F-words: Feminism and Falsehoods

Photo of Colleen Raezler.
By Colleen Raezler | January 11, 2008 - 11:39 ET

What does it mean to be a feminist?

According to CosmoGirl magazine, it means perpetuating the myths that women cannot think for themselves, that they are simply victims, and that women who stay home to raise their children are "playing Russian roulette with their future."

Leslie Bennetts, author of The Feminine Mistake, believes "feminism is suffering from a major image crisis." Her column in the current issue of CosmoGirl tries to rally young women back to the feminist movement.

CosmoGirl, the little sister of the raunchy Cosmopolitan magazine, reportedly reaches 1.35 million readers. Its target audience is 16- to 20-year-old young women.

Bennetts is appalled that many of today's young women prefer the mommy track to the corporate ladder: "Instead of continuing to fight for equality and their own careers, many want to stay home and raise kids. In fact, a 2005 survey of female students at Yale University found that the majority planned to give up their careers and stay home after they had kids."

Nobody would expect a balanced piece from someone who refers to a woman's choice to stay home and focus on her family as a "mistake," but the article should have been better argued. It's full of tired, easily debunked claims.

For example, Bennetts cites Jacquelyn White, a gender psychology professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, who says, "Many girls today don't know there are still barriers for women; for instance, we only make 75 cents to the man's dollar."

 

Liz Funk, a 19-year-old college junior, gets a mention in the piece for her "Equal Pay Bake Sale" where men were charged $1 for cookies while women only had to pay 75 cents. She says, "Young women were like, ‘Wait, I make that much less than a guy does for the same job?' We educated a lot of people that day." What's a piece on feminism without playing up the "women as victims" angle?

Sorry, ladies, but your numbers don't add up. In her 2006 book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism,Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum busts the wage-gap discrimination myth by pointing out numerous non-discriminatory influences on women's salaries, including:

• Putting families first. Women on average, spend 10 years outside of the workforce caring for their families.

• Educational attainment. Older women in the workforce tend to have less education that their male peers.

• Different priorities. Women are more likely to want flexible schedules or more time off than higher pay.

Lukas also mentions a study concluding that once all such influences are factored in, women earn 98 cents for every dollar men make.

Example 2: Bennetts insults the intelligence of women by suggesting that the "shift of priorities" to home and hearth is a result of "girls [being] force-fed what [she] call[s] the Princess Myth: the idea that your ultimate goal is to land Prince Charming." Notice that the Yale survey did not say "give up their careers after they got married," but "after they had kids."

Unfortunately for Bennetts, fully 70 percent of parents think the best child-care arrangement was for one parent to stay at home, according to a 2000 Public Agenda report. Is such a strong consensus really the result of little girls' overexposure to Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty?

Example 3: As further "proof" of diminishing support for feminism, Bennetts claims that "many girls' aspirations are spelled out in the mission statement of an online community of young women called the Future Domestic Goddesses of America:

We will be cooking, cleaning, and sex experts, all in addition to maintaining our hotness [sic] till we're pretty old. These things become a full-time job and, just like doctors go to med school and pilots go to flight school, women who want this job need to prepare for it.

Bennetts finds this "troubling" because "these girls are forgetting the whole point of a job, which is to get paid for it. Their views also reflect an alarming ignorance about the realities of women's lives, including the persistence of sex discrimination."

Bennetts' response to the Future Domestic Goddesses of America has three major flaws:

1) By Webster's definition, a job is "a piece of work" and "something that has to be done." Compensation is not mentioned, so according to Webster, cooking and cleaning and even "maintaining hotness" are jobs.

2) Claiming sex discrimination is a double-edged sword. Yes, there are men who believe women do not belong in the workforce and there are men who treat women as second-class citizens. But the same can also be said for the way some women treat men. And in terms of education, sex discrimination is now increasing women's opportunities in the workforce. As Lukas points out, "women earn more than half of all bachelor's and master's degrees." If Bennetts truly believes in "the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes," her definition of feminism, where is the outcry about men not earning the same number of degrees as women?

3) Bennetts' assumption that the majority of American women share the mindset of the "Future Domestic Goddesses of America" is inaccurate. A 2007 Pew survey found that 60 percent of working mothers consider part-time work the ideal situation. While 48 percent of at-home mothers consider not working their ideal situation, part-time work was second at 33 percent.

Funk, the 19-year-old bake sale revolutionary, told Bennetts, "Being a feminist can help girls decode how the media sells them false concepts of what it means to be female-and what it means to be empowered."

