The 21st century is knocking at the barricaded door of
feminism. It falls to renegades within the movement, like me, to
shatter windows so a new generation can flow in like fresh air.
The liberated woman of the 21st century does not resemble the
ghosts haunting '80s feminism. Who is she? She is the estimated
17 million women who control their own self-defense by owning
guns; the mothers of children who are schooled at home; the
stay-at-home moms who sacrifice careers to pursue more personal
values; the entrepreneurs and career women who rise through
merit and reject the concept of "victim."
The 21st-century feminist is anyone — female or male — who
rejects gender privilege and demands real equality for men and
women under the law. She makes her own choices and takes
personal responsibility for them, without asking government for
protection or tax dollars.
In fact, many of them pay a forfeit to government as part of
making their own choices: Homeschoolers pay taxes to support a
public school system they do not use. They also pay a cost in
social stigma: Female gun enthusiasts and stay-at-home moms are
looked down upon by ancien regime feminism. They are often
encumbered by laws that "protect" them. For example, the
businesswomen and professionals who are diminished by a lurking
suspicion that affirmative action, not competence, accounts for
their success.
What are the goals of this new grassroots feminism that is
generally ignored or deplored by the ancien regime?
There are at least four ends toward which 21st-century
feminism should be striving:
1. The removal of all laws that distinguish and discriminate
between the sexes. Today, such laws generally privilege women at
the expense of men, most notably in hiring practices and family
law — e.g. child custody practices. Real equality under the law
is a first and necessary step toward ending the gender war that
politically correct feminists declared in the 20th century.
2. A vigorous defense of choice for every woman who takes
personal responsibility for her own decisions, whether she
becomes a stay-at-home mom or the CEO of a top-40 company.
Government should remove the obstacles it has placed in the way
of women's choices, including the decision to own a gun or to
run a business out of her home. No one should be hindered by
laws or taxes that target such choices.
3. The opening of civil discourse on issues of vital interest
to women, such as abortion. On the pro-choice side, this means
renouncing government sponsorship of abortion through tax
dollars. On the pro-life side, this means denouncing all use of
violence against anyone connected with abortion.
4. A "welcome" sign for men must be posted on the door of
feminism. They are fathers, mates, sons, friends, and neighbors.
It is folly to "solve" a human problem without consulting and
co-operating with one-half of the species.
A question arises: Why even call such a movement "feminism?"
I hear this question regarding my own choice of self-label:
individualist feminism or ifeminism. Let me explain.
The history of feminism in America has rich and honorable
roots in the 19th century anti-slavery movement (circa 1830). In
working to throw off black slavery, abolitionist women — many of
whom were Quakers — became politically aware of their own legal
oppression. A tract by the Quaker Sarah Grimke, Legal
Disabilities of Women, compared the wording of laws that ruled
slaves with those that then ruled women. The similarities were
shocking.
But abolitionist women did not argue for privileges for women
to replace legal obstacles. In a famous statement, Angelina
Grimke, Sarah's sister, asked only for man to take his foot off
the neck of woman. These early feminists argued for women's
rights on the grounds of self-ownership. They believed every
human being, simply by being human, had an equal right to his or
her own body and the labor thereof. In short, they demanded
equality under just law.
This is what "feminism" meant at its birth. It is what the
word means to me now. I am too stubborn to let a fine tradition
and a good word be relinquished to politically correct feminists
who crusade for legal privilege and against equality.
The 21st century is the death knell of politically correct
feminism. The ancien regime will not advocate the removal of
discriminatory laws because those laws constitute their
hard-purchased victories. They cannot champion gun ownership or
housewifery because their theories pathologize those choices.
They are not open to opening discourse on abortion, even around
the edges, because they have made abortion the litmus test of
what it means to be a feminist.
They will never accept the validity of men as feminists
because their ideology is based on a class analysis that makes
men a separate and politically antagonistic group.
The ancien regime is dead but it will leave with no more
grace than it entered. The politics of rage will scream all the
louder because it sees that no one is listening. And it will
take years to heal the devastation it has wrought.
Perhaps, children now being born will adopt the label
"feminist" as adults. If they do so, it will be for the same
reason their parents rejected it: They respect individual choice
and accept personal responsibility.
