The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBachmann, Steinem and feminism's uncertain future
by Jamie L Manson on Aug. 23, 2011
What is "feminist" about them, for those who want to use that descriptive, is their belief that God calls women no less than men to fight His battles against Satan on earth. Women hold awesome power as spiritual warriors, in this worldview; they're not doormats, nor should their godly duties be confined to the domestic sphere. . . . Bachmann and Palin have both made much of their roles as wives, mothers, and churchgoers in a way meant to show that their political leadership will not upend the gender hierarchy so crucial in the conservative evangelical home and church sanctuary.
Forty-eight hours after Michele Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll, a new documentary on Gloria Steinem aired on HBO.
The proximity of these two events juxtaposed the thriving political presence of conservative Christian women and the apparent waning of high-profile feminist leaders in our culture today.
Beginning with the 2010-midterm elections, much of the media attention has revolved around the candidacy of Tea Party hard-liners like Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Kristi Noem. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, though she wasn't running for office, also seemed to grab the spotlight at every opportunity.
Angle brandished her .44 magnum, Noem bragged about bow hunting elk, and Bachmann accused gay people of targeting children. All of them fiercely defended their pro-life stance as well as the definition of marriage as between “one man and one woman.”
And the media, in turn, dubbed 2010 the “Year of the Woman.”
With all of this press coverage came a string of embarrassing gaffes. O’Donnell famously talked about “dabbling in witchcraft” and insisted that scientists were putting human brains into mice. Michele Bachmann has been called “the one to watch -- for inaccuracies.” And who can forget Palin’s claim that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience?
These women are the antithesis of the feminists documented in Gloria: In Her Own Words. Though the film centers on an interview with Steinem, profiles of leaders like Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Flo Kennedy, and Betty Friedan also emerge throughout the documentary.
Extensive footage is shown of the struggle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, the fight for a women’s right to choose, and the founding of Ms. magazine. These women wrote persuasively and spoke intelligently. They were not flanked by an army of handlers who scripted every word they uttered and approved every outfit they donned.
Without the work of this second wave of feminists, the Title IX amendment of the Civil Rights bill would not have been passed and women might not have the same level of protection from discriminatory acts in the workplace. Women might still be bleeding to death from illegal abortions. Women’s representation at the both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions might not be as strong today if not for the advocacy of the National Women’s Political Caucus, a group co-founded by Steinem in 1971.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Ironically, it is because of the work of these feminists that women like Bachmann can claim sexism in situations like the one the congresswoman found herself in when Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asked her “Are you a flake?” Or when her struggle with migraines was raised as reason that she could not perform as President of the United States.
But the Tea Party women seem to have given birth to a new kind of feminism, one that is closely linked with the Evangelical Christianity they espouse.
In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Marie Griffith, who serves as director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis, explains that the new Evangelical feminism of women like Bachmann and Palin is grounded much more in faith than traditional feminism:
Griffith’s analysis was confirmed in a profile of Bachmann published last week in The New Yorker. The piece deftly shows the influence of the Evangelical school of thought known as Dominionism over Bachmann. Dominionism is the belief that Christians must occupy all secular offices and that all systems should be built on biblical truth.
The article recounts Bachmann’s work as a research assistant to John Eidsmoe, a faculty member of the Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University. Eidsmoe and his colleagues taught that “when Biblical law conflicted with American law, ‘the first thing you should try to do is work through legal means and political means to get it changed.’”
Bachmann considers Eidsmoe’s work as one of the strongest influences over her thinking.
At the height of her career, Steinem clashed with conservative Christian women like Phyllis Schlafly. But now, the Schlaflys of the world are running for the highest office in the land, while the heirs of the second wave of feminism seem at best over-shadowed and, at worst, non-existent.
Since the 2010 elections, I have been troubled that so many high profile women in politics are extreme Christian conservatives of mediocre intelligence. I’m not sure what disturbs me more: that these women are being seen as the new incarnation of female leadership or that these women are so closely linked with Christianity.
Christian fundamentalists and the Tea Party (if you can indeed distinguish the two) claim to see women like Palin and Bachmann as “true feminists.” But, watching them, I believe that these women only reinforce the misogynist beliefs that women have a weaker intelligence and are prone to “flaky” behavior.
