America’s Reactionary Feminists - Naomi Wolf

[jake williams]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...wolf38/English

America’s Reactionary Feminists

NEW YORK – It is obvious that the left and the media establishment in the United States cannot fully understand the popular appeal of the two Republican tigresses in the news – first Sarah Palin, and now, as she consolidates her status as a Republican presidential front-runner, Michele Bachmann. What do they have that other candidates don’t – and that so many Americans seem to want?

Both Bachmann and Palin are regularly derided in the mainstream press. In Palin’s case, the dominant perception is that she is an intellectual lightweight: a clip of her unable to mention a single newspaper or news magazine that she reads regularly got millions of hits on YouTube during the last presidential election.

Bachmann, on the other hand, is portrayed as being slightly unhinged. Indeed, I can attest from personal experience that to debate her is to encounter someone who is absolutely certain of facts that must exist somewhere in a parallel universe.

But it would be a mistake simply to dismiss their appeal with no effort to comprehend its source. This is especially true of Bachmann. Palin has not managed to secure the support and mentorship of the Republican Party establishment, and will continue to showcase her odd appeal as a media personality. But Bachman, weirdly, might become President of the United States.

The nature of their attraction has to do with two strains in American thought to which the US left and media establishment are truly blind. One is the American tradition of populist demagoguery – a tradition that, in the twentieth century, included the racist Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930’s, the anti-Communist witch-hunter Joe McCarthy in the 1950’s, and the radical Malcolm X in the 1960’s. Populist leaders inspire passionate devotion, usually in people who feel (and often are) economically, politically, and culturally marginalized.

These populist movements’ energy can be directed for good or ill, but demagogues in America embrace similar tactics to fuel their rise to visibility and power. They use emotive rhetoric. They often invent shadowy networks of “elite” forces ranged against the ordinary, decent American. They create an “us versus them” scenario. And they ask their listeners to believe that they alone will restore American dignity and articulate the wishes of the unheard.

Palin and Bachmann speak this highly personal or emotional language, which even the most rock-ribbed male Republican finds difficult to emulate. In the last three decades, America’s male-dominated politics has become increasingly wonky, abstract, and professionalized. This is bad for demagoguery, but it does not inhibit the tigresses on the right, who did not come up through the “old boy’s club.”

As a result, Palin is free to talk about “death panels” – a wholly invented threat of President Barack Obama’s health-care reform – and Bachmann can summon the spirit of McCarthy to raise the equally bizarre specter of socialism’s tentacles infiltrating the highest levels of government. Both can issue homespun appeals as “hockey moms” or “soccer moms” – precisely the type of emotionalism that more cut-and-dried professional male politicians, even (or especially) at the top of the party, cannot manage to deliver.

The second reason that Bachmann and Palin appeal to so many Americans – and this should not be underestimated, either – has to do with a serious historical misreading of feminism. Because feminism in the 1960’s and 1970’s was articulated via the institutions of the left – in Britain, it was often allied with the labor movement, and in America, it was reborn in conjunction with the emergence of the New Left – there is an assumption that feminism itself must be leftist. In fact, feminism is philosophically as much in harmony with conservative, and especially libertarian, values – and in some ways even more so.

The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom, and it is these strains that are being sounded now more by the Tea Party movement than by the left. But, apart from these sound bites, there is a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in America, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.

Many of these women are socially conservative, strongly supportive of the armed forces, and religious – and yet they crave equality as strongly as any leftist vegetarian in Birkenstocks. It is blindness to this perfectly legitimate approach to feminism that keeps tripping up commentators who wish to dismiss women like Margaret Thatcher, or Muslim women, or now right-wing US women leaders, as somehow not being the “real thing.”
But these women are real feminists – even if they do not share policy preferences with the already recognized “sisterhood,” and even if they themselves would reject the feminist label. In the case of Palin – and especially that of Bachmann – we ignore the wide appeal of right-wing feminism at our peril.

Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org

So, yeah. I'mma just leave that there.

[CynicalIdealist]

The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom

lol liberal feminism. Reactionary feminists includes Naomi Wolf.

