This past Saturday, I participated in Chicago’s Bughouse Square Debates, an annual event where authors, thinkers, and activists stand on literal soapboxes and, amid heckling crowds, argue a point in 15 minutes. My topic was, “Is there such a thing as a conservative feminist?” tied to Sarah Palin’s heartsinking claiming of the F word in recent months.* I went into the event pretty sure of my nuanced point of view–that people can be personally anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, anti-premarital sex, etc. but there’s no reason they can’t be feminists if they don’t actively impose their personal views on anyone else through legislation or policy.**

At one point, though, my “nuanced view” went to shit.

I came prepared to tell the story of Lauren, whom we met on Girldrive, a midwife who was determined to give power back to the woman in the birthing process, but who was vehemently anti-abortion and, at 23, was saving herself for marriage. Or the story of Katharine, who was a nun-to-be, and who called nuns the “ultimate feminists” because they shunned trivial materialism and devoted their lives to altruism.

I was all set to say that feminism is a negotiation, a constant struggle between the personal and the political, between convention and the future, and between universal human rights and partisan positions. That it was fucked up to leave conservative women out of the conversation, especially if they felt torn between their family’s traditions and their own reality. And then I was going to add a simple caveat: that capitalism needs to be humanized, that business needed to be regulated, in order to break down structural sexism.

I was a few minutes into the debate when a heckler cried, “But what if Lauren votes? What if Katharine gives money to a pro-business Republican’s campaign? What then?”

Fuck.

The heckler was right. Was I saying that a conservative woman could be a feminist, as long as she wasn’t politically active? It sounded bad–the feminist equivalent of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

I struggled to explain. “Perhaps these women will push Republicans, and conservative politicians, to adopt more moderate positions. Perhaps their social values would help in some way, despite their fiscal views.”

But that didn’t sound right either, especially since I was about to explain how it’s nearly impossible to be completely, 100% pro-capitalism and also being a feminist. While some Feministe readers might be nodding their heads in agreement, this claim is far from obvious in the national conversation about feminism. For years, women’s rights activists have argued for more inclusion in the corporate world. There’s the iconic image of the 1980s business woman in shoulder pads and a power suit. Women entrepreneurs like Oprah are held up as feminist victories. Self-made female millionaires encourage other women to be economically independent, and blaze their own trail and not depend on men. Hanna Rosin described a typical Tea Party mama as an “übercompetent CEO, monitoring with vigilance her own family bank account, the local school bank account, and, as a natural extension, the nation’s.”

But there’s a difference between arguing for equality in capitalism, and trying to change our economic system as we know it. Feminism isn’t only about equality; it’s about believing that you can alter the status quo, and feminism has deep historical connections with socialism/Marxism/anarchism.

In a (very small) nutshell: the two opposing forces here are big government and the free market. A pro-business stance is pretty much always part of a Republican platform, undisputed. The Tea Party’s bread and butter is appealing to people who have lower-taxes, less-government, let-the-poor-fend-for-themselves mentalities. And so if you push for more corporate power, and less government spending, you’ll inevitably be cutting social programs and widening the pay gap. And the people who will be hurting the most is women and their families, and poor people and minorities and the disabled and pretty much everyone who’s not white, male and rich.

This connection isn’t news for readers of Feministe. This isn’t even news to mainstream feminists: they publicly endorse the lesser of two evils in this sense–the Democrats–although given the fiscal history of the Dems in the last 30 years, it’s pretty hard to even make that argument. But it dawned on me, as I stood on that soapbox: In 2010, feminists are afraid to talk about capitalism–specifically capitalism as it stands now–as anything less than a given. To them, it’s as futile a fight as trying to paint the sky green. Consider the recent back-and-forth about whether Sarah Palin is a feminist. Sure, she’s actively anti-abortion and cut funding for teenage moms and made women pay for their own rape kits. But she’s also the Tea Party’s patron saint–and given what they stand for economically, that alone should be a dealbreaker. Shouldn’t it?

Why haven’t mainstream progressives come out and said it? At some point, one’s views on social issues are not enough–that it’s simply not feminist to ignore or scorn the poor. It’s simply not feminist to put business in charge of running our country, or prevent people (women) from organizing so they can provide a living wage for their families. Seems simple, but it’s not really being said.