Watching the Steinem documentary, I tried to think of the names of women that could be considered powerful, prominent feminists.
Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Though both women have paved new roads for women in government, both seemed too immersed in the political machine to fit into the category of a Gloria Steinem or Bella Abzug.
Oprah? Tina Fey? Though both have broken miles of new ground for women in the media, ultimately they are more entertainers than they are political activists or social leaders.
Are there powerful women who are intelligent, polished, and authentic who are not pushing a right wing, theocratic agenda? I’m sure there are many, but none seems to be running for high profile, political office.
I find myself longing for a group of feminist rising stars to emerge that will balance the scales set so off-kilter by the bizarre brand of female power touted by Tea Party women.
At the conclusion of the documentary, Gloria Steinem remarks that she does not want to give advice to the new generation of feminists. Instead, she wants them to listen to their own voices and define what the new wave of feminism will look like.
While we listen to our own voices, we must also keep our ears open to hear the voices of the women who, with each new political campaign, increase the potential to set the women’s movement back by decades.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Jamie Manson's column, "Grace on the Margins", is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
" Bachmann and Palin have
" Bachmann and Palin have made much of their roles as wives, mothers and churchgoers..." Well, it all depends which side of the isle she is on.
Bachmann's aggressiveness would be filtered thru a very different lens. She would be seen as "a typical, aggressive and arrogant feminist" who can't work with others". And then try to imagine a centrist or liberal Democrat women running for high office who had the family make-up of Sarah Palin; Five children - among them a new born with special needs, two children under 10 and a 17 year old daughter, unwed and expecting. It would not be about "not upending the gender structure", it would be just the opposite. There would be the endless posturing of outrage and lip curling disgust from all of the Right Wing talking heads about the disregard, even contempt, this women and feminists have for their role as mother; how readily this women is willing to pursue her own agenda at the cost of her duties to raise her children. It would be all about how aggressive, self-centered feminists are.
Yes, it all depends which side of the isle she is on.
John David
This essay is embarrassingly
This essay is embarrassingly simplistic and an offense to women. No one equates intelligence with either side of the ideological spectrum anymore. There are very intelligent women on the left, on the right, and in the middle. Hilary Clinton has been a middle-of-the-road Secretary of State, as are many women once they get into office. Women with the experience of running things don't want or need advice from someone who's never done anything but write about what other people should do. And the notion that Gloria Steinem is any kind of moral beacon is pure ignorance.
Thank you. I read this
Thank you. I read this article and was shocked it came from a Catholic website. Applauding Gloria Steinem? Since when do Catholics idolize women who are pro-abortion. I'm confused.
Dear Mrs. B, where do you
Dear Mrs. B, where do you find Steinem here applauded? I find her mentioned, but an "applauding" I cannot find. I find this sentence "Women might still be bleeding to death from illegal abortions" but where do you locate the source of your confusion? Where do you read this article to "idolize" anyone?
Bachmann most certainly did
Bachmann most certainly did run for re-election in 2010, and Palin never said she could see Russia from her home, and you have the nerve to call others gaffe machines, LOL. Sorry but I couldn't read any further, try researching what you're writing about next time.
Yes, Bachmann did run for
Yes, Bachmann did run for re-election in 2010. And this Palin story about seeing Russia from her house has gotten much traction (I think it originated from from a skit on SNL). If, I remember correctly from the actually interview from which this has it´s seeds of orgin, when defending her home land security "expertise", she mentioned that from some places in Alaska one could see Russia (she did not shay "from her home"). That by itself is such a weak defense, as was her entire explanation. So, it is all the more reason as to not have any need to embelish. Yet, it is very hard to stop some of these lies from spreading (Nancy Polosi did not ask for a new special jet, and Barak Obama´s trips to India and England were not near the cost that Michele Bachmann repeatedly claimed).
Regardless on which side of the isle we are on, misinformation should offend us and we need to be ready to defend those on the other side who are having mistruths said about them. If we don´t we are shrinking from our Christian duty and making a mockary of our commitment to our faith.
