Ready to fight the radical Women's Wrongs Movement?
Last night in a too-long post about how language shapes the dynamics for committed feminist men and women, especially the majority of feminists who are "I'm not a feminist, but..." feminists, I asked
I'd like to ask you for help me begin to brand the people who really need branding, the men and women who really need qualifying, the ones who think women shouldn't be given bank accounts, or own businesses, or sign contracts without a man's co-signature, the ones who believe women shouldn't have the same reproductive freedoms men have, the ones who believe men are inherently superior to women, the now-radical, now-revolutionary troglodytes who want to turn the clock back to pre-history, the ones who deny the role women played in the early Christian church and therefore deny them roles today as ministers and priests... the ones who are now misappropriating the unqualified and undeserved labels of "normal men and women."
Whether you believe it's time to stop using the word feminist I think most of you would agree we need to start labeling them to distinguish them from normal, ordinary, decent men and women.
While cooking breakfast for the family this morning it occurred to me that my real issue is that the idea that any autonomous human being, or any class thereof, should have to supplicate for rights just offends my sensibilities about what's, well, morally right. I appreciate that subjugation of different classes of people is an ancient tradition but that only indicates that tradition has been deeply, deeply wrong.
In other words I don't see feminism so much as a granting of *rights* to equality and autonomy as a *restoration* from wrongs. And almost as long as I can remember I haven't looked at feminists and said "what you want is right" because what we want is as natural and basic and fundamental and essential as inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. Instead when I contemplate the men and women who believe women are substandard knockoffs and imperfect copies of men I wonder, deeply, even prayerfully, "what's *wrong* with you people?"
I'm still open to suggestion but I think "Women's wrongs" groups would be a very appropriate label. Rush Limbaugh? He supports women's wrongs. South Dakota legislature? Well what else can you expect from women's wrongs activists? The FDA opposes Plan B contraception? They've obviously bought into the women's wrongs agenda. Require a husband's permission to get an abortion? That's a (fairly radical when you think about it) attempt to establish a new women's wrong.
I particularly like the label because it puts the problem squarely where it belongs. As an American I particularly like it because it goes right in the face of everything America has stood for since the words "we hold these truths to be self evident" appeared under a quill pen. I think it's especially appropriate because it puts adherents of women's wrongs on the defensive. I think it's *especially* appropriate because it plays into the rhetorical insecurities of people who secretly know they're wrong and don't want to admit it. And I think it's rhetorically useful because nobody, least of all the "I'm not a feminist, but..." majority-in-the-middle, wants to be on the wrong side of anything.
"You sound like you support women's wrongs? What's the matter with you?"
Time we let them answer *that* for a while!
Actually Figleaf, the way you put that, as though equality is the norm and anything less is a perversion of it is also how I think when people want to discuss 'whether gay ppl should have the same freedoms as straights'. Like the men and women debate, GBLT ppl are just people, the same people as the rest of us and should be able to expect, without any debate, the same rights because they sure as hell have the same responsibilities. And to debate whether they should have those rights just seems arrogant.
Sorry, off topic I know, but it was, like I said, just the way you put it.
[Yup. Gender, gender preference, age, race, class, language, education don't matter so much. Not so off topic, really, just more topic. Thank you, Astra. --fl]
I like the idea of a different phrase for them, however "women's wrong" groups sounds like women have done something wrong, which is what some of these groups (like the anti-choicers) think. It might be too easy to coopt for their purposes.
[That's the power of branding, though. Though I'm not wedded to the choice, it appeals to me because it's a good play on the very well-known phrase "women's rights" and any ambiguity could be quickly resolved. Plus there's the simple descriptive fact that they wish to impose more wrongs on women. Finally, the whole idea of "women's rights" is sort of rhetorically misplaced because women aren't a special "other" class of human beings that need to have rights *added,* they're baseline human beings who's rights should never have been systemically and artificially taken away. Therefore it seems like the spotlight should be on those who would assert that women (or any other majorities or pluralities) are some how not human and therefore not eligible for human and civil rights. In other words I guess what I'm saying is I'm looking for any way to shift the burden of proof off the backs of ordinary, decent rights-recognizing people and onto the backs of the bad guys. If "women's wrongs radicals" doesn't express that powerfully enough that only means we need something more powerful. And I'll cheerfully adopt it instantly. Thanks, Buttercup. --fl]
I am glad that you have these sentiments. It is pleasing to hear it from men. Plus, I like the cadence of your writing.
[Wow, thank you, Julie! --fl]