Republican as a word in our society has a negative connotation – “wingnut” can be used in normal conversation without confusion. Because of the actions of some slightly outrageous Republicans, Republicans have an overall bad reputation when, in truth, the Republican Party is something with which most people would agree.
The core definition of the Republican party is quite simple: personal responsibility, liberty, and opposition to tyranny. Some organizations, such as the Girl Scouts of America, support the basic principles of the Republican Party but are afraid to identify with it because of its negative connotations. Though it will take a lot of work to clear the image of a radical Republican from people’s minds, it is possible and necessary. If we believe in personal responsibility, liberty, and opposition to tyranny, what else could we be but Republicans?
Of course, all this is simply a tongue-in-cheek response to an article featured in the previous issue of Campus Times claiming that we are all feminists. Go read it, then come back.
In reality, feminism is something with which most people disagree. As noted in the article: “According to a poll of Americans in 2013, only 16% of men and 23% of women identified as a feminist, but 82% of the population believed in equality between men and women.” The same Campus Times article favorably quoted the comedian Aziz Ansari as saying, “I feel like if you believe that men and women have equal rights and someone asks if you’re a feminist, you have to say yes because that is how words work.”
No it’s not…that is exactly the opposite of how words work. The meaning of a word is determined by the intentions of its speaker. So if 82% of the population believes in equality between men and women, but only 23% identify as feminist, then feminism clearly doesn’t mean equality between men and women. If someone thinks that the word “feminist” refers to “man-hating, pro-choice liberals,” then they are correct. And if someone thinks “feminist” refers to “people who believe in equality between men and women,” then they are also correct. The “core definition” of feminism is whatever people think the core definition is.
Moreover, it takes little effort to find people who think men can’t be feminists. Feminism, it’s argued, is a women’s movement, and, at best, men can only be allies. These people might be what the Campus Times article was referring to when they talked about “radical feminists”. However, if feminism is simply the belief in the equality between men and women, then anyone who thinks men can’t be feminists aren’t feminists themselves. But if we accept that these “radical feminists” are, in fact, feminists, then equality between the sexes can’t be what we mean when talking about “feminism.”
Finally, as hinted in the beginning of this article, abstract concepts like liberty, responsibility, and equality are close to meaningless if left unspecified. For example, Pat Robertson, the popular televangelist once said, “I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband.” Given a broad enough definition of “equality,” Pat Robertson could be considered a feminist. He believes in the equality of all humans under the Bible. Men have their roles to fill, and women have theirs. And each will be equally punished by God if they fail to fulfill their roles. Yet we would hardly call Pat Robertson an exemplar in the feminist movement.
In sum, I’ve briefly argued for four positions. First, there’s nothing that the word “feminism” has to refer to. It simply means whatever the speaker of the word thinks it means. Second, the belief in equality between the sexes is not necessary to be a feminist. There are feminists (radical, perhaps, but feminists nonetheless) that don’t believe in equality between the sexes. Third, the belief in equality isn’t sufficient to be a feminist. Consider the analogy with Republicanism. Despite the fact that most people believe in liberty and personal responsibility, it’s correct to say that most people aren’t Republicans. Similarly, we can correctly say that there are people who believe in equality but nevertheless aren’t feminists. Finally, the “core doctrine” on which many people think feminism is based, equality, is often left too vague and ambiguous to be useful.
This raises interesting questions about why feminists (or any activist movement) would want to inflate the number of people who agree with them. It’s strange that for a movement so tolerant of others’ self-identities (e.g. transsexual, intersex, genderqueer, etc.), non-feminist isn’t one of them. Rather than trying to recruit people to identify as feminists, feminists should instead encourage people to act on their beliefs and stand up for equality (whatever that means).
Nguyen is a member of
the class of 2016.
