vote against the inequities that feminism has imposed on men?
AD
26 Jan 12 at 12:27 pm
Whatever ‘equality’ means, we will certainly never have it until we allow women to be women and men to be men, and celebrate the differences, rather than pretend that there are none.
If women have to pretend to think and act like men, and/or men have to pretend to think and act like women, then I don’t think that is true liberation for anyone.
I don’t think many early feminists would support their modern-day sisters.
Ellen of Tasmania
26 Jan 12 at 2:07 pm
Winston, feminism may be never having to apologise for one’s existence, but to some extent we all have to learn to constrain ourselves in polite society. My favorite fart joke shows come-uppance from the workers rather than a win by a Lady:
Dowager Duchess at dinner, having just released a cacophony of methane into the atmosphere, to her nearby Butler: “James, stop it!!”
James the Butler replies with urbanity: “Certainly Madam, which way did it go?”
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
27 Jan 12 at 9:22 am