And how many Republicans are in favor of regulating businesses, of strengthening unions, of raising the minimum wage, of pouring money into social programs? Virtually none. As Ann Friedman pointed out yesterday, the new rush of women-headed conservatism involves all this mommy rhetoric, but in terms of policies helping working families, we hear either radio silence or opposition to spending. As she points out:

Where do these candidates stand on children’s health insurance? On family-leave policies? On consumer product safety? On early childhood education? We can make some inferences based on their anti-government talking points, but their campaigns don’t even touch on these issues. When they do weigh in, they offer opposition, not solutions. They’re against “Obamacare.” Against cap-and-trade. Against spending. The campaign website of Sharron Angle, the extreme right-wing challenger to Harry Reid in Nevada, was recently scrubbed of calls to completely abolish the Department of Education.

Let’s call these positions for what they are: a blind, religious devotion to corporations. An unwillingness to re-imagine capitalism.

I’m not an economist. This isn’t meant to be an entire structural analysis of how class and gender intersect. It just disturbs me how capitalism has become untouchable in our political environment, that the only thing getting debated feminist-wise by mainstream pundits is whether or not someone supports abortion, gay rights or other social issues. It pisses me of that socially moderate, fiscally conservative politicians like Olympia Snowe or Jean Schodorf get a (mainstream) feminist pass just because they don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Republicans often complain that liberals are tolerant of everyone except conservatives. The same complaint goes for feminists—that they’re constantly critiquing who can be in the club and who can’t. I’ve always been opposed to framing feminism as some sort of club, with a laundry list of rules and regulations. Not only does that ignore the fact that traditionally marginalized women feel excluded from the movement (as we learned last week on this blog), it also creates a dynamic of “You’re either with us or against us.” It blocks discussion. It leaves no room for complexity.

But after Sunday, I realized voting for a socially moderate Republican does no good–ever. It may protect some civil and reproductive rights we have now from being bludgeoned, but it does nothing to break down more structural inequities. No matter what, it turns a blind eye to economic policies that, as Ann puts it, “have, for far too long, been lost in the woods.”

At the end of my debate, an angry heckler shouted out triumphantly, “So you’re a socialist!”

I replied, “Well, kinda. And what?”

*I’m about to use the word “feminist” a lot in this piece…but that’s not without acknowledging that many progressives have long since given up on the term as a privileged-women thing, as a movement that is at least complicitly if not consciously participating in the oppression of others. I’m going to use the word, because I still think it has power and that’s the word that Palin and her ilk have been using. But generally I mean pro-woman, pro-social-justice in general, gender activist, etc.

The talk was fascinating. As Maria described the elitism and the dismissal of feminist pop culture in university’s art history departments, I felt like she could have been talking about women’s studies departments, too. I’m a very pop culture, everyday feminist myself, one who grew up on Sassy and Bust and Courtney Love and Salt N’ Pepa, one who reads Bitch and Jezebel on the regs, one whose own mom was a rock critic. So at first, I was a little like “duh–of course pop culture is a big part of feminism!” Since I’ve started writing and thinking about these topics, I’ve always made the claim that critiquing pop culture is often the best (or at least the most fun) gateway to having a feminist consciousness.

Then I remembered: I’ve never taken a women’s studies class. I didn’t have my lightbulb moment in a college colloquium. And while I have my own favorite theorists, my sheroes are activists (Bella Abzug, Dolores Huerta) and pop stars (Cyndi Lauper, Kathleen Hanna), not scholars. But Maria reminded me that in the Ivory Tower, both in the art world and the feminist world, work like Le Tigre’s Hot Topic video and Beth Ditto’s pin-up style get left out. This in turn dismisses the relationship between activism and art, and between personal stories and objective history. As Maria said: “Hello, people–the personal is political! It’s time we apply that phrase to the narrative of art history.”

In the hour and ten minutes I sat listening to the talk, the last moments were the best: watching Peaches’ new video, “Billionaire.” I didn’t know much about Peaches before this lecture–only about the hits–and I had never seen her in action. But I left completely convinced that she’s a feminist artist. Watch the video and tell me I’m wrong. (Also: the song has the word “mangina” in the first ten seconds. Just sayin’.)

Also check out the interview I filled out on the website (one of those pieces of paper where the readers can see your handwriting, celebrity-style)!

I’ll say it again: feminism is not an easier sell without anti-racism. Race and sex are intertwined. AND (most importantly): some women do have gender consciousness, know all about feminism, and still reject it because they feel it does not include them and never did–women like Renee and Cille and Bea and Jennifer Bartlett and the vast majority of WOCs (or otherwise traditionally marginalized women) we talked to on our road trip. This narrative is straight-up missing from the mainstream analysis of feminism and gender activism.