There is no choice and freedom in a capitalist system. Liberal feminists only see some of the trees and completely miss the forest.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah the core of the bullshit of this article is seeing women's rights as separate from class. Maybe separate isn't the right word maybe "invisible" is more correct since this style of feminist equates increasing the power of women in society with the promotion of powerful (bourgeois) women.

The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom, and it is these strains that are being sounded now more by the Tea Party movement than by the left. But, apart from these sound bites, there is a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in America, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.

The question I would ask is how are the tea-party (as well as establishment) attacks on and demonetization of female-dominated professions such as teaching helping women? In fact a lot of these attacks teach teaching as a "woman's profession" and therefore somehow wages and compensation are less important because women SHOULD want to care for and teach children. In fact in every teacher and nurses strike I've been apart of, the bosses cry, "they don't actually care about kids/patients, they just want MONEY!". Well, first as Comrade Matt Damon () said, why would someone accept an underpaid and overworked position if they didn't care about it. Second, no shit people need money in this society - when male dominated professions go out on strike, the workers are still attacked and denounced, but no one claims, "These striking Verizon workers don't care about telephone lines!"

There is no question among the vast majority of women in the US that the right-wing agenda is an attack on any gains they have been able to maintain over the last generation. And considering that Sarah Palin is disliked by all but a minority of Republicans - "popularity among the US population" is a bit of a stretch... she gets exposure because she is polarizing with a tiny minority who adore her, a larger minority who loathe her and people in-between who see her as a bizarre celebrity or don't give a fuck about her either way.

But the tiny grain of truth to some of this article is that as much as it pains me to defend either one of these reactionaries, they are subject to sexism and sexist attacks masquerading as politics. Palin is the subject of sexist and elitist attacks from establishment liberals - it's similar to the way Bush was attacked for being dumb or backwards when in fact he is smart enough probably and his folksiness is a construct - these kinds of elitist or sexist attacks allow Democrats and establishment liberals to appeal to the real hatred among the population (specifically their base) for what these figures represent - without having to actually criticize that loathsome shit that they represent! This is of course because the Democrats want the war, neoliberalism, austerity, and union-busting too, so attacking Bush for being dim allows them to capitalize on the popular disgust without offering anything different.

[Blackburn]

I was wondering what the big deal of the article was until I read:

The second reason that Bachmann and Palin appeal to so many Americans – and this should not be underestimated, either – has to do with a serious historical misreading of feminism. Because feminism in the 1960’s and 1970’s was articulated via the institutions of the left – in Britain, it was often allied with the labor movement, and in America, it was reborn in conjunction with the emergence of the New Left – there is an assumption that feminism itself must be leftist. In fact, feminism is philosophically as much in harmony with conservative, and especially libertarian, values – and in some ways even more so.

This makes me go Green Hulk angry. (You don't like me when I'm angry! )

feminism is philosophically as much in harmony with conservative, and especially libertarian, values – and in some ways even more so.

GODDAMN LIBER_F_ING_TERIANS!!!! GO TAKE A GIANT LEAP OF A GOVERNMENT FUNDED BRIDGE WHILST YOU PONDER 'WHO IS JOHN GAULT?".

[Tim Finnegan]

If I was a more cynical bloke than I am, I'd say that this all sounds suspiciously like Wolf laying the ground for a rightward turn herself.

[PhoenixAsh]

We actually had quite a big debate about this very subject a few days ago in my group.

We discussed people like Anne Coulter and Michele Bachman who rise to the top of the very heart of the political culture which focusses on white male privilege and exploitative capitalism to voice political ideas and serve political agenda's which are quite detrimental to the position of women and who seem to endorse a perpetuation of the current system.

This debate is still ongoing and hasn't reached its conclusion yet and I am not about to give an excerpt of what has been said so far by either men or women in our group but here is a few thoughts expressed so far...which I would like to add are still under debate and under development and not necessarilly an expression of my own views or that of the group. The reason I give them is more as food for thought and perhaps debate here than anything else in the hopes of getting feedback and other opinions

So here goes:

The fact that these women rise to the top is not necessarilly a bad thing. Women have just as much right to be reactionary assholes as men. And the fact that women manage to rise to the top of previously entirely male dominated bullwarks is in fact to be considered something akin to progress from the position of equality. This is regardless of the message they give and regardless of the fact that these women endorse a policy which is actually quite detrimental to womens stuggle and perpetuates the current system.