Peace,
John David
I wouldn't call O'Donnells
I wouldn't call O'Donnells statement she had "dabbled in witchcraft" a gaffe, she said it over 10 years earlier, and it was an admission. Much like NCR favorite Barack Obama's admission that he dabbled with cocaine.
... and if she had used the
... and if she had used the politically-correct, left-wing, dog-whistle word "Wicca" instead of "witchcraft," nobody would have raised an eyebrow.
What I do think we mighy
What I do think we mighy agree upon is that what she did as a very young women was a bit navie, but not of much consequence. Yet, please consider what the Right would do if someone on the Left made such a statement. Or is that something you think the Right would have let pass?
Excellent article with
Excellent article with excellent questions. I think today's feminist leaders are the Roman Catholic Women Priests.
"I think today's feminist
"I think today's feminist leaders are the Roman Catholic Women Priests."
Clearly you do not abide, understan or respect the standing of the Church on such an issue. No my friend the true feminist leaders are those that hold the truths of teachings of the Catholic Church and that would include male priest only.
Perhaps you´re an exception,
Perhaps you´re an exception, but I`ve yet to meet a conservative Catholic who abides by all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Those who pretend to are usually dismissing all with which they don´t agree.
Hosea, I completely and
Hosea, I completely and totally agree with you. MCS
Gloria Steinem was handled by
Gloria Steinem was handled by her people just as much as Bachmann or Palin. Or you.
Gloria Stieman´s writings are
Gloria Stieman´s writings are more prolific and, whether one agrees with her or not, shows a far deeper intellect and much broader education. I think it has little to do with¨"handled by their respective people.
Fair and balanced article,
Fair and balanced article, but why are all the women white? I guess some things never change.
If you compare tea party
If you compare tea party women candidates to tea party men candidates, they seem to be equal in their intellectual powers, which is not a compliment. On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren may run for senator from Massachusetts. Like Bernie Sanders, she would represent us all better than our own senators.
Thanks for remembering
Thanks for remembering Elizabeth Warren who is a great example of what the goal, the end product of the women's liberation movement of the 60's was all about. First the education of women and then opportunities in a variety of fields; legal, political, medical, corporate/business, military and religious. Feminism is about equality of opportunity, and in the process deconstructing patriarchy. I just don't see Palin and Bachman anymore than Phyllis Schlafly as caring a hoot about feminist issues. They are not feminists. I think Gloria Steinem is absolutely on target in saying that it is up to the present generation of women to define what feminism means to them. There are very few women who I could identify as leaders of the next stage or phase of feminism. The closest group are those who are fighting for women's ordination, but that is only within the RC church. What I do see are women who are working for the betterment of women outside of the third world. I think female leaders operate under the radar screens of the tv media. It is up to the younger generation to identify the road blocks that they are facing in their own development.
I wouldn't be surprised if
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the new leadership comes from the military. Major General Margaret Woodward commanded the US Air Forces in the Libyan campaign and yet one hears very little about her. Which, now that I think about it, is a refreshing change from the media adulation given her male counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan and her female political counterparts like Palin and Bachman. I agree with you about Elizabeth Warren.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought feminism was about women finding their voice and being able to be who they are in society. If feminism is about women taking their place in society, and being who they really are, not being some avatar for men's ideas of what a woman should be, then why is it so hard to see folks like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin as true feminists?
Are they not strong women who have taken their place in society? Are they not being the person that they truly are and giving voice to their own beliefs and opinions? Is this not what feminism is supposed to be about?
Or is feminism really about abortion and liberal politics?
To be honest, I do think you
To be honest, I do think you did misundersand. Feminism is clearly about women finding their voice and being able to be who they are in society. But it is also being able to meet others on the same playing field. So, it does not mean that they get a free pass on any fact checking or not needing to meet the same standards we expect of others (intellectually or otherwise). Palin and Bachmann fail miserable in both these areas. I don´t think that is an unfeminist thought at all.
Let´s join in finding and promoting women wo do meet these standards. That would be true feminism.
There are pro-choice women
There are pro-choice women who do not consider themselves eschew any identification with feminists, nor left wing politics.