The irony is not lost on me that I’m now interviewed as a feminist “expert” despite Emma’s and my attempt not to privilege our own voices in Girldrive. It’s frankly a little awkward for me, a white woman, to be publicly pushing the conversation forward when there are so many women in my book saying the exact same thing as Renee. In a way, our book deal itself is yet another example of who the world deems “qualified” to write about feminism. But what we tried to do with Girldrive is at least name what has been historically wrong with the movement. Everyone–black, white, rich, poor, gay, straight–has a responsibility to do that.

Sure, the “I’m not a feminist, but” convo is important to have. But if we don’t start talking about why marginalized women don’t relate to feminism, the same painful, embarrassing, shitty feminist mistakes will continue to be made.

Renee expands here in light of Jezebel’s “but we have black friends!” reaction to her piece. Meanwhile, kindly listen to the gently satiric lyrics of Gordon Voidwell:

Gordon Voidwell – White Friends

Given that 2010 is a General Election year in the UK, now is the time to find out what’s on women’s minds.  This blog will document the discussions we have in each city, recording women’s views and mapping the nature of feminism across the country at this politically significant time … Reading [Girldrive] prompted the question, ‘What would a UK Girldrive look like?’ Given the re-emergence of feminist movement in the country over the past few years, and amidst a recession and other upheavals in UK politics generally, we feel it is a particularly pertinent time to gather women’s thoughts on feminism and the issues that affect them.

The blog is a little bare right now (they’re not leaving til summer), but I cannot wait to see what they come up with! Good luck ladies!!

It didn’t bother me that most of the points made in these two pieces were just scratching the surface–I am thoroughly ensconced in feminist culture but understand that most Newsweek readers aren’t. And you gotta start somewhere! I get this.

It also didn’t bother me (well, maybe a little) that the three journalists who wrote this story were white. After all, I know many white feminist writers who understand that race and gender and class and geography intersect, and they show that in their writing. If I thought white people could only write about the views of white people, I wouldn’t have written an entire book with another white person displaying just how multilayered young feminism really is. There is certainly a diversity problem in mainstream media–92 percent of television news directors are white, most major newspapers’ staffs are 80 percent white–but white people can be accurate and informed reporters as long as they seek out a range of voices.

Which leads to what did bother me–a lot: In the 3500 words total that Newsweek devoted to the future of feminism this week, amid the 10 people who are quoted in these pieces, not one woman of color shows up. Seriously.

This happens constantly when the mainstream pubs try to cover feminism. It happened in a CNN news segment last June, where the network’s definition of feminism was Angelina Jolie, Hillary Clinton, and Gloria Steinem. It happened at a highly publicized Planned Parenthood event a few months ago called “Voices on Feminism,” which consisted of, yep, three white women.

Some might argue that this is more a reflection of the kinds of women calling themselves feminists rather than the fault of the mainstream media. And it’s true, to a point–although there are millions of bad-ass feminists of color, many women of color do feel marginalized by feminism–these women in Girldrive, for a start. But guess why? Because articles, TV clips, and events like these continue to marginalize them even as they attempt to widen the conversation about feminism. They ignore the young women of color doing feminist work nowadays like Stacyann Chin, Alexis Pauline Gumbs, and Rinku Sen, to name a few. Not to mention the ones who paved the way for women writers and journalists (Ethel Payne? Alice Walker? Marcia Gillespie? HEL-lo.) These three women at Newsweek didn’t even bring up the issue of race, much less seek out the voices of non-white feminists. This is a huge. Fucking. Problem.

What really gets me is that the majority of young feminist activists do think of feminism in an intersectional way. Just look at the blogger rosters at blogs like Feministing, Feministe, or Racialicious. Just look at the staff at organizations like WIMN or INCITE! or the ladies in Girldrive. Young feminists are trying not to make the same mistake that some Second Wave white feminists made of being blind to race issues. But places like Newsweek, CNN and other mainstream outlets make that a frustrating uphill struggle by painting a whitewashed, monolithic picture of feminism.

–Nona

UPDATE: Jezebel’s Irin wrote a post riffing off Anna’s post on how the picture is all white women (which, in my opinion, isn’t as important as getting the words and names of feminists of color into the piece, since the photo is of the writers and the women who filed the original Newsweek suit.). But yes, regardless of “how much sense” the photo makes, perhaps the editors should have thought twice about visually representing feminism with these women rather than a cross-section.

