The Prince and the feminist

I’m dissapointed. When I saw the title in my RSS feed, I thought it was going to be an essay about Machiavelli.

“I interpreted the prince’s facial reaction as expressing disgust and fear. My guess is that he had never met a self-proclaimed feminist,”

Seriously? I am amazed and bemused that a man with the ability and responsibility (as future symbolic leader of his country) to be acquainted with the widest possible range of Belgians would have never met a “feminist.” If nothing else it seems to me to be an obvious failure of leadership. It’s amusing in its oddity. Sorta.

But I am even more surprised that the term “feminist” would still be a loaded one. Maybe I am jaded from living too long in Seattle. I thought equal gender opportunity was taken for granted in the urban West, if not always observed, and even when occasional over-enthusiasms such as “womyn” diminish its seriousness.

The Spanish legislature has changed the law of succession to the throne so that the probable next-but-one monarch, if there is one, will be Reina Letitia, the first born child of the crown prince. Any news on the Japanese imperial front?

I wish the term ‘feminist’ would no longer be loaded… I don’t want to bore you with all my stories but I’ve often received comments and questions that made it clear that it is better not to call oneself a feminist or do things explicitely labelled feminist. Now I think that Belgium is a rather conservative country in this respect, but there are plenty of similar stories of US-based colleagues, for example who have been adviced against publishing in journals such as “Feminist Economics”:http://www.feministeconomics.org/ by their supervisors, despite that the never had read an issue of that journal. Anti-feminist prejudices are still very much alive. I suppose there are great regional differences, but it is in any case not simply a US vs. Europe thing (the Netherlands, for example, is much more open-minded in this respect than Belgium).

Part of the problem is the moving bar thing.

When I think “feminist”, I don’t think first wave feminism. The goals and beliefs of first wave feminism have been internalized within me to the point where I see such things as the moral equality of women (let alone the right to vote!) as human rights issues rather than feminist ones.

No, when I think “feminist”, I think of second wave feminism… and not even the Eleanor Roosevelt stuff. I’m talking the Dworkins and the MacKinnons and those guys (er, gals). (To a lesser extent, the term also brings to mind the post-modern decontruction of gender that the third wavers seem to think as important.)

If someone comes out and says “I’m a Feminist”, I don’t think “This is someone who cares about Human Rights in the ways that I do” but “This is someone who is going to try to explain to me that gender is divorced from sex and gender roles are societal constructs and when I start talking about Lamarckian Evolution of societal constructs, she’s going to make a face… if not call me a name.”

Or, I suppose, it may be as simple as thinking “great, another chick who doesn’t have a sense of humor.”

I am amazed and bemused that a man with the ability and responsibility (as future symbolic leader of his country) to be acquainted with the widest possible range of Belgians would have never met a “feminist.”

Dude, you don’t know Prince Philipe. Notre Prince Héritier Bien Aimé is, from what I hear, exactly the kind of guy who would consider feminism roughly as socially acceptable a condition as leprosy. He studied PoliSci at Stanford for – what? – two full years back during the Reagan administration. I can easily imagine in a milieu like that he wouldn’t have encountered a lot of women who would have openly described themselves as feminists.

Until I moved here, I never realized how lucky we are to have Prince Charles as heir presumptive to the throne of Canada. Although, credit where credit is due, Prince Philipe does speak Belgium’s official languages better than Charles speaks ours.

It’s true that I haven’t heard the word “feminist” much here. Belgium is definitely a much more conservative country about identity politics than the US though. I have the impression that it’s one of the most conservative in northern Europe in that respect. But the environment in Leuven doesn’t seem so hostile. I’m not a woman though. I might not know.

“…whether I had children. No, I didn’t. That seemed to disqualify me to talk about gender issues, because if I would have a child, I would have understood that women can never be equals to men, since they are the ones who become pregnant and give birth and care for children, and are therefore naturally unsuited to compete in the hard world outside.”
I look at this from the other angle. Not that we, as mothers, are not suited for the “hard world outside,” but more suited than men for the hard, under-valued work of raising children. I believe you can be a work-for-no-pay mother and be a feminist as well. Wasn’t the whole point to give women options?