But isn't Bennetts selling a false concept of feminism - one that only respects choices endorsed by NOW? It's no wonder feminism is suffering a "major self image crisis."

What thinking young woman wants to label herself as an unthinking victim?

Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Many girls today don't

"Many girls today don't know there are still barriers for women; for instance, we only make 75 cents to the man's dollar.

this is one of those canards that just won't die. They fail to take into account the fact that women tend to choose more flexible careers than men, leave and re-enter the workforce, and choose to cut back hours more than men do.

They fail to cite a single example of a case where a woman does the same work, for the same number of hours, at the same pace, for the same length of time as a man, and does it all for only 75% of his salary.

If this were true, why would any corporation hire men?

And that women typically

And that women typically don't take dangerous jobs. Dangerous jobs usually go along with substantial pay. Men typically don't get any type of paternity leave after the birth of a child.

Why can't these idiots just accept the fact that men and women are different, they have different needs and different abilities?

HERETIC! Women are only

HERETIC! Women are only different in the ways that NOW approves of!

Very simply...we want to

Very simply...we want to discriminate against women for discrimination's sake. Profits and market dominance be damned.

/sarcasm off/

CosmoGirl: One more reason

CosmoGirl: One more reason for parents to raise their own kids...and to be aware of what they are reading/watching/doing.

Allowing girls to read this kind of crap perpetuates the feminist lies.

The Feminist Thought Police

What really gets my goat about most liberal organizations, and the Feminists are no exception, is the way they try to eliminate any contray idea or debate. If you do not toe the ideological line you must be a neanderthal or worse. I do not really care what other people think or do as long as it does not directly affect me. Unfortunately the liberal mindset is such that no alternate take or difference of opinion can be tolerated. Let the facts be damned, if it does not fit into thier pre-concieved version of thier reality just trash the messenger. I would like to ignore them completely but they keep infringing on my rights when they push thier political agenda down everyones throat.

Why can' young girls / women make up thier own minds without the Feminist Thought Police always trying to belittle anyone who does not want to follow the pre-determined path.

Where are the feminists when women are being maimed and killed?

I am so sick of these feminazis. The womens movement was coopted very early on by man-hating (mostly) lesbians. That's a fact. What I can't stand is the hypocracy. The womens movement was originally about freeing women from physical and cultural bonds so they "could be all you can be", to borrow a phrase from elsewhere. Instead they became a propaganda machine for man-hate. "All sex is rape." Yeah, OK...(not)

So where are they on the Islamic culture that treats women as no more than chattel slaves? Still waiting.... < sound of crickets > Well, they are hiding as the cowards they are and the cowards they travel with. I lost respect for this movement decades ago after they showed their true colors.

"Feminazis" &

"Feminazis" & "Lesbians"

Your characterization of feminism is not only unstereotypical but so highly original!

"All sex is rape" is a view held by an extremely small faction of radical feminists. To apply it generally would be like me saying all conservatives and Christians are in league with Phelps.

There is, in fact, a movement of Islamic feminism and a core group of western feminists who write about and support that cause. So...yeah.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

starting with their tacit

starting with their tacit approval of our previous philanderer-in-chief and the exploding porn industry, as well as their strangely desperate attempts to support feminist oppressors around the world like Hussein, ahmad-in-a-dinner-jacket, Kim Dong Ill, Chavez, etc it's been straight downhill for the femmies for quite a while now:)

Would it kill you to just

Would it kill you to just write these peoples' actual names out? It's really hard to take you seriously when you go for the worn-out portmanteau. We get it, you don't like them, duly noted.

Besides which, how has any strain of feminism supported any of the 4 you mentioned?

Clinton had high approval ratings through the end of his presidency, so it's safe to say that a large cross-section of America, not just feminists gave him "tacit" approval.

There are pro-porn feminists, anti-porn feminists, and those who are relatively neutral.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Tacit Approval

Look at it this way. Clinton's activities with Monica Lewinsky fit the legal definition of sexual harassment. For months, the feminist establishment could not bring themselves to condemn his actions. Even when it was clear that he was guilty as charged, they could only muster a lukewarm condemnation. Why? Because he was pro-abortion.

I support abortion rights too, but I won't let someone off the hook just because he happens to share my view on a particular issue.

A GOP politician or a corporate executive caught doing the same actions would be vilified by the feminist establishment and the media.

