Why Being a Feminist Does Not Mean Backing All Women

AND I might add that being a Feminist does NOT mean "hating all men" - like some very insecure, self-righteous, stuck-in-the-60s extremely defensive (angry?) men assert here that it does - and who try to pull women into that argument about THEIR (mens') crusty, erroneous assumptions. Their insecurity and erroneous assumptions from yesteryear are THEIR issue. Let them wallow in it.
_ _ _ _

There is still a false idea out there that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves. Let's leave that behind right along with 2006.

In fact, feminism is just the belief that all people have the full circle of human qualities combined in a unique way in each of us. The simplistic labels of "feminine" and "masculine" are mostly about what society wants us to do: submerge our unique humanity in care giving and reproducing if we're women, and trade our unique humanity for power if we're men.

So yes, I believe that women have the right to be wrong, with no double standard of criticism. But when we have the power to make a choice, we also have responsibility. Biology isn't destiny, and it isn't a free pass either.

Take the example of Condoleezza Rice. As George W. Bush's hired gun for foreign policy, she's been working for a guy who is opposed overwhelmingly by African American women and men voters, and by a majority of all women voters, too. Many white men are giving up on him too. Still, Rice could be given credit for sincerity in believing that Bush knows better what is good for the country than most people in it -- if she weren't so hypocritical.

When Rice was made provost of Stanford University, for example, she was the product of affirmative action. (I'm not saying she isn't smart; on the contrary, affirmative action often raises standards by enlarging the pool of talent.) The problem was that she pulled up the ladder behind her by opposing affirmative action for everybody else. When she benefited from Bush's support as well as his effort to attract some black voters by appointing a second African American secretary of state, she quickly became Bush's justifier and marketer instead of his advisor. Unlike her predecessor Colin Powell, she doesn't seem to have tried to mitigate disaster or given unwelcome advice about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Instead, she sugarcoated this illegal invasion in pretty public phrases about democracy, and became Bush's "yes" woman in inner circles, too.

MORE...

http://www.alternet.org/story/46621/

I support women's causes. I was brought up to be more feminist than most my age. I don't feel someone like Rice deserves my support because she is a woman. Rice has been a koolaid drinking bushite. She shopped while people drowned.

...I had people mocking me when Lizzy Dole was running for Senate. "Oh! But she's a WOMAN! You mean you won't vote for her!?" (usually men said this but I even got it from a couple women). I won't vote for *anyone* who doesn't stand for, uphold, and promote my values - female, or not. Rice is despicable, IMO. :puke:

I thought the whole ERA debate put to rest the idea of group-think or the assumption that being female automatically makes one a feminist.

Let's see, there's Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly Le Hay, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bay Buchanan, Laura Bush, the bush twins, Condolizza Rice, Brittany Spears, and on and on. I can't see any of them embracing feminist ideals other than the right to have ones own checking account and credit card; and those are more capitalistic than purely feminist ideals.

There are a lot of self-hating-women-hating out there. Why on earth, would I support someone who projects their hatred of themselves on me because I have a uterus?!

...that comment I got - was only a couple years ago! Sad but true.

Like any political/social movement, feminism only backs those that agree with its goals and seeks to exclude those that oppose those goals.