Question: In ----your---- mental lexicon, are feminists only and primarily concerned with abortion and left wing politics? That seems to be your assumption, though your statement takes on a rather interesting hue of projection toward many out here.
What I do know is that when
What I do know is that when Sarah Palin entered the Vice Presidential race, the biggest complaint that I heard about her from the left (and yes, I do listen to left wing radio and read left wing blogs about 1/2 the time) was the fact that, in this age of the "modern woman", Sarah Palin was a pro-life woman who was also conservative. The complaints, at least initially, were not about her intelligence, her speaking ability, her record in Alaska, etc., but rather about the fact that she was a woman who was pro-life and conservative, how dare she!
I also know that I do not hear the leadership of the feminist movement praising the fact that Congresswoman Bachmann and Governor Palin are women of strong belief who are serious contenders for the Republican nomination. I didn't hear any congratulations from the feminists when Congresswoman Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll; one would have thought that, even if the feminist leadership disagrees with Bachmann, they would at least have been celebrating the fact that a woman, for the first time in history, won the GOP Iowa straw poll. Instead, what do we hear? Bachmann is not very bright; she believe in putting her family ahead of herself; she's a right wing crazy.
It is the hypocrisy of the left that I find so difficult to deal with. Feminists claim to be about helping all women to take their place in society, but they disdain and dismiss women who do not subscribe wholly to the feminist agenda (and, yes, abortion figures very prominently in that agenda). If you are a conservative woman, you can forget about getting any support from the feminists, even if you are someone as highly intelligent and accomplished as Condaleeza Rice, the first African-American woman serving as Secretary of State (who got nothing but abuse from the feminist establishment and the African-American establishment to boot).
So, you tell me. What party do the feminist leaders always support? What policies do feminist leaders always support? When was the last time a prominent feminist endorsed a conservative candidate for office over a liberal one?
CWG writes: "If feminism is
CWG writes: "If feminism is about women taking their place in society, and being who they really are, not being some avatar for men's ideas of what a woman should be, then why is it so hard to see folks like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin as true feminists?"
Allow me to gently point out that Michele Bachmann is, indeed, an avatar for her husband's vision of what a woman should be. She likes to recount the story of how her husband insisted she become a tax attorney, and she hated the idea and hated the practice or discipline of tax law, but she did what he wanted for her--his definition of what she should be-- because she knew she had to "submit" as part of God's plan and as the Bible teaches.
The Bible also teaches slaves to submit to their masters...right there in the New Testament, but you don't find anyone preaching it anymore. We understand it in the cultural context that at one time, people were viewed as property. The only people now who are viewed as needing to submit, be someone else's property, and accept another person's definition of their role and activities in life, are women. And it is hurtful that the Church, which all at the same time tries to give lip service to the nation that "we are all equal in the sight of God" is the largest proponent of this type of personview...that women are a bit less equal and God wants it this way.
No one is saying that "women
No one is saying that "women are a bit less equal", nor are they a bit more equal. In the sight of God, all people are equal. And, they are all equal under the law. That is the only realistic type of equality that can be achieved in this life, since common sense and simple observation can tell us that not all people are equally intelligent, equally ambitious, equally lucky, equally honest, equally compassionate, equally hard-working, etc.
Your comment would seem to denote that feminism means no choice, in other words, that a true feminist would condemn a woman who chooses to put her husband's needs ahead of her own, or who chooses to sacrifice her wants and desires for that of her spouse or family. Is that correct?
I do not necessarily agree with Congresswoman Bachman's interpretation of Sacred Scripture regarding the submission of wives to their husbands. Nonetheless, is it not her right to choose that route? Can she not be respected for having love so great that she would place someone else's desires ahead of her own?
You see, the biggest problem I have with modern feminism is that it celebrates only one type of woman, the one who puts career and self first, who is as aggressive and ambitious as any man, who says what she thinks and feels and couldn't care less what others think. All that is well and good, I suppose, if that is the type of person you are. But, if this is the definition of feminism, then that movement should come out and say so and quit pretending that it is about helping all women. Some women do not want that, do not want to be that type of person. That doesn't mean that they see themselves as any less equal or important, it just means that they see their vocation as women in a different light. Isn't that okay?