UPDATE #2: The authors’ blog, Equality Myth, wrote this in response. I wish I could just call them up and talk to them on the phone. It’s not racism–it’s colorblindness. It’s failing to realize the bigger picture of what feminism means today. It’s choosing to interview Ariel Levy, Rachel Simmons, and Gail Collins–who are all amazing but not representative by any means. There’s also such a thing as constructive criticism, which I think Irin gives.

In my daily existence, I deal on a strictly local basis. My job as a reporter confines me to five towns in the Chicago suburbs. Even most of my freelance work and blogging intensely focuses on the uniquely American experience.

So I’m thankful for this day to jolt me out of my tunnel vision, especially since it’s easy to miss the dwindling amount of international coverage the media provides nowadays. And even though Girldrive is a truly American story, some women we talked to explicitly told me and Emma that feminism needs to get out of its Western bubble.

Here are some IWD events going on across the country. Also see Gender Across Borders’ International Women’s Day blog directory–many many feminist blogs are jumping on the bandwagon today and blogging about global issues.

Check it out…it’s pretty amusing:

Anyway, since clearly I have a one-track mind, we started shootin the shit about feminism, and damn did these ladies have something to say:

Nona: Do you guys claim the word “feminism”?

Kelley: Yes. I hate when people say “I’m not a feminist but I enjoy using birth control, not having to be married, being able to have a career.” The word needs to be more celebrated than it is.

Jessi: I’m a feminist but I don’t like forceful, overbearing feminism. It seems like some feminists have this set of rules, and you’re wrong for everything you do. So I’m a feminist, but in a positive way. I’d rather show it by example rather than preach.

Nikki: I don’t feel the need to label things. We’re fuckin’ livin’ hard, out of a van, doin’ things that dudes complain about.

Jessi: Oh also! None of us care to shave our armpit hair, but people make a really big deal out of it!

[hysterical laughing all around]

Jessi: See, and I think that’s cool for people to see. We don’t even mention it or make a big deal out of it. So I think a lot of people all of a sudden are like, Oh ok.

Kelley: Yeah, “like they’re wearing makeup, doing girly shit.” It’s all about what you’re comfortable doing. I can’t believe people are grossed out about something so natural. Remember when that girl went on MTV and talked about her armpit hair? People freaked out!

[we all remember. obviously.]

Jessi: It’s like saying, “We’re feminists, and we’re normal just like you.” You don’t have to be a freak of nature to be a feminist.

Nikki: Sometimes, people ask me if our song, “The Whole Damn Thing,” is a feminist song about body image. And I’m like, “Um…sure! Why not?”

Kelley: There are a lot of feminist musicians who don’t call themselves feminists, like Loretta Lynn, Dolly Parton…

Nona: Oh god, I love Dolly. My religion on Facebook is “Dollywood.”

Kelley: Haha, yeah, she’s awesome. But she doesn’t come out and say she’s a feminist.

Nona: What do you guys think about the term “girl band”?

Kelley: It can get really annoying. One time I saw us referred to as a “girl-only band” as our only descriptor in this listings magazine. Every other band was “electronica” or “rock” or something. Come on, “girl-only band”? That tells you nothing at all. You would never call a band a “boy-only band.” But for some reason, it’s still okay for women. Hopefully just the sheer number of women in bands will change that.”

Damn straight. Listen to a clip of the “The Whole Damn Thing” here. Is it a feminist anthem? You decide:

This week, we talked to Dorothee Royal-Hedinger, a Girldrive interviewee and founder/host of OrganicNation.tv. She explained why food is a feminist issue, and what she’s planning for International Women’s Day on March 8 (more on that next week!).

Listen here.

I’ve really liked doing the show on Vocalo because we’re speaking to a depoliticized, mass audience. It takes me out of the feminist echo chamber; Molly and I try to discuss things that really resonate for the average person and not only the feminist-savvy among us. We’re also fun and super-honest (our guerilla tactic to break down ridiculous stereotypes about humorless, overly PC feminism). Plus, we always have Brian to argue what some of the listeners might be thinking.

If you’re in the Chicago area, you can always listen to Feminist Wednesday from 1-2 p.m. on 89.5 FM…and if you’re elsewhere, you can stream it at Vocalo.org.