There have been times in my life when I avoided vocally identifying myself as a feminist for fear that women would think I was just trying to get in their pants by claiming the title of Nice Guy(TM). God knows the strategy has been tried.

It doesn’t really make much sense to talk about the “natural” superiority of one gender over the other unless you specify the cultural context. In many if not most of the social systems we know about from history, the men have dominated the women for a number of hardly mysterious reasons–they are bigger, more violent, and exempt from the risks and burdens of child birth and motherhood. Under modern circumstances, on the other hand, women have been doing rather better because we all live (for the moment) in a society with values and folkways that produce a playing field more favorable to women. Indeed, women are probable better adapted to an enlightened civilization than are men, which partly accounts for the nostalgia for barbarism typical among male right wingers. Ironically, the same system that makes it possible for women to thrive, makes it possible for intellectuals to be influential despite the competition of the thugs.

Not to take the side of the Prince, or anything, but there is a point of view being missed, I think.

There are any number of people out here who do not identify themselves as this-or-that upon first meeting. To us, it is not feminism or vegetarianism or Baptism that makes our faces go funny. It is the preceived need of the other person to make us aware of their “ism” at first meeting. To those of us who do not feel the need to announce adherence to some special set of views or beliefs, meeting somebody who does carries with it the threat of attempted recruitment, of pressure to agree, of boredom.

It is not necessarily true that everybody who provides a convenient tag upon first meeting will go on to bore the rest of us, or recruit us or launch statements that the rest of us will be expected to support. But it is also not necessarily true that our faces go funny because we disagree with the views of the self-tagged person. We may simply be reflecting discomfort at being within social distance of someone who is a trifle too earnest for our liking.

It ain’t what yer packin’ that troubles us. It’s that yer packin’ it out where everybody has to look at it.

Harry, it’s true that if she would become Queen one day (which if the monarchy survives she normally will), she wouldn’t have to compete; but fulfulling all duties of a Queen as the head of the state (sort of), means she can’t do what she is meant to do according to his worldview, and that is to be a mother at home. In fact, I now remember that one of the part of his “argument” (if I may call it that) was that because women are the ones who get the babies, they must make themselves vulnerable towards others (i.e. the babies) and thus that makes them unsuited for the hard world outside.
Of course it is true that if one wants to be a good sensitive carer one has to make oneself vulnerable (perhaps only from time to time, or perhaps most of the time), but it is not as if that is a permanent state of being that cannot be changed in another setting. A woman can perfectly be warm and caring and sensitive and making herself vulnerable when she is caring for her infant, but when she leaves them in the care of another person she may enjoy going outside the home and performing another role which requires her to be more calculating or egoistic or whatever else you can think of. And idem dito for a man. If one holds such strongly nature-deterministic views as the Belgian Prince did a few years ago (and most likely still holds), then this is not a possibility. In fact, I couldn’t believe that people still held such views anno 200x, but if the Prince does, then I see no reason to think he’s the only one.

Kharris hits on something there — that maybe we live in an age where identifying yourself as this or that sort of “-ist” is widely thought to be, shall we say, gauche. (Not that this is necessarily a good thing, considering that the age we live in is in many respects disastrously corrupt, apathetic and shallow.)

I think Jaybird’s right about the way in which many people (men especially, but not only men) tend to conflate “feminism” in general with a small coterie of negatively-perceived feminists and react to that. I might wish for people to be more careful about this sort of thing, but the humorless Dworkin-acolytes are unfortunately quite real, and I think they do colour the perception of a range of more positive and interesting feminisms. The fraught nature of “feminism” is hardly their fault alone, though; anti-feminist backlash and simple ignorance play their roles, too, and there’s now a “post-feminist” generation to add to the mix which often seems to me to have a distorted and uncharitable view of second wave feminism.

