I have no problem with Loewenstein’s starting point in this article for the Guardian –that feminism is a legitimate topic for men to discuss. But in the second paragraph the relationship between the different points he makes is unclear. Initially he had simply been arguing that men should attend more to issues which concern women. But then he states:
Too often, men worry they’ll be attacked by women for questioning a consensus position on feminist issues.
This sounds like the prelude to some kind of interrogation of a traditional feminist position – perhaps an argument against institutionalised child care or in favour of a pro-life stance. In fact Loewenstein does not issue any easily identifiable challenge to feminist orthodoxy. But what he does do is far more annoying.
Loewenstein is Australian, and he turns first to the case of Julia Gillard. Although he agreed that she had been treated in a sexist way, he berates ‘mainstream feminism’ for focusing narrowly on the misogynistic comments she attracted, while not attending to the fact that her government ‘routinely enacted policies that harmed women’. It is reasonable to suggest that a policy of cutting benefits to single parents, say, might impact particularly badly on women and thus be a feminist issue. But the article he links to is by a woman and proves that the policy was being criticised. Perhaps feminists (or just people) prefer to separate these issues out – if a female Conservative MP was being subjected to sexist abuse, that should be condemned without reference to any impact one thinks the coalition’s policies might be having on women.
Several policies, backed by Gillard and supposedly harmful to women, are listed. This one stands out:
‘supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine’
What on earth does this have to do with feminism? Or does feminism really mean ‘the set of policies Anthony Loewenstein approves of’? Women/feminists have a range of views on Israel/Palestine. He goes on to grumble about an ‘Oprah-style’ interview with Gillard:
Of course, there is nothing wrong with praising Australia’s first female prime minister for her achievements – but at least be honest, and admit that a few principled speeches on her part don’t compensate for years of abandoning the very gender you claimed to be helping.
Gillard was the Prime Minister of Australia, and not a single issue campaigner. Even if she was, given Loewenstein’s weird criteria for feminism, why should he get to define whether or not she betrayed her feminist principles? Would Loewenstein build his wide-ranging political criticisms of a male premier around their gender?
He goes on:
In many of my books, female voices challenge a corrupt and militarised capitalist system, and it’s these characters that inspire me. We rarely hear from those women in the west, and if we do they are buried under the din of articles about face-lifts and marrying George Clooney (a great recipe for click-baiting). I believe that’s part of the reason why female anti-feminism is growing, especially as issues many women see as tangential gain disproportionate online prominence.
Loewenstein, again, reveals a solipsistic (‘my books’) view of acceptable feminist behaviour. And it’s not a focus on trivia which turns some women off feminism, so much as the way certain radical feminists demonise men (a point which is quite clearly made in the article Loewenstein links to in fact.) I agree with Loewenstein that feminism should indeed be concerned with violence against transsexual women, the rights of sex workers and the wellbeing of single parents. But I don’t agree – to pick up on his next point – that feminists should be obliged to turn against Hillary Clinton just because he doesn’t like her policies. Women should not have to shape their views on geo-political issues around essentialising expectations of appropriate female characteristics and behaviour. Frustratingly, he concludes by seeming to imply that women/feminists who disagree with him do so not because they have considered differences on important political issues – but because they are only interested in celebrity gossip.
I don’t know if Loewenstein himself penned the sub-headline
I’ve hesitated to write about gender, worried that I’ll be slammed for daring to speak out. But we all benefit from gender equality, and therefore must give feminism some tough love [my italics]
but I don’t think it’s a particularly helpful to talk about feminism – and in practice feminist women – in the paternalistic language reserved for delinquent teenagers who fail to conform to their parents’ requirements.
