Reconstructing Constructs: Feminism as a paradigm for self-actualization and social action
Prepared and facilitated by: Justin Rosen Smolen
CLIP Seminar 2 - June 19, 2013
Mary Walstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) ~ in Feminism: The Essential
Historical Writings. Ed. Miriam Schneir. New York: Random House, 1992. p. 13
It appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths, because females have been insulted, as it
were; and while they have been stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they have been
decked with artificial graces, that enable them to exercise a short lived tyranny. Love, in their bosoms,
taking place of every nobler passion, their sole ambition is to be fair, to raise emotion instead of inspiring
respect; and this ignoble desire, like the servility in absolute monarchies, destroys all strength of
character. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if women are, by their very constitution, slaves, and not
allowed to breathe the sharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever languish like exotics, and be
reckoned beautiful flaws in nature; let it also be remembered, that they are the only flaw.
Margaret Fuller, “Women in the Nineteenth Century” (1829) ~ in Feminism: The Essential Historical
Writings. Ed. Miriam Schneir. pp. 62-63
“Is it not enough,” cries the irritated trader, “that you have done all you could to break up the national
union, and thus destroy the prosperity of our country, but now you must be trying to break up family
union, to take my wife away from the cradle and the kitchen-hearth to vote at polls, and preach from a
pulpit? Of course, if she does such things, she cannot attend to those of her own sphere. She is happy
enough as she is. She has more leisure than I have, every means of improvement, every indulgence.”
“Have you asked her whether she was satisfied with these indulgences?”
“No, but I know she is. She is too amiable to desire what would make me unhappy, and too judicious to
wish to step beyond the sphere of her sex. I will never consent to have our peace disturbed by any
such discussions.”
“‘Consent--you?’ it is not consent from you that is in question--it is assent from your wife.”
“Am not I the head of my house?”
“You are not the head of your wife. God has given her a mind of her own.
“I am the head, and she the heart.”
John Stuart Mill. The Subjection of Women (1869) ~ in Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings,
Ed. Miriam Schneir. pp. 167-168
All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious
to the power of men. They are so far in a position different from all other subject classes, that their
masters require something more from them than actual service. Men do not want solely the obedience of
women, they want their sentiments. All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most
nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favorite. They
have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for
maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of women
wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to effect their
purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character
June 19, 2013
1
is the very opposite to that of men; not self will, and government by self-control, but submission, and
yielding to the control of other. All the moralities tell them that it is the duty of women, and all the
current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live for others; to make complete abnegation of
themselves, and to have no life but in their affections. And by their affections are meant the only ones
they are allowed to have — those to the men with whom they are connected, or to the children who
constitute an additional and indefeasible tie between them and a man. When we put together three
things — first, the natural attraction between opposite sexes; secondly, the wife's entire dependence on
the husband, every privilege or pleasure she has being either his gift, or depending entirely on his will;
and lastly, that the principal object of human pursuit, consideration, and all objects of social ambition,
can in general be sought or obtained by her only through him, it would be a miracle if the object of being
attractive to men had not become the polar star of feminine education and formation of character. And,
this great means of influence over the minds of women having been acquired, an instinct of selfishness
made men avail themselves of it to the utmost as a means of holding women in subjection, by
representing to them meekness, submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a
man, as an essential part of sexual attractiveness
Judith Butler. Gender Trouble. New York, London: Routledge Classics, 2006. p. 34
Is there “a” gender which persons are said to have, or is it an essential attribute that a person is said to
be, as implied in the question “What gender are you?” When feminist theorists claim that gender is the
cultural interpretation of sex or that gender is culturally constructed, what is the manner or mechanism
of this construction? If gender is constructed, could it be constructed differently, or does its
constructedness imply some form of social determinism, foreclosing the possibility of agency and
transformation? Does “construction” suggest that certain laws generate gender differences along
universal axes of sexual difference? How and where does the construction of gender take place? What
sense can we make of a construction that cannot assume a human constructor… When the relevant
‘culture” that “constructs” gender is understood in terms of such a law or set of laws, then it seems that
gender is as determined and fixed as it was under the biology-is-destiny formulation. In such a case, not
biology, but culture, becomes destiny.”
On the other hand, Simone de Beauvoir suggests in The Second Sex that “one is not born a woman, but,
rather becomes one.” For Beauvoir, gender is “constructed,” but implied in her formulation is an agent,
a cogito, who somehow takes on or approaches that gender and could in principle, take on some other
gender. Is gender as variable and volitional as Beauvoir’s account seems to suggest?
Jenna Goudreau. “Who’s Afraid of Post-Feminism? What it Means to be a Feminist Today.” Forbes.
13 December 2011.
What does feminism mean today, and is it still relevant? I decided to poll change-makers from across
generations—from the old guard of the women’s liberation movement to business trailblazers and
millennial women reclaiming and redefining it on the Web. The responses were mixed.
For many, regardless of age, modern feminism retains its activist, agenda-based roots. “[It’s] revolution,”
says Gloria Steinem, 77, the famed women’s rights activist and co-founder of Ms.Magazine. “Women in
the world still bear most of the violence, do most of the work and get less of the salary. We’ve come a
long way in consciousness and made a lot of strides, but this is just the beginning.”
“I call it feminisms—plural,” says Robin Morgan, 70, co-founder of the Women’s Media Center. “To
young women in the global North, eating disorders are a major problem, but to women in the global
June 19, 2013
2
South, eating disorder means not having enough rice in your bowl. So feminism doesn’t have a narrow
definition; it’s when anyone fights for women’s rights.”
