Everybody Hates Feminism?

OK, maybe not everybody hates feminism, but sometimes it seems like it. When I Google "feminsm," beyond the pages of definitions, it seems that there are as many anti-feminist blogs and articles as there are pro-feminist blogs and articles. Ever since I started identifying as a feminist, and especially since I started this blog, I have been confronted and absolutely baffled by the venomous attitude many people have about feminism. I'm not talking about the kids who think it's funny to tell anti feminist jokes ("How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? It's a trick question. Feminists can't change anything. Ha. Ha. Ha. Somebody actually put this joke as a comment when my boyfriend re-posted my blog on his Facebook page). They annoy me, but they're not who I'm talking about. I mean the people who really seem to hate the idea of the advancement of women.

I've been reading a lot about feminism and anti-feminism lately. I recently joined the Google+ craze, and I have feminism as one of my sparks. Much of what pops up there is pretty hateful. I've been getting some fairly nasty comments on this blog, or comments when others re-post this blog. I read, I argue, but I just can't understand when people think that others do not deserve to be on the same level as everyone else because of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I am starting to dislike the word "privilege" because it is tossed around a little too nastily (and people have a pretty strong, negative reaction to it), but I feel like when men say that women do not deserve the same rights that they enjoy, they are, in fact, showing their privilege. They can't understand what it's like to be a woman, but they know they enjoy being a man, and they don't want women to invade their privileged space. Disclaimer: I am in no way saying all men are like that. Simply the men who are against women having equal rights.

Doesn't that disclaimer strike anybody as odd? Why should I have to say things like that? Shouldn't it be obvious that I'm not attacking all men? Often enough, though, it's not. No matter how often I cry, "I am not a man hater!" I am a feminist. And for so many people, feminist = man hater. Why? Here's my theory.

First, some women who identify as feminists will happily say that they hate men. I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a pretty insignificant minority. Unfortunately, people pay attention to radicals, and so these women get more attention than they deserve, therefore giving feminism as a whole a bad name.

Second, a great deal of what feminism is is a fight against sexism. Because feminism is all about gender--and there are only two main genders--the opposite gender, and the gender we most often fight against, sometimes takes offense. I'd like to speak directly to those men who are offended by feminism: If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to be offended by. If you are not sexist, if you don't objectify women at every turn, if you would be just as comfortable with a female boss as a male one and have no problem with them earning equal salaries then, in my book, you're good. I'm very sorry if a feminist has made you feel bad about yourself for being a man. If they did, they were wrong. We are not fighting against men as individuals. We are fighting against a culture that has so long kept us from being whole people, from having our own goals and desires and thoughts, from being able to enjoy the same privileges that men have enjoyed for centuries. If you are with us in that fight, thank you! If not, well then you are what we're fighting against, and we aren't going to stop until we achieve equality. Note, not dominance. Equality.

Some people, I find, are simply offended that women would wish to shake their nurturing, maternal roots. That we don't agree to be unquestioningly obedient to our husbands, and that we want to obtain careers, even while being mothers. Many people criticize feminism for tearing down the "traditional family." Yes. Yes, we have. Or at least, we're trying. And I, as a feminist, am not sorry for it. If a traditional family means that a wife is to leave the decisions to the husband, to have little to no economic power, and to be generally viewed as lower than the husband, then it has no place in a world that yearns for equality. Partners, feminists believe, should be equal in all things. This is not to say that a woman has to leave her children to babysitters and chase a career. A woman can still be a housewife and be equal with her husband.

Of course, it isn't just men who are against feminism; there are a great deal of women, too. Just saying that one is a feminist invites debate or at least negative opinions. Michelle Bachman vehemently denies that she is a feminist, possibly because she believes it is political suicide. It's also quite possible, being a traditional evangelical conservative, she actually believes equality for women is bad. Then she should get in the kitchen, because if she denies feminist beliefs, then she has no right sticking her nose in politics, or being in any position of power. This is just one example of how the name of feminism has been so sullied, that people who should be embracing it, distance themselves from it. I'm very confused by this.

Here's what it all comes down to: feminism is about equality. It's the belief that women and men are both human beings, both capable of doing the same jobs, and both deserve to be treated with equal respect. That's it. Some feminists take it too far, some feminists don't take it far enough, I think. But I'm allowed to disagree with what other feminists say, in the same way that Christians disagree with other Christians, atheists disagree with other atheists, capitalists disagree with other capitalists, and so on.

At it's core, feminism is just arguing for, fighting for and working toward gender equality. Is that so bad?

