Are Feminists the New Republicans?

113932612

This is not, I repeat, NOT a review of Sheryl Sandberg’s book, “Lean In.”  So there.

Is this what it’s come to?  Fairly or not, Republicans have the reputation of being the party of “My-Way-Or-The-Highway” mentality of policy and politics.  They are famous for closing ranks around the most powerful among them, and flinging anyone who dares to deviate from the standard party line to the ground.  If a Republican deviates, suggests a compromise, or reaches across the aisle he or she is met with derision and accusations of anti-patriotism from fellow Republicans.  Frozen out.  (While this is, of course, not true of all Republicans, and Democrats engage in this behavior, too, it’s a fairly common perception.)  At any rate, as a result of this infighting and the results of the last election, many are (rightly or wrongly) ringing the death knell for the Republican Party.  Are Feminists heading down the same road?

Not only are women slamming Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg for being out of touch with the average worker, we’re slamming each other for slamming them.  How many layers of disgust and venom must we pile on one another before the insanity stops?  Dare to call BS on Mayer’s new Yahoo! policy or Sandberg’s new feminesto (feminist + manifesto = feminesto.  It’s just fewer syllables, k?) and you are a “hater,” “absurd,” and (I loved this one…) “Dowdian.”  As if it were in insult to be quoted by Maureen Dowd.  Dare to support or defend Mayer or Sandberg, and you’re setting back the cause of Feminism or insensitive to the needs of mothers.  Why such polarization?  Is it necessary?  Is it productive?

What are we doing to elevate the level of discourse?  Joanne Bamberger (full disclosure – a friend of mine) wrote a powerful piece in USA Today about Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg.  She cogently argued that the duo is setting standards for the workplace that are destined to foster resentment and guilt among mothers in the workforce.  I don’t agree with everything in the piece (I’m not sure, for example, that Sandberg isn’t interested in giving women a hand up,) but much of it rings true, and I definitely get where she is coming from.  Mayer’s decree is tone-deaf and feels much more like it comes from the castle tower – though as I’ve said before, time will tell if her banning flextime and working from home was a good business decision.  Sandberg’s exhortations that women stand up for themselves in the workplace and not be afraid to ask for more than they’re offered seems to come from a better place, but still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of people who don’t have the luxury of using their vacation days to launch a movement or a book tour.

In the meantime, Joanne was called a “hater” and had her scholarship questioned because she didn’t explicitly state in her piece that she had read Sandberg’s book, “Lean In,” before she critiqued it.  (She HAD read the book, by the way.)  When I heard this, I marched (as much as one can march on a laptop) right over to those other articles, my protective side having been called to the surface, ready to defend my friend.  I read Joan Walsh’s piece in Salon magazine.  Apart from lumping Joanne in with the “haters,”  I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of this article.  I haven’t read “Leaning In” myself, but I certainly would now, just to see whose version I feel it more closely resembles.  I like the advice Walsh described about asking for more than you’re offered, and choosing your spouse wisely so that you are supported in ALL of your important goals, including career, and her defense of Sandberg seems sound to me.  I disregarded the snark (which was definitely there,) detracted from the piece.

Anna Holmes’ piece in the New Yorker also smacked down many who criticized Sandberg, but with much more derisive language and, it seemed to me, outright hostility.  She takes great liberties in her assumptions of the critics (my friend, included).  However, I actually happen to agree with her on other points, particularly when she identifies one important problem with the criticism of Sandberg.  She’s “galled…by the subtext that because Sandberg is rich she can’t possibly be sincere in her advocacy of women.”  So even as I truly disliked the tone and knew some of her presumptions to be false, I found something of value in the piece.

At the risk of sounding like I’m sighing, and saying, “Why can’t everyone think more like I do?” – well, WHY CAN’T EVERYONE THINK MORE LIKE I DO???? I can disagree without resorting to name-calling.  (Though I did call the guy from Suspension Notice a Drama Queen.)  I can hear an opposing viewpoint without taking it personally.  You know what?  I can even hear someone being critical of my viewpoint without being insulted!  Unless, of course, we’re talking about the Mets or the Orioles.  That’s personal.