“[It] is the recognition that women are human beings with the right to full participation in society,” says
Irin Carmon, 28, a former Jezebel writer now at Salon. “What that means in practice is ensuring
reproductive freedom, working to prevent discrimination and sexual assault, and trying to create a
world of relationships and partnerships that reflect and enable women’s contributions.”…
Carolyn Everson, 40, vice president of global marketing solutions at Facebook, does not call herself a
feminist and says the term isn’t important to young women today. “They don’t want to discuss whether
men and women have equal rights because they’ve grown up in a world of information and opportunity
democratization,” says Everson. “They get concerned when they see so few women at senior levels, but
the majority of my mentees believe that women choose to opt out.”
Allison Wu, 17, leader of youth-run Minga, a non-profit dedicated to fighting the global child sex trade,
calls feminism “irrelevant” now and would not consider herself a feminist—“not because I don’t believe
in gender equality but because I would feel uncomfortable accepting a word so alien to me, whose
meaning I don’t truly feel I understand,” she says.
It’s no surprise to Steinem, who’s often called a “feminazi” by conservative political commentator Rush
Limbaugh. She says the word has a history of demonization, much like “liberal.” Wilderotter, too, notes
that “it has had a connotation of being radical, of going against the grain, of being disruptive.” USA
Today quoted a 20-year-old female college student who believes it is “unattractive” for a woman to talk
about feminism and will earn her a reputation of being “pushy, problematic or troublesome.”
Sheryl Sandberg. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Alfred A. Knof: New York, 2013. pp.
39-41
When a man is successful, he is liked by both men and women. When a woman is successful, people of
both genders like her less. This truth is a bit shocking and unsurprising: shocking because no one
would ever admit to stereotyping on the basis of gender and unsurprising because clearly we do.
Decades of social science studies have confirmed what the Heidi/Howard case study* so blatantly
demonstrates: we evaluate people based on stereotypes (gender, race, nationality, and age, among
others. Our stereotype of men holds that they are providers, decisive, and driven. Our stereotype of
women holds that they are caregivers, sensitive, and communal. Because we characterize men and
women in opposition to each other, professional achievement and all the traits associated with it get
placed in the male column…
I believe this bias is at the very core of why women are held back. It is also at the very core of why
women hold themselves back. For men, professional success comes with positive reinforcement at every
step of the way. For women, even when they’re recognized for their achievements, they’re often
regarded unfavorably. Shankar Vendatam once cataloged the derogatory descriptions of some of the
first female world leaders. “England’s Margaret Thatcher,” he wrote, “was called ‘Attila the Hen.’ Golda
Meir, Israel’s first female Prime Minister, was ‘the only man in the Cabinet. President Richard Nixon
called Indira Gandhi, India’s first female Prime Minister, the ‘old witch. And Angela Merkel, the current
chancellor of Germany, has been dubbed the ‘iron frau.”
I have seen this dynamic play out over and over. When a woman excels at her job, both male and female
coworkers will remark that she may be accomplishing a lot but is “not as well-liked by her peers.” She is
probably also “too aggressive,” “not a team player,” “a bit political,” “can’t be trusted,” or “difficult.” At
June 19, 2013
3
least, those are all things that have been said about me and almost every senior woman I know. The
world seems to be asking why we can’t be less like Heidi and more like Howard.
*In 2003, two Columbia professors conducted an experiment. They showed the same profile of a
successful business leader in the technology sector to two different group of students. For one group,
the business person was named Heidi, and for the other, the business person was named Howard. Both
leaders had identical accomplishments. The result: both groups respected the leader depicted in their
profile, but Heidi was viewed as selfish and not “‘the type of person you would want to hire or work
for.’”
Lauren Rankin. “Feminism Needs Men Too.” Millenials. May 2013. <policymic.com>
Feminism is a movement to eradicate gendered oppression, to highlight women’s voices and
experiences, and to challenge restrictive and constructed gender norms. It challenges male
dominance and privilege, and, at its best, challenges white, heteronormative, and cisgender
privileges, as well.
“This is what a feminist looks like,” the t-shirt proudly proclaims. But what about men? What does
it mean to be a man and a feminist? What role do or should men play in the feminist movement?
Acording to a 2009 CBS News poll, only 14% of men consider themselves feminists. Why so few
male feminists? And how do we increase the number of male feminist allies?
Perhaps it’s because feminism isn’t a label, but an action. Co-host of Citizen Radio and writer
Allison Kilkenny, notes that for a man to truly become a feminist, “He has to view the world
through a more empathetic lens.” That reflects what her husband and co-host of Citizen Radio,
Jamie Kilstein, notes as perhaps the biggest road block for men to become feminists: “Feminism
requires an active change in your life.” To be a male feminist means changing the way you speak
about and treat women, and that often means challenging your male friends when they perpetuate
sexism, which can be incredibly difficult.
What’s more, the simple fact is that patriarchy privileges men, particularly white men. What does it
mean to challenge an immensely deep societal framework from which you profit? It can be
incredibly hard, and as Kilkenny says, “not every guy is up to that challenge.”
But many are, and more should be, because ending the patriarchal oppression for women is good
for men, too. Patriarchy doesn’t just privilege men over women, but privileges certain kinds of men
and certain kinds of masculinity. White, heterosexual, cisgender men receive the most favor, but
with that privilege, they are expected to perform a certain type of masculinity, one that is
normalized as natural but is, instead, a performance based on societal norms. Feminism works to
free both men and women from the gender binary that imposes a strict set of acceptable gender
performances.
Worth noting, in the same 2009 CBS News poll, 47% of men stated that the women’s movement had
improved their lives, up from 30% who said so in 1999. And this makes sense; feminism is not about
demonizing men but about ending patriarchal oppression. Men are not the target; patriarchy is.
Male feminists understand that no one is free until we are all free, and until we end the patriarchal
oppression of women, men will suffer, too.
June 19, 2013
4