New Blog Design

I've decided to re-name and re-design my blog completely, to make it more unique. Unfortunately, "The F-Word" is oft used for both feminism and food based blogs, organizations, etc. A new post will be coming soon, and the design changes are not complete yet, but I just wanted to share with you my amazing new logo designed by Marc Fishman. Check out his work at marcalanfishman.com--it's awesome! Thanks, Marc!

Thanks to all my readers, also. It's because of your reading and comments that I keep doing this. So thanks for your support!

Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Rapist or Victim?

The case of former French IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has dominated the news lately. When I first heard it, I was happily shocked that a mere hotel maid was actually coming forward with being sexually assaulted by a powerful man. It seemed that the evidence was compelling enough, and law enforcement was on her side. I assumed he was guilty, and was thrilled that justice was being done. The signs were there: her story remained consistent, she had bruises on, among other areas, her crotch, she had an injured shoulder, it was determined that his semen was on her dress and around the room. Then, even more allegations came out against him from a French journalist. Finally, I thought, people are treating sexual assault with the gravity that victims deserve. And this wasn't just any sexual assault case--it involved a man in power. The kind that are notoriously difficult to push through.

But.

Then I heard that charges were most likely going to be dropped, because it seems the hotel maid lied. I'm still torn. Obviously, I wasn't there. No one, but the maid and Strauss-Kahn were there, so we don't know what happened. What I do know is that, while I 'm not totally convinced she was raped, the details of her lies aren't enough to convince me that she is lying either.

The maid is an immigrant from Guinea, who has something of a history of lying. She lied about being gang raped in her home country, which sounds absolutely awful--until one considers the circumstances. My first reaction when I heard she had lied about being gang raped was despair. Certainly, if she's lied about being raped once, she'd do it again, right? However, she lied about being gang raped on her asylum papers, in order to get into the United States. She knew that poverty was not a valid reason for asylum, so she lied. Of course, this is assuming it's a lie. Her lawyers still hold that it's true. She's admitted to lying about the rape, but says she was raped, just not in the manner she originally explained.

She lied about various other things. She told prosecutors that she had only one cell phone and one job, when in fact, she has two of each. She may have lied on her tax return. She lied about the events immediately following the alleged rape: originally, she said she reported the rape to her supervisor right after the event. Later, she said she continued to clean before telling her supervisor. So, she's a compulsive liar, right? A woman not to be believed. Except, we must consider the one important thing she has not lied about: the events of the alleged rape. Most people who make false rape charges are found out because they cannot keep their story straight, but Strauss-Kahn's accuser has. Maybe I'm ignoring all sorts of other compelling evidence and over-focusing on this, but this seems very important to me. The lies the maid has told seem suspicious, sure, but again, we must consider the circumstances. She was a poor woman in an impoverished country. Is it not understanding that she might lie about her reasons for asylum, and her financial situation?

If there is one potentially seriously damning fact in this whole case, it's the phone call she made to her boyfriend, just after the alleged rape (as reported by the New York Times, from a "well-placed law enforcement official"). It took a while to get the phone call translated, because it was in a unique dialect of Fulani, but the quote that keeps getting thrown around is her saying something along the lines of, "Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I'm doing.

When I read this, I threw my hands up in defeat. But then I thought, we don't know the context. Slate makes a wonderful point about this. The conversation could be exactly what most people would automatically think: she's talking about falsely accusing a powerful man of rape to get money. But what if, in fact, her boyfriend suggests something like killing Strauss-Kahn, rather than going to the police? Or simply not going to the police at all, because no one will believe her, an immigrant hotel maid, anyway? Either of those statements might elicit the response that the maid gave. We simply don't know the whole conversation, for whatever reason. We know what one journalist reported from one nameless official. Maybe she did want to make a profit, but I don't see what's wrong with wanting to get something out of a horrible event. That's why people sue, isn't it?

So maybe what happened is she hatched this plan to accuse Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape. She went into his hotel room, had incredibly rough, consensual sex with him, and then told her supervisor she had been raped. There are a number of ways in which this scene could have been played out.

Or, she was raped, and she was scared. She cleaned another room after the rape because she was scared of losing her job, and lied about it because she was scared no one would believe her about the rape if she told them she went on cleaning. She made some clumsy mistakes, sure. But we must understand this woman in the context of her background. Given the situation that she came from, lying may just be a habit for her, as a means of survival. Trusting authorities may seem foreign and dangerous to her.

I don't know if she was raped, of if she is making it up. If I absolutely had to say, it seems to me that she was raped, and the media is publishing the most sensational facts without presenting them in context, therefore making everyone believe that she is lying. I have a terrible feeling that the case will be dismissed, legal action will be taken against the maid, and this case will become a rallying point for those who are convinced that women constantly cry wolf about rape, and who overestimate the number of false rape cases.