This is a book of essays by "individualist feminists," who assert that only by individual choice can women gain true freedom. That simple statement does not do the viewpoint justice, of course. The book shows (not surprisingly) that these feminists have complex ideas, do not always agree, and are still feeling out how to express these concepts. The resemblance to libertarianism is strong; it just takes on a feminist flavor in "Liberty for Women."
It sounds appealing in principle-- I have advocated greater individual choice many times in preference to a feminism that simply replaces our androcentric viewpoint with a female-centered one. But I was quite disappointed with this book. It seems mainly to be an attack on previous feminist viewpoints, blaming them for women's lack of progress in the last 30 years. Does anyone really believe that the feminist movement hurt women? The only people I know who believe that are the ultraright wackos.
That was my main impression. These authors were flinging themselves rather far to the right almost as if trying to prove that they weren't anything like those icky liberal feminists. Like teenagers discovering how much fun it is to say "fuck," the essayists delight in lambasting previous feminist efforts as misguided, misinformed, and downright harmful. Whee, knock yourself out.
The general idea seems to be that the problem with most feminist efforts of the 70's was to try to actively correct the inequities of the past. Instead, these feminists say we ought to create laws that do not budge one inch past the notion that men and women are completely equal. The message is stunningly naive: If we assert that men and women are equal, then they will be, and that's that.
(Sound of slapping forehead)-- Oh, of course! How could we have been so stupid? All we had to do to avoid the pain of the backlash that has occurred for the past 25 years was to say that men and woman are equal, and be done with it! These "individualist feminists" actually seem to believe that you can just hit "Reset" and the entire weight of history behind you will disappear.
Apparently, they really think that the past has no influence. That there is no such thing as momentum, memory, or inertia. They smugly point out the problems we have had with policies over the past few decades and declare that it all happened because feminists tried to "intervene" with the system instead of simply redefining everything to be the way they wanted it. But you can't redefine social systems any more than you can physical laws. Hey, that's it-- I think I'll just redefine gravity to be lighter today. How stupid of us not to think of that back in the early days of the space program!
Anyone who has read my feminist writings knows that I have some real problems with radical 60's feminism and even the legacy of more tempered feminism as it came through the 80's. I am not an old-style feminist; I believe it is time for some new tricks. But I really couldn't agree with much of this book. If this is "individualist" feminism, it is nothing more than a minor branch of the right wing that has little appreciation of complexity.
One essay did stand out -- "Breeder Reactionaries: The 'Feminist' War on New Reproductive Technologies" by Wendy McElroy. What I liked was her general commentary on how radical feminists reject science. Yes, they do, and it's really counterproductive and stupid. Buried in their Women's Studies departments, they lament science as the "rape of the Earth" and other schlock. McElroy rightly blasts them for it. But many of the other blasts I felt were unjustified, even if I didn't totally agree with the old feminists.
The other thing worth asking is, how come majority of the "Women and Technology" section was about childbirth, abortion, and reproductive medicine? (Excepting one essay by a woman doctor about insurance for geriatric patients). Silly me. I was thinking that "Women and Technology" might be about the plight of women engineers and computer programmers, maybe also a piece about encouraging girls in the sciences or math. But no. It's about our uteruses. Thanks, Wendy, for falling into the same trap as the radical feminists and the right wing-- making us into large versions of our uterus. What else could "technology" possibly mean?
But wait, there was one more essay in that Technology section. It was written by a friend of mine about why young women of today are disillusioned with old-style feminism. I guess it fits in that section because it was picked up off of the Internet (there seems to be no other reason). It's the most sincere essay of all of them because it's not gussied up to conform to an "academic" style. (The irony of these "individualists" attacking the academic feminists is that they adopt the same artificial poses in their own essays). Sure, this one by my friend is rough around the edges, but it's far from dry. And it actually articulates why new feminism is needed and how it might evolve into the future. It is far more than a straight criticism of feminism. It's worth reading, but don't buy the book for it-- the essay is free online.
Even though I didn't agree with this book, I could still give it a decent rating if the thought content was worthy. I'm not totally sure about that. I'll settle on a "weak +." I am in general in favor of intelligent criticism of second-wave feminism. This partially fits the bill.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2003