And, you know, it doesn't mean that these women are weak either. It takes very little effort and courage to put self ahead of everyone else, it's easy, that's how children think. It takes great courage and great strength, and great love, to put the needs of others ahead of oneself.
Clint writes: "Perhaps I
Clint writes: "Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought feminism was about women finding their voice and being able to be who they are in society." yet his willing misunderstanding obviously once again derives from his not having read the article, which concludes: "Gloria Steinem remarks that she does not want to give advice to the new generation of feminists. Instead, she wants them to listen to their own voices and define what the new wave of feminism will look like."
Is Clint not therefore using this as a platform to dictate his own (male) preference for a false feminism, in the face of Jamie Manson's careful and necessary reflections here?
Is he not in fact calling for more women to bleed to death?
By identifying "the right to
By identifying "the right to choose" with the markers of "authentic" feminism, the author actually reveals why we need a new Christian feminism. It also makes one wonder how far afield NCR will go before it just plain announces its open rejection of the Catholic Church...........
Gerard, No woman ought to
Gerard,
No woman ought to surrender the control of her reproductive capacities to any man.
She is in charge and that means no member of the hierarchy demands that she makes annual trips to the labor and delivery room.
Read it yet again: No man has the right to control a woman's body. And vast, vast majorities of women do not, aamof, surrender that control to men, whether they are feminist or not.
It's that simple.
Period.
where's Hillary?
where's Hillary?
I couldn't agree with you
I couldn't agree with you more. These women candidates represent a very narrow view of womanhood, and Christianity. It is disturbing to see them being taken seriously as political candidates. Gone are the days of JFK, when religious affiliation was minimized to the greatest extent possible. It seems that the gap between the state and religious views has narrowed as well, as evidenced by the popularity of these women. It is scary, and definitely a step back for women.
They thought of Palin or
They thought of Palin or Bachman being elected President of the US is frightening. I don't believe either of them are qualified remotely to run this country. I'm not just worried about how many years back they will push the feminist agenda, but what they will do to this country. They are both extremely good politicians, but that's where it stops. That there are voters out there that actually would vote for them, as well as for any of the male Republican candidates is quite frightening. The only people who I consider feminists worth emulating are the nuns like Joan Chittister, Sandra Schneiders, and Elizabeth Johnson....and quite a few more women religious.
Lore, It is more - much more
Lore,
It is more - much more - than Palin´s or Bachmann´s lack of intellect or lack of any ablility to do the hard work of analysis (for more evidence check out the writings of the largest group of conservative women in the country; Concern Women for America). They and the Tea Party have had such a large influence on the GOP, that, even those who are more intellectly inclined and well informed (both men and women) are forced to support the anti-intellect that these women and the Tea Party represent and promote.
Clearly, Conservativism needn´t be like this, as there are, indeed, strong, well developed thinkers among those women and men who identify as conservative. Yet, they don´t get coverage. It seems that the more one insults, the more coverage they get and the less one does, the less coverage they get. This should alarm all of us. Others seem to be dismissed (RINO), even attacked (David Frum, Bruce Bartlett).
The conservative movement today is in a lot of trouble as, with the help of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, a pathology has taken hold and, I fear, is now rooted in our society. But, all that seems to matter is destroying anyone that disagrees. This is not a feminist issue, but a human one as well as a real threat to any conservative willing to look at data to do an analysis, resists hating the other side, insist on not promoting untrue statements or not willing to allow the fringe to speak for the true values of the movement.
I hope and pray for a vibrant conservative movement, as well as a vibrant liberal one. Both are very necessaray to keep a healthy balance, But, frankly, there is no conservative movement today, just a loud, uninformed and hateful fundamentalist movement marching under its banner.
An interesting analysis of
An interesting analysis of current strands of feminism. I'm curious, do you think the brand of evangelical feminism espoused by "JPII" Catholic women is radically different than these protestant varieties? You know, the kind of evangelical young woman defined in John Allen's recent article on the topic. I'm genuinely curious if you progressive, liberal type feminists distinguish between "Palin-brand" protestant feminism and evangelical Catholic feminism.