What a funny story – I hope you laughed at his pronouncements.

A bit startling that he would have gone so far in public life without learning to control his reactions on being introduced to people. I’ve heard stories of Queen Elizabeth II sailing through SAS demonstrations without turning a hair while her security guard quavered.

IMHO time Time to Retire the ‘F’ Word but not the program.

“I’m not a feminist but”?! Wasn’t “feminism” adopted to avoid the “extremist” connotations of “women’s liberation”? I don’t really want another retreat.

as a consequence people imagine that the central problems, equal opportunity for women and an end to sex segregation in employment have been solved,

I think they do but I don’t think that’s why they do.

I love your work and my only source of complaint lies with those who would post such ignorant comments on what I believe to be a well-thought out site. Your anecdote was extremely interesting and should not be judged by the amount of quantifiable evidence produced in support of your opinions. Obviously the topic of feminism brings certain people a degree of discomfort and this brings to mind the ancient Roman proverb,
DAMMANT QUOD NON INTELLIGUNT
I for one would be very interested in your thesis.

Its been my understanding that feminism has moved from a stance of gender equality to a stance of men are scum.

Since were talking about semantics here, it depends on what you mean by “retreat.”

I’m not sure we are talking only about semantics. But I’ll answer your question. I think to stop using a name because people react to it adversely is a retreat. So, that’s what I mean.

You tell me: what is the advantage or benefit in using “ism” terms or operating on the assumption that there’s an overarching ideology rather than focusing on specific issues, like discrimination in employment, the provision of childcare, etc?

I don’t see these as mutually exclusive (nor though do I think feminism has one “ideology”, it has a somewhat minimal defining belief, I’d say, i.e. that women and men are [potential] equals and that that equality should be granted to women (and men;let’s say, a feminist is someone who believes in the advancement of women).

not because I think “feminism” or “women’s liberation” is too radical but because it’s not radical enough

I agree it isn’t radical enough. IMO the people who oppose “feminism” would also oppose the kind of change you have in mind. People who don’t want to call themselves feminists aren’t people who’ve been put off by (e.g.) Judith Butler (I feel a bit bad about singling her out, but still…), they’re people who are not all that happy about attacking the status quo (radically, anyway). It’s also true that among them are those who’ve bought all the stories about bra-burning and who have a very distorted view of what feminism is/was/has been; but that is no reason to drop the name.

BTW good to see you commenting here. Ingrid, good to see you here, this blog could do with some substantive discussions of feminism and with the presence of a women’s studies type person (I hope you don’t object to being called that).

Wow, the Crown Prince of Belgium is an idiot. Who’d have thought? This is exactly why the role of the modern European constitutional monarch is to smile and wave and read speeches written by the government.

You would think, though, that such a person would have the wherewithal not to actually say out loud his ridiculous theories.

Agreed the issue isn’t the the F-word as such but the perception illustrated by the comment above, “Its been my understanding that feminism has moved from a stance of gender equality to a stance of men are scum.”

In the trenches, teaching women’s studies and applied ethics classes, I face a room full of young women virtually all of whom insist that they’re “not feminists but…” They expect to have the same crack at good jobs when they graduate and to keep up with their careers when they have kids. It takes a mighty lot of talking and hard data to persuade even a few that discrimination exists and that the male/female playing field for a variety of reasons isn’t level.

Most look at the statistics about sex segregation and wage gaps and smugly conclude that it’s a result of other women “making choices”–choices which they of course won’t make. Most believe that gender equality was achieved long ago and that remedies, like equal opportunity regulations, are just part of some silly ideological agenda wrapped up with identity politics, bra-burning or whatever and has no practical import for them. The small minority who identify as “feminists” are even worse. They aren’t interested in bread-and-butter issues either. They regard feminism as a matter of ideology and personal style, like being a punk or a goth.

