-
sponsorship
In a blockbuster New Yorker piece this week,
David Grann persuasively demonstrates that in 2004, Texas executed an
innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham. It is chilling reading. Whatever
you think about the death penalty, you can't want it to misfire. So how
did we get here, to a legal regime in which a junk-science arson
investigation was never questioned by indifferent defense lawyers, as
Grann portrays them, nor by unsympathetic judges, parole board members,
and Texas Governor Rick Perrry's office? ... (Read more in DoubleX)
-
sponsorship
Emily and Jessica,
I was very interested in reading Sandra O'Connor's interview in the New York Times Magazine, and I wish she had elaborated more on why she doesn't call herself a feminist. I've never been comfortable identifying as a feminist, but neither do I like the implication that I'm anti-feminist. To me, abortion has always been something of a litmus-test on that front. If being anti-abortion means I can't be part of the club, well, so be it.
But it goes beyond that. Sure, I want women to have equal pay and equal access to education and jobs, and protection from violence and domestic abuse. Yet I still end up with the nagging feeling that feminists talk about women having more opportunities and choices available to them, but are mostly supportive only of those who make the "right" choices—having a career, for example—or focus on the right priorities. (I get a hint of this from Jessica's post, when she says that the pro-life movement and even the cardio-striptease phenomenon have "co-opted the language of empowerment and feminism.") The quest for universal day care, for example, ignores the fact that providing such programs for working families will doubtlessly punish with a higher tax burden those single-income families in which women have chosen to stay at home to raise the kids.
That does not mean I feel a need to be recruited or won over by a cadre of well-meaning feminists who want me to change my mind about how I identify myself. I'm quite content to live in not-quite-a-feminist limbo. So, Emily, to answer your question, maybe it doesn't matter.
-
sponsorship
Emily, I've been mulling over your question all morning: Does it matter that Sandra Day O'Connor won't call herself a feminist? My gut instinct is that actions speak louder than words, and as a feminist I would vastly prefer better work policies for women than widespread embrace of the term. But I suspect that O'Connor's reticence to self-identify as a feminist is for different reasons than later generations' reaction to the word.
Though you say that Sarah Palin doesn't call herself a feminist, she actually flip-flopped on the matter: She initially called herself a feminist to Katie Couric but refused to label herself when interviewed by Brian Williams. She's even a member of a organization called Feminists for Life. I suspect that deep down, Sarah Palin does think of herself as a feminist, and that's precisely why I think women of later generations may be uncomfortable with the term: Its meaning has become completely muddled.
So many things have co-opted the language of empowerment and feminism—from the pro-life movement to cardio striptease classes—I wonder if women of generations X and Y are afraid to call themselves feminist because that self-definition is more confusing than illuminating. Sandra Day O'Connor may have been defining herself in opposition to the bra burners, but today's young women don't have such a clear-cut foil.
-
sponsorship
Asked if she calls herself a feminist, Sandra Day O'Connor demurred to Deborah Solomon in the New York Times Magazine this weekend. That shouldn't surprise me—O'Connor is a rock-ribbed, ranch-girl Republican, even if she drove the right wing of her party crazy when she was on the bench. Still, her disavowal struck me as one of the more drily amusing examples of women who are pioneering, ball-busting feminist icons but not feminists. Maggie Thatcher comes to mind. Who else—Sarah Palin?
You could try to dismiss SOC's declining of the label as a generational tic brought on by the reflexive (though false) image of bra burning. But it's more likely that Justice O'Connor, ever timely, is giving voice to an enduring reluctance among moderates and conservatives to identify with the political movement to increase opportunities and equity for women, even if that's what their life's work, in fact, stands for. Is this just a tic, nonetheless—actions speak louder than words—or does it matter?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?