An interesting question!
An interesting question! Let's talk about labels and categories first. As a Pro Life Feminist, would you label me a liberal or conservative? Sarah Palin credits her election as governor, in part, to a Kenyan witch-doctor who blessed her in her hometown Assembly of God. Michele Bachmann just left a church, after a long membership, that is virulently anti-Catholic and that preaches our Pope is the Anti-Christ. It is intriguing that some Catholics here seem to like these women. They don't seem much like Catholics.
Inasmuch as these women preach "female submission to men" in accordance with the Bible (wonder if they have slaves in accordance with the Bible or slaughter their misbehaving teenagers in accordance with the Bible), and inasmuch as they see women primarily as vessels of fertility for breeding and for men's sexual purposes, and whose roles are to be defined by men, they are very much like the new brand of JPII Evangelical Feminists.
This "...progressive, liberal
This "...progressive, liberal type feminist..." does not distinguish between evangical or Catholic regressive feminism. For years I have stated that the Catholic evangelical position is not ...the finest kind...", to quote Hawkeye.
We will not have emerged from our patriarchial world-view until articles of this excellent caliber no longer need to be printed. And in conclusion, all Roe v. Wade does is allow for legal abortions. It certainly does not provide nor encourage women to have abortions. All it does is save the lives of desperate women.
I am a new Catholic and I am
I am a new Catholic and I am excited to discover within the Catholic church feminists like those I admired in the '70s. Joan Chitterist and Jamie L. Manson give me hope that the movement is not dead, despite the likes of Palin and Bachman and their ilk. Keep it up.
jamie...i found this article
jamie...i found this article a challenge.....I have lived in Alaska for
24 years. I am amazed at some women and men around the country who have
judged, called Sarah Palin names, used uncivil language, projected, maybe,
some of their own inner lacks, failings or jealous feelings on her? Even some
Alaskan women tried to "upset" her wins as governor, as mayor, as school
board member, as city council person...yet the majority voted her in! I knew
the man who wrote the last chapter to her first book, the chapter is about
the "Things the News Media Never Told"...amazing! She is a business women
and has a commercial permit, etc., etc. She knows what it is like to work
hard, even physically, pay taxes, hire people,etc. She managed bigger
budgets than most who judge her! And, yes, on a clear day I have seen
Russia! She has a great sense of humor which many need in these days of
challenges. She knew more about National Security than most women in Washington! Alaska has the security systems that protect the lower 48th! She knows survival skills in wilderness which I would love to see more women
get training in...due to world conditions. She knows what it is like to be a mother with all the problems most mothers have raising children! I stood
next to her at a meeting once. I was touched to realize she could have had
an abortion for her Down Synd. child and no one would have known it. She
accepted thf gift as God had given! I rafted wild rivers, fished and hunted
with my husband. Climbed off of planes and ferry boats and driven a pickup
in wild weather and wilderness. A State Trooper trained and licensed me to
pack a concealed weapon for protection as I traveled in wilderness areas
to serve others as part of my work. I heard the awesome talk Sarah gave in
Indiana to hundreds of parents with children with disabilities. It was
powerful and i challenge you to read it. Note, the new media did not
quote or comment on that talk! I guess the article, "feminism" escapes me
since I have been living, serving, volunteering, loving others and
my husband and lived thru the 60's picking up the broken minds and hearts
and souls in a clinic in California before my years in Alaska. I thought
i was a real woman, feminine, loved all as Jesus taught me and served. Ummmm
guess i missed something.
Tea Party women give birth to
Tea Party women give birth to a new kind of feminism, Evangelical Christianity a.k.a.: Anti-woman
"At the height of her career,
"At the height of her career, Steinem clashed with conservative Christian women like Phyllis Schlafly. But now, the Schlaflys of the world are running for the highest office in the land, while the heirs of the second wave of feminism seem at best over-shadowed and, at worst, non-existent."
Maybe that is because heir's of the second wave of feminism aborted themselves into extinction? The first female president may already be dead. Great legacy...