Semantics aside, how do you fix that? It’s the harmlessness of “feminism” as popularly understood that’s vexing–wearing tee-shirts proclaiming LGBT, hanging around the Women’s Center consuming chewy whole-grain cookies, little herbal teas and other feminist-approved foodstuffs. That’s not feminism–and that’s why, arguably, the term “feminism” has become a liability for feminists.

My own gut response, face to face with such a man, would be to ask how he reasonably expects women to stay at home in an environment in which a single income family is going to have to struggle to survive. One big reason why housewifery has gone into decline is that only the pretty well off can actually afford it. (Maybe this is different in Belgium, but I know a TON of women of my mom’s generation who didn’t want to go to work while trying to raise kids, but had to choose either poverty and starvation or going back to work.) It gets devalued because when families need money, things that don’t raise money get devalued. (I’m not saying housewifes don’t work, mind you, but often they get stuck having to do the housewife work and go out and get a job in order to raise the family cash flow. Which is really hard for them.)

But I also have to agree with the earlier commenter that we do have a weirdly ironic situation where a huge number of women embrace feminist ideals but refuse to call themselves feminists because it’s become too associated with the ideas of some radical fringe feminists in the public eye.

The small minority who identify as “feminists” are even worse. They aren’t interested in bread-and-butter issues either. They regard feminism as a matter of ideology and personal style, like being a punk or a goth.

Yes, I think this is way too true way too often — in progressive politics generally, too, not just in feminism — and exactly the kind of thing I find really crazy-making.

Ingrid,

I’m curious as to how you view market-work feminist issues as compared to home-work feminist issues in terms of importance and cause and effect.

For example, the data in the USA on time use shows that women work more in the home and less at paid employment and men the opposite.

One explanation might run that the workplace is biased towards men, so it makes financial sense for the women to let the men work more and them to do more domestic chores. Fix the market and the home chores equalize.

Reversing the causality would say that men are unwilling to share the domestic chores so women compensate by working less which is a negative for women’s workplace compensation due to hourly pay scale effects. Under this model,fix the home attitudes and the market will follow along.

What mix of the two do you think is the driver, do financial issues drive the bias, or does the bias drive the finances?

For myself, I would say that the relationship issues far outweigh the market effects in terms of personal meaning. A question to test, would you rather make 20% more but be considered and treated as inferior or make 20% less but in other ways be treated as an equal?

Could the prince be talking about the workplace but mean “I love kids, but no way am I going to take care of them.”

Why do some men fear feminists? Are they protecting monetary privilege, or do they just hate domestic chores?

Martin, you ask some interesting questions which I cannot asnwer fully here. On the second (at #45), the main thing to realise is that often there is not *one* feminist view on issues. Feminists themselves are often divided on analyses of causation, on goals, and on the necessary policies and other changes to reach those goals. So for most issues there is no such a thing as “the feminist position”.

On your first question (#44) – would it also be possible that there is no one single driver, but rather that there are a number of causal effects that reinforce eachother? In any case, identities play an important role — especially hegemonic masculine identities play a hampering role in creating a more gender just society. And of course, we shouldn’t be naive and think that households work entirely according to rules of love and altruism – household members often also have competing interests and the gendered nature of the labour market doesn’t make it easier for women to have or work towards gender egalitarian households, if they would wish so (as many do indeed).

I don’t mind being called a women’s studies type person—

thanks for not being annoyed; I meant “feminist academic who writes about women/’gender issues'”, but somehow couldn’t phrase it.

Either you use this word, and are likely to scare off prejudiced people (and possibly hurt yourself), or you use other words, but then it might take a long time to get your views (or demands) across.

Yes. But also I don’t want to give in to those prejudiced people. I do though take your point abou economics (not only economics, I add; but it did seem to me one of the least hospitable fields for feminist studies). Also of course it’s normally thought “better” for people writing on gender to work in a department other than women’s studies/gender studies. As that’s been so for decades, I can’t see it changing.

(There can be good reasons for a feminist to choose another type of department, but that’s another story.)