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

My personal condemnation of

My personal condemnation of Clinton extended to the phrase "Well, he's a bad husband". There was no need to extend that to his policies or abilities as president. Clinton was by no means the first president with a mistress, just the first to have it massively exposed (um, no pun intended).  In truly feminist circles, I would not be surprised or chagrined at the prioritization of a social policy issue that affects millions of women over an ultimately minute (albeit high-profile) sex drama involving two not-particularly sympathetic women (Monica and Hillary).

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Bad Husbands

And if Bush or Cheney was caught doing the same things with one of their interns, would you let it go as "He's just a bad husband?"

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

Whoa, curveball! I'm sure

Whoa, curveball! I'm sure I'd make the requisite jokes, and of course there'd be a concerted movement for impeachment (which would only be fair, from a partisan point of view), but it's not like I could say "See, this proves we shouldn't have invaded Iraq or instituted No Child Left Behind!" because those policies have zilch to do with his hypothetical adultery. So yes, I would more or less chalk it up to his personal life.

The difference, of course, is that feminists tended to like Clinton before the affair came to light. I, on the other hand, have no suspicions about Bush's nuptial fidelity, but dislike most of his policies anyhow. So the comparison falters a bit anyhow.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

No curveball. Just showing a double-standard

I'm not addressing the issue of whether or not he should have been impeached. I'm addressing the issue that you have to be willing to hold your own people to the same standards you hold your enemies to. If you're against sexual harassment, you're against sexual harassment. The fact that you like someone or dislike someone should not be a factor. You lose credibility if you don't hold everyone to the same standard.

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

No curveball. Just showing a double-standard

I'm not addressing the issue of whether or not he should have been impeached. I'm addressing the issue that you have to be willing to hold your own people to the same standards you hold your enemies to. If you're against sexual harassment, you're against sexual harassment. The fact that you like someone or dislike someone should not be a factor. You lose credibility if you don't hold everyone to the same standard.

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

It just reaks of hypocrisy,

It just reaks of hypocrisy, that's all.  Any professional man caught in a similar situation would indeed be a bad husband, and he would also be FIRED, even without a perjury felony (thanks in no small measure to liberal sexual harrasment laws).  A college professor, or better yet, a University Chancellor, caught with his pants down (no pun intended) in his campus office during regular office hours with an intern would be fired (even though the "minute" incident would not diminish "his policies or abilities as" professor/chancellor).  And the "Social Policy Issue" in question does not merely impact millions of women, but also their male partners and their offspring (by some estimates, 46,000,000 in America since 1973).  Why do you think men like Bill are so in favor of it?  Men like Bill have everything to gain from it, but of course, it is spun soley as the prima facia "women's issue," which in turn only begets more males shirking their responsibility in the matter.

A few years back I saw a

A few years back I saw a news show that was guest hosted by Mary Matlin.  She was interviewing some femenist leader, possibly the head of NOW, I can not remember.  They got on the topic of what it meant to be a femenist and Ms. Matlin kept pushing her when she said that Mary was not nor could she be a femenist.  Finally, the woman acknowledged that if you are pro-life, no matter you carreer path, no matter your work for women's rights, you could NOT be a femenist.  So, to be a femenist, you must agree with their pretense that some women are not wanted, not valued, and not equal; you must heavily weigh your "option" of abortion when you get pregnant because this unborn woman may hinder you from your future aspirations.  You must advocate women being able to bud in line, ahead of higher qualified candidates, you must be for unequality.  Femenism is not about equality for women, it is about giving certain women a supperior status, regardless of their work, education, experience, and history. 

I for one, am one of those women who are greatful we found a terrific man who wants to take responsability for the finances, be involved in raising the children, and help out on the weekends with odd cleaning jobs that did not get done durring the week.  I shudder at the thought of my life with someone else who would expect me to be miserable, competing in a ruthless jobplace, shuffling our children off to daycare....The thought of someone else caring for my child on a daily basis makes me ill.  I did that with my first child.  I was in college and she was in daycare.  She was always sick (because of daycare, when she was home she would heal) and all I could think about in class was the snot running down her lip and the daycare lady not wiping off.  I had to leave class.  My GPA was 3.7 (math and physics major) before she was born, in 6 months it dropped to 2.7 and I only had 6-10 classes left.  I married my husband and he said, "take her out of daycare, I can't stand her being sick, she should be home with you."  I am so lucky.  After all, my children mean more to me than any paying job I could get.  My husband was the real femanist, he saw my femenineness and knew what I needed to feel like I was a good woman, wife, and mother, and he sacrificed so I could have that.

Hi Amber.... Long time no

Hi Amber....

Long time no see... 

Hip Hip Hooray for you and yours.

May you all have a fine life....keep up the good work.