They are however an expression of the womens struggle so far and an increased participation normalises this participation in areas were previously this participation has been extremely limited. We have to ask ourselves how it is even possible that women manage to rise to the top in these kind of organisations. And the answer could probably (and in this case: will) be hotly debated.

Some could view this in the light of tactics in which men in these organisations indeed allow women to rise to the top simply because they voice an opinion which perpetuates the current system and judge these women on the merrit of their conformist message and policies and capabilities to sell this message. Some would argue this is a sexist position. Others will argue that this is indeed the case simply because the organisations which they rise in are sexist or perpetuate the patriarchy.

One might also argue that these women rise to the top, probably for these reasons, but by doing so will have a normalising effect on society towards the increased participation of women in the top. And that it will show women and men on the right that women have a place in society on their own merit and that increased participation at every level in society is simply the way to go.

All this said. The notion of the success of womens stuggle outside a marxist or anarchist class analysis and anti capitalist position is somewhat laughable because it comes down to curing the sympthoms rather than the disease. Liberal and conservative feminism is never the answer and should both be opposed based in this.

But there is an undeniable truth that as long as we do not have a revolution we should not ignore the fact that we are in dire need to reach improvements on the current situation surrounding the position of women in society.

What is extremely worrying is that the policies of women like Coulter, Bachman and Palin would in fact mean a set back for this liberation. And their politics deserve every criticism they get from the left and we should rally against these politics.

But what is worrying as well, if not more so, is that some in the liberal left and some in the revolutionary left seem not only to criticise the politics and policies of these women...but also seem to dismis these women as "silly" and "brainwashed". This position or notion is to be rejected and fought just as much as the politics of these women. And its horrifying that feminists, supposed feminists and self professed revolutionaries lower themselves into this trap of sexism stemming from oppositionism. You can not battle sexism with sexism. This is never an acceptable position no matter how lofty one thinks their goals are.

The only answer to these women should be to attack their polictics and the consequences of these politics by pointing out that they are neither progress nor solutions to the problems of society and actually perpetuate them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We actually had quite a big debate about this very subject a few days ago in my group.

...

Interesting post and sounds like an interesting debate. In my opinion I think we (radicals and hopefully as many working class people in general) need to be anti-oppression on principle, radicals as the tribune of the people and oppressed and all that. So even when Palin or Obama are subject to sexist or racist arguments we need to stand up to that (while not giving these figures a pass obviously) because if it's OK to use slurs against Obama or it's OK for Democrats to say Palin is just a dumb soccer Mom who should be raising her kids better rather than being involved in politics... then it's also going to give a green light to general racism and sexism in this society.

But I think when we look at this sort of bourgeois feminist framework where progress is seen as women in power, we see that as much as there are more high profile women in positions of power now, there really hasn't really been any progress in the last few decades even in terms women in higher management. There are 13 women who run fortune 500 companies... as in 13 out of 500! Even though more women get university degrees than men, wages and wage inequality has stagnated for women (and for the working class more generally) and inequality has only decreased because men have been hit harder by the recession than women (or at least male-dominated jobs like construction and trucking etc while low-level jobs open more traditionally open to women - service jobs and nursing - have not been hit as hard).

Between 1970 and 1985 women in professional and management positions in the US went from 15% to over 30%. That was the most rapid period of growth and in the 30 years since the percentage has increased but at a much slower rate even though education for women has increased. So I think that clearly shows that even for bourgeois women, a social movement is much more effective than playing the game and social climbing.

So even under it's own terms this post-women's lib "feminism from above" is a total failure. Especially when people who say things like the quote below are considered "feminist" according to the paradigm:

“The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” – Michele Bachmann, October 2006.

[Lynx]

But these women are real feminists – even if they do not share policy preferences with the already recognized “sisterhood,” and even if they themselves would reject the feminist label. In the case of Palin – and especially that of Bachmann – we ignore the wide appeal of right-wing feminism at our peril.

Palin and Bachmann have rejected the feminist label. If their 'appeal' is based on "right-wing feminism" that would be to the dismay of their supporters. If you think you can rehabilitate feminism in the eyes of these people, think again.