These Republican women
These Republican women represent what the far right thinks we want. The idea is have a women espouse very reactionary views to capture the right wingers. Since more than half the voters are women, the coalition of women voters and very right wing voters will carry the day. To make sure the big supporters will put forth a campaign to blame the every thing on Obama even if it makes no sense. Already, we see statement to blame Obama for the Depression (Yes, it not a recession but a depression. Ask any out of one out of work.) I am sure some women see through it.
E in CT has a point. How
E in CT has a point. How about women leaders across a diverse spectrum?
I would love a follow-up article, or series, on the real women leaders out there:
How about Amy Goodman from Democracy Now? or
Who are the leading Catholic women in the environmental movement? or
An article on the leading Catholic women working with immigration issues? or
Women educating in non-allopathic, leading-edge alternative health approaches? or
LEADING WOMEN IN ECUMENISM! They are so busy being unsung heroes.... Let's talk-up the authentic women leaders.
E in CT, You make a good
E in CT,
You make a good point.
So okay, I recommend Brooksley Born. She saw through the Reagan unregulated Repub toxic swaps before they hit. When she tried to speak ou, her voice was ignored. As usual, the Bushie Repubs were pushing profits over fiscal responsibility or any ethical responsibility, for that matter. That's the Reagan WASP/papal fundie Republicanism that is destroying what little is left of our nation and our democracy.
Next--
When all of this mess shakes out over the next ten years(the end of Peak/Easy oil) and over the next 50yrs(Global Warming) we will see that this entire disastrous mess is really ALL about the same two things that it is ALWAYS about when dealing with those supremacists who espouse things, property and structure values over human values and ethics. This will ALL prove to be about MONEY and POWER, whether it comes from the papacy or the GOP.
They both align so perfectly with each other(Fascism, corporatism, secularism, consumerism, militarism, profitism) because they think exactly the same---superiority and supremacism over human beings and the servitude of the many to the needs of the very, very few. In fundie bible belt Protestantism it is called Calvinism. While in the papacy it is called "the natural order of things".
Where do we see it in action? Both support it, all over the Latin nations. There, left- leaning gov'ts are trying to help use gov't action and the concepts in Liberation Theology to raise their citizens UP out of the poverty they live in and die in. While the pope and his Repubs fight that every step of the way, some nuns, bishops and priests and millions of human beings have died for it.
Next--
This entire papal driven Repub mess will prove to be about two more MONEY and POWER issues. Namely, the end of Peak/Easy oil, after 2015. AND, the onset of Global Warming.
NEVER, absolutely NEVER in it's entire existence, since the mid 1800s, has the Repub party ever been about Pro-life and Family Values. In point of fact, it has ALWAYS been about the exact opposite, as it worships BIG MONEY and BIG corporations over workers and their families, INCLUDING their fetuses. And way-long before Roe!!! Also, the papacy has a very poor history of Pro-life and Family values!!! For both of those groups, money and political power have been and still are among their all consuming ends, values, mores, morals and ruling ethical values. To those ends, they both will beat-up, torture and kill people just to get what they want. AND, they always have an excuse or two for doing what they do. ALWAYS!! In fact, if it weren't for the PEOPLE and some few clergy of the Catholic church there would be no social action and no social justice.
Just watch for the slow down in oil production. Then watch for the increases in Global Warming events. Just remember that it takes 30yr spans of time for events to be understood as being a part of the Global Warming event. Unfortunately, until it hits the pope and his Repubs in the face, they will both pretend it isn't happening and even deny its existence as being a liberal plot and conspiracy to fleece them out of their God given right to do business and get ever wealthier, all at the expense of EVERYONE else. It's Galileo time, all over again.
Possibly, women with their sensitivities and values can slow the pope and his Repubs down a bit, but there will be no stopping them. Evil in the temptation forms of money and power has totally corrupted both groups. Only some catastrophic event will give them pause and/or slow them down. THEN, they will appeal to the rest of us to help them or die for them. But I will NOT be any part of their plans, ever for any reason, because there is way-far to much evil, manipulation, scheming and near total disregard for the inherent dignity of all human beings.
Caroline Kennedy?
Caroline Kennedy?