I mean this sincerely I hope you know.

Right back at cha. Yah, I

Right back at cha.

Yah, I am more sporadic than I was.  With the man home I have real meals to cook, more laundry to do, and I need to have more time to put on a dress and a ribbon in my hair for when he comes home....then there is gathering his slippers.....

Ha!  Just kidding.

oh no, more feminist propaganda

This piece of feminist propaganda also apparently fails to inform the young minds it attempts to brainwash about biological realities, namely, the steep decline of a woman's fertility after the age of 35.  (I guess in their post-modern world-view they advocate womyn "transgressing the boundaries" of male-imposed so-called biological "reality.")  There are a large number of middle-age, but pre-menopausal, women out there who, buying the "career first!" mantra from the 70s and 80s, now realize that conceiving a child is quite a miracle, something in fact we have very little control over (but most everybody takes for granted).  I'm not saying that all women prefer children to their career, just that young women should be made plainly aware of the trade-off so they make informed decisions.

Being 'paid' for a 'job' well done

Bennetts finds this "troubling" because "these girls are forgetting the whole point of a job, which is to get paid for it. ………”

I suggest that Bennetts doesn’t understand the concept of getting paid for a job. In many instances, getting paid for a job does not require monetary compensation.

When women stay home to raise their children, although not as immediate as a salary is, her ‘pay’ comes later by providing a stable environment and raising well-adjusted and successful children as my wife did.  During the 40 years that I worked, she raised our four children.

Today, three are degreed professionals, and the fourth is a manager for an airline corporation.

Can a woman ask for anything more in the way of being 'paid' for her ‘job’.

Since most families share

Since most families share incomes.... what does it really mean?

Daycare for my 3 children = $2000 a month

Fuel for my vehicle = $300 a month

Gifts for people at work (retirement, Christmas, eating out) =$100 a month

cost for a second reliable auto = $400 a month

cost of business clothing = $100 a month

costof dining out a 10 times a month = $400

cost of a maid twice a month = $200

cost of food not grown a month = $100

cost of marriage and children... ???

= $3600 a month

I am well paid for my job. 

I am in my 30's and single and chose the "career" path and

could not be more envious of my married freinds. I do not feel more more powerful or like I am making any headway for "fighting for equality" Hindsight is 20/20

What I wouldn't give to make dinner for the man i love and have two kids to put to bed everynight. And Yes, I cook, sew, knit, and decorate. And I am a more fulfilled woman doing those activities then walking into an office everyday.

The New Chauvinists--Feminists!!

I thought the whole point of the feminist movement was to force people to realize that men and women are equal, and that we are not necessarily relegated to traditional gender rolls--if we choose.

At least, that was how it was supposed to be.

So, it's admirable for a man to stay home and take care of his children (and worthy of Lifetime movie or two), but if a woman chooses to do the same, she's ruining her life and wasting all that the feminists "gave" her.

It seems to me that the "feminists" behind Ms. are just as misogynistic as the men who told women that they had to stay in the kitchen. 

Sounds like female chauvinism to me.

 

 

Hi Lynn... You hit the

Hi Lynn...

You hit the nail right on the head gal!

ONe of the old feminist

ONe of the old feminist leaders said that women should not be "allowed" to choose to stay home, because that was the wrong choice, or some such nonsense

 

The feminine mystique gone awry

Over the past 30 years the feminist have so blinded women with their ‘one size fits all’ philosophy of career, career, career that we are now hearing stories of women who are unfulfilled as a result of following the feminist doctrine.

Today, more women are dropping out of their careers as they are discovering that there is something more important than a 9 to 5 job.

What they are opting out for is a 24 hour job and a feeling of fulfillment, and the fact that they can have their cake and eat it too, something the feminist have failed to inform them about, as it has been apparent that a “woman’s choice” has not included lifestyle options in their philosophy.

What it comes down to is a matter of priorities, such as these 8:

Career.

Career, marriage.

Career, marriage, children.

Marriage.

Marriage, children.

Marriage, career.

Marriage, career, children.

Marriage, children, career.

 

Men, of course, have a much easier choice – work for 30 or 40 years. Bummer!

If employers could get

If employers could get equal work for 25% less by hiring women, why aren't men all over the country losing their jobs and being replaced by women?

Oh, wait, it's probably because men prefer to hire men. That's right, evil, greedy businesses that are only about the money are willing to waste 25% more money on a man, just because he is a man. Those evil health insurance companies that won't hesitate to let a customer die in order to save a buck will waste 25% more money on a man....just because he's a man.