[PhoenixAsh]

Interesting post and sounds like an interesting debate.

Yes, it is indeed is and its also surprising when you get to follow it and see who makes what arguments. Some of the older generations have taken a step back on this one...prefering to observe what the younger generations say and do.

The debate started for an entire different reason than this article. And I think I am going to throw this into the melee next time....just to add fuel to the fire.

In my opinion I think we (radicals and hopefully as many working class people in general) need to be anti-oppression on principle, radicals as the tribune of the people and oppressed and all that. So even when Palin or Obama are subject to sexist or racist arguments we need to stand up to that (while not giving these figures a pass obviously) because if it's OK to use slurs against Obama or it's OK for Democrats to say Palin is just a dumb soccer Mom who should be raising her kids better rather than being involved in politics... then it's also going to give a green light to general racism and sexism in this society.

Exactly. The idea that using racial and sexist slurs in order to combat real or perceived racism and sexism in those the slurs are used against is quite a misguided notion....it will only enforce the stereotypes and perpetuate the current notions.

I think it is very impotant to note that none of my group is American.

But I think when we look at this sort of bourgeois feminist framework where progress is seen as women in power, we see that as much as there are more high profile women in positions of power now, there really hasn't really been any progress in the last few decades even in terms women in higher management. There are 13 women who run fortune 500 companies... as in 13 out of 500! Even though more women get university degrees than men, wages and wage inequality has stagnated for women (and for the working class more generally) and inequality has only decreased because men have been hit harder by the recession than women (or at least male-dominated jobs like construction and trucking etc while low-level jobs open more traditionally open to women - service jobs and nursing - have not been hit as hard).

Those numbers speek for themselves.

Yet in my group it has been argued that the fact that women seem to rise to the top now in previous male dominated strongholds of the very political spectrum that endorses the patriarchy stronger than any other....is in fact an expression of the feminist struggle. And eventhough it's counter opposed to the very goals and notions of revolutionary feminism...they in themselves have been able to reach that position because of decades of feminist struggle.

Which brought up the point if it can be an expression of feminism when the expression itself goes against feminism.

So far the majority opinion is that, theoretically atleast, it can be....since the fact that now not only men get to be reactionary perpetuators on the higher political levels of patriarchy indicates women are comming into their own rights within these power structures. The optimists in the group hope this will be indicative of a sort of "lead by example" shift....which they hope will mean this will in fact mean that we will be seeing more women in the top of these sexist bullwarks. Which is in their opinion a shift which will in fact counteract some sympthoms of patriarchical domination.

I personally am not entirely unsympathetic to this line of reasoning. I can see the idea and thought process behind them and I think that they have at least some merit....and personally I like to see more women actively participate. But my own opinion so far is that this is perhaps an expression of feminism but, will not and has not been yet a succesfull strategy. Feminism from above is more indicative of increased participation and not of increased awareness of the feminist stuggle and not indicative of any sort of substantial progress and real changes and shifts. But it would be very nice if I was wrong....and in fact I hope I am.

In any case the older generations in our group have difficulty seeing feminism seperate from class struggle and the struggle against capitalism. The younger generation have less trouble of seeing the revolutionary agenda devided into specific seperate issues of anti-capitalism and anti-patriarchy.

This is however another debate we are having.

Between 1970 and 1985 women in professional and management positions in the US went from 15% to over 30%. That was the most rapid period of growth and in the 30 years since the percentage has increased but at a much slower rate even though education for women has increased. So I think that clearly shows that even for bourgeois women, a social movement is much more effective than playing the game and social climbing.

Absolutely. The increased participation in the political arena is nice and all. But it is juts one field in society.

I agree completely with your analysis here.

So even under it's own terms this post-women's lib "feminism from above" is a total failure. Especially when people who say things like the quote below are considered "feminist" according to the paradigm:

yes.

I want to write more...but I have to go cuddle with a nice new addition to this world and I do not want to be late Perhaps I have time later.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Palin and Bachmann have rejected the feminist label. If their 'appeal' is based on "right-wing feminism" that would be to the dismay of their supporters. If you think you can rehabilitate feminism in the eyes of these people, think again.