This isn't a true showing of
This isn't a true showing of feminism or of this women you so sadly marked as "flaky". Really, you called them "flaky"? Palin and Bachmann have done incredible things for women and are a postive example to young girls. Ms. Bachmann alone with her standing on abortion and how it hurts women, fostering children, winning high offices in government and working at and still married; through all of this isn't no easy task...dear.
I think I'll use your article as a teaching aide for my own teenage daughters. It'll be an example of how far off the media, even those from "Catholic perspectives" fall short of the truth.
We're in a bind regarding
We're in a bind regarding language here.
Many right-wing women, knowing that they otherwise sound and act like submissive fools, call themselves feminists these days. It's the trendy thing to do. Five years ago, they would have eschewed the name -- "icky feminist socialist lesbian ..."
They remind me of the women of the '50s and early '60s who wrote, in response to the political writing of the '70s, of the joys of marriage and motherhood, and women knowing their place in God's universe (obeying). They stomp their feet and refuse to see anything wrong with obedience at all costs to the church and their husbands.
But they get themselves into a bind when they enter public life, whether the workplace at large or politics in particular.
Anyone who has fought for women's equality over the last forty years, from reproductive rights to equality in the workplace does not recognize these women as anything but what they are: Republican anti-choice traditionalists. Just changing their name doesn't give them credibility. I could call myself a "pro life feminist" or any other kind of feminist I want, but if I work against laws that give choice, power and equality to all women, the title is bogus. And annoying to boot.
Susan Lersch
susan.lersch@yahoo.com
I thought this was a Catholic
I thought this was a Catholic journal even if small 'c.'The writer is clearly not catholic in any sense of the word. US politics is a hoot to the rest of the western world. Only the USA could parade women as ignorant on every subject as Palin and Bachman as possible presidential material. But to suggest that men hating ranters such as Friedan and Steinem, with their obsessive anti-life programs as though pro-choice is all that matters to thinking women, are role models for women in any sense is an insult to women's intelligence.
It is clear that the writer is a feminist with a difference and it is clear to me that anyone who has taken theology at the level she has and can still support a pro-choice position albeit passively is seriously off the track. Until now I have enjoyed the cut and thrust of NCR and I like its liberal interpretations of most things. Some things like abortion are not open to interpretation.
Finally to even think about offering up Oprah Wnfrey as a role model in what is supposed to be a serious piece is simply derisory.
Although I agree with much of
Although I agree with much of the political philosophy of Palin & Bachmann, I really can't see either one as President of the USA. This is because both personalities alienate a significant portion of the electorate. Bachmann does have some future potential in that arena but Palin has disqualified herself IMHO by resigning from the governorship of AK. A person who can't take the political heat of a governorship is not likely to survive in the Oval Office. She is the one who shot herself in the foot here. This is not to say that she does not have presidential potential. No one should sell either one of these women short.
Although no feminist myself, I would vote for a woman for President if a woman got the Republican nomination for this office. I voted for McCain & Palin simply to vote against Obama (& vote Republican). I wasn't happy with the ticket but I will say this much for Palin. I believe if McCain & Palin had won, McCain would have schooled Palin in the job & the next time around she would have been an excellent candidate for the Presidency & I would have been happy to vote for her.
Paulie, can you please cite
Paulie, can you please cite any treatise or manifesto which coherently and stably defines "the political philosophy of Palin & Bachmann" such that you "agree with much of" it?
Where do you fall on the several points which dissent from dogma of the Roman Catholic Church?
into simple cognitive dissonance?
hey
just asking
actually I'm tired of them
actually I'm tired of them all and can't listen to another sound bite from any of them. Politics is nothing but mud slinging to get votes and legslation for the money donars that funded the campaigns. If any of these woman had any true values they would be voices for the women/families that are always being left behind in poverty, push for real education, health care, and fair housing issues etc,become part of social concience about poverty and justice. The faith identities that any of them espouse in their campaigns has been coming out phoney and hope none of them get elected. Christian morals are more than just what position one takes on abortation or homosexuallity and giving cheesey interviews about what kind Christian wife some one is at home. With that said I liked Manson's article-it made me think as a 44 year old woman which of those women speak for me-
Post new comment