I’m a big believer in diversity of opinion and background being a strength rather than a weakness.  The intense pressure to conform to the thinking of whatever the group troubles me deeply.  Joanne has every right to be critical of Sandberg and Mayer without being labeled a hater.  Holmes and Walsh have the right to disagree with Joanne’s criticism, and can do so very eloquently WITHOUT the name-calling and baseless accusations of her not having read the book.  Why must we make this PERSONAL, people?  Shouldn’t we, as women and feminists, be setting the standard for mature discourse – given the appalling LACK of it from our predominantly male legislators?

Maybe I’m naive, but I believe everyone has something to contribute.  Furthermore, I feel a responsibility to distill the information and discussion down to what speaks to me and helps me learn.  To take from the criticism what makes sense, and maybe call BS on the parts that don’t – while doing my damnedest to be respectful of the people with whom I’m disagreeing.  The more rational the critique, the more powerful in my eyes.  But when was the last time rationality sold magazines?  That might explain why I don’t make enough to file taxes…or buy a copy of “Lean In.”

Print Friendly
  • http://gravatar.com/tenoclockbird tenoclockbird

    Thank you! I’ve been screaming this for ages. My parents will tell you that “debating” is my favorite sport, but some people who know me just think I like to pick fights. NO! I just like the exchange of ideas, I search for people who have opposing views so we CAN exchange ideas. Why does it have to turn into a fight. Then NOBODY is listening, and NOBODY is learning, and NOBODY is growing. Especially when it comes to things we feel the strongest about, we have got to try to communicate better. You said, “The more rational the critique, the more powerful in my eyes. ” and I can’t agree more!

    ~Bird

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theworthingtonpost Aliza @ The Worthington Post

      No, thank YOU! :)

  • https://24timespersecond.wordpress.com Nandini Godara

    Thanks for this. I don’t understand why people can’t simply disagree with each other instead of making it personal. If you don’t think the book is helpful then that should be it. It seems that somehow almost every powerful woman is “setting the feminist movement back” when they’ve obviously beaten some great odds and are trying to explain how they did it. And suddenly because she’s achieved all of this, she is not the common woman anymore and can’t understand her woes. I would love to count myself a feminist but the meaning of the word has been sullied.

    And you should absolutely wonder why people can’t think like you do! ;)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theworthingtonpost Aliza @ The Worthington Post

      So appreciative of you stopping by and commenting! There is so much to what you say – especially that last line. ;-)

  • http://gravatar.com/momfluential momfluential

    I don’t think we know how to have a conversation anymore. Everyone is too busy formulating their next response to actually listen…

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theworthingtonpost Aliza @ The Worthington Post

      Oooo – good one! Sooo true. :)

  • http://gravatar.com/elissapr elissapr

    Here! Here! Great post! We’ve become consumed with everyone knowing our opinion without caring who we slam in the process. The women’s movement will never propel forward as long as we continue to bash each other.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theworthingtonpost Aliza @ The Worthington Post

      amen.

  • http://lizraelupdate.com Liz

    Yeah. This is a big one. Bigger than breastfeeding, cosleeping, etc etc. These policies/conversations/decisions effect the entire society. Which makes it fascinating to be a part of right now.

    We get emotional, we get touchy when it comes to our parenting. So it makes sense. We get competitive, we feel inadequate when it comes to our profession, so it makes sense.

    Kinda wondering what it’ll be like for my daughter by the time she’s grown. Then again, I guess I could be part of shaping that outcome?

  • http://musingsonmotherhoodmidlife.com Estelle Sobel Erasmus

    I appreciate you putting all these terrific articles in one place. Again, I don’t think we have to pussyfoot around because these people are women. This is a larger issue; and I think the conversation needs to be around the aspect of caregivers and society, corporations and government valuing it.

    Estelle

  • http://storiesliesandbikerdives.wordpress.com iedarla

    Feminisim, the other “F” word. This conservative woman is not…

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theworthingtonpost Aliza @ The Worthington Post

      I didn’t think so. ;-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/hollynyny Holly Rosen Fink

    I agree with Elissa – let’s move the movement forward and all get along. I don’t personally think that the two well-known figures mentioned above are setting us back at all. They are causing a conversation and we need that to cause change.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X