I wouldn't doubt that Bachmann would outright reject the label, but Palin called herself a "feminist" when confronted by it in the 2008 election and has since taken a bastardized "feminism" definition into her speeches... it's a "libertarian" feminism not too different than what Wolfe argued for...

Using grizzly bears as a metaphor, Palin seemed to imply that the tenets of feminism — or at least the word itself — need not apply solely to liberal, abortion-rights supporting (and, by implication, gun-eschewing, gay-marriage-advocating, reusable-eco-bag-toting, dangling-earring-wearing) women. Red-state PTA moms with a love of God and country can get in on the empowerment act too.


"The mama grizzlies, they rise up," Palin said, adding that such women "can give their child life, in addition to pursuing career and education and avocations. Society wants to tell these young women otherwise. These feminist groups want to tell these women that, 'No, you're not capable of doing both.'"

So maybe she's gone back and rejected the word since 2010, but she's flirted with a sort of "right-wing populist feminism" throughout her time in the spotlight. I think it could just be that she has trouble reconciling her right-wing politics with the actual support she does get from right-wing women and some of the real patronizing she does seem to get from the media and even from the McCain campaign in 2008.

It's all very confused. The big-picture is that the mainstream feminists actually opened the door to this sort of farce-feminism. By abandoning the issues of working class women in order to have strategies of working within the system and focusing on elite women they have no hope or ability to really change the mechanisms of sexism and oppression in the US or elsewhere. The fact that Palin (and even some real feminists) argue that women who work also need to be mothers and "traditional feminism" is a barrier to that somehow shows how disconected from reality it's all become. Many working women do have children and the problems they face regarding their kids (since the social pressure is not for women to work on principle, but the social pressure is that you are less of a woman somehow if you don't deeply want kids - and some delicious fat-free yogurt or nice shoes) is that working women don't have the time and money to do both! The real issue isn't "stigma" coming from a non-existent feminist movement, the problem is that there's no healthcare system to deal with your kids when they get sick, there's no daycare and little maternity (not to mention paternity) leave! These are all SOCIAL issues that the tea-party and libertarians will make worse, these working class issues are really what would make millions of lives better and so it really shows how far back things have been pushed when so-called feminists support the inherently sexist agenda of the right or call someone like Palin a feminist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have to go cuddle with a nice new addition to this world and I do not want to be late

Sell-out! Just kidding, of course.

[Lynx]

I wouldn't doubt that Bachmann would outright reject the label, but Palin called herself a "feminist" when confronted by it in the 2008 election and has since taken a bastardized "feminism" definition into her speeches... it's a "libertarian" feminism not too different than what Wolfe argued for...

So maybe she's gone back and rejected the word since 2010, but she's flirted with a sort of "right-wing populist feminism" throughout her time in the spotlight. I think it could just be that she has trouble reconciling her right-wing politics with the actual support she does get from right-wing women and some of the real patronizing she does seem to get from the media and even from the McCain campaign in 2008.

Palin can run under "conservative values" and receive the support of conservatives and right-wingers. Most of her supporters (certainly those from her generation) do not want her to claim she is a feminist. That would be, from their perspective, absurd.
I have more respect for Palin and Bachmann than I do for the likes of Naomi Wolf. I hope they resist being bestowed honorary titles by academics who have an axe to grind. If Wolfe has her way, feminism will become a meaningless term. It already is an umbrella term for a wide spectrum of views.

Palin and Bachmann deserve to be challenged on their views, political and otherwise. Being sexist towards them has no place in any debate.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's easy to see why people like Palin. The image she projects is that she's a commercial fisherwoman, a hunter, someone who's proud of the fact that she lives in kind of a backwoods area of the country (well, she used to anyway) etc. That's how she's branded herself. A lot of people relate to that, and, like the article said, they feel marginalized by the establishment. It's understanable in a way, because the media kinda does pretend that these people don't exist. Thus the bewilderment.

I don't think that people are drawn to her emotional rhetoric, as much as they are to the fact that they find her to be generally a relatable personality. That's why she's such a bizarre curiousity to so much of the country. Go to a cocktail party in midtown Manhattan and ask people what they think of her. Most likely it'll be something along the lines of Bill Maher refering to her as a backwoods "mountain mama".

not so sure about Bachmann.