"So, You're a Republican?"

I know the term "Red State Feminist" is confusing to many.  Some may think that embracing that label, I am indicating I am a registered Republican.  Actually, I am not.  I have lived in red states all my life, but I'm pretty progressive.

But I'm not totally out of step with the dominant values in my local culture.  Family and faith are hugely important to me.  I am a Christian who is very active in her church.  And I am now a full-time, stay-at-home mom, having left my professional career behind a year ago to focus more on my kids and volunteering at my church.  I don't really related to "Blue State Feminism," which is why I embrace the concept of Red State Feminism though I am not a Republican.

It has been said that Blue State Feminism has been dominate in shaping the modern feminist movement.  And NOW (National Organization for Women) is typically viewed as the leading organization of that movement.  NOW consistently lists as one of its top priorities access to "safe and legal abortion."  (See: http://now.org/about/our-issues/.) 

Perhaps like many women, the clichéd labels of "pro choice" and "pro life" don't adequately describe what I think is a more complex issue.  I'll explain more later, but suffice it now to say that I think that medical abortions should remain legal, but I find it a sad tragedy when women exercise that choice.  As I'll explain more later, I do not judge or condemn such women.  Indeed, some are coerced by their partners or families to seek abortion against their will.  But I find it so sad on many levels when a woman terminates her pregnancy.  And I am less conservative on this issue than many similarly situated women.  As NOW is consistently viewed as being so focused on that particular issue, it alienates many family-oriented women from its organization and from feminism more broadly.  To many people in red states, being a feminist largely means being indifferent to "unborn children" and rabidly protecting abortion rights.

Also a top priority of NOW in recent decades, the organization is a strong supporter of "LGBT rights."  I too am a supporter of LGBT rights.  But many see that as only tangentially related to feminism.  It adds to the stereotype that NOW and feminism more generally are governed by lesbians.  Again, that alienates many people in red states, many of whom cite deep religious beliefs for their conviction that homosexuality is a sinful choice.

Abortion and lesbian rights are so closely aligned with the cause of feminism in the minds of many red state residents.  They don't necessarily think feminism can involve any other issues.  So, it becomes quite predictable that feminism--or at least the blue state version of it--is DOA in red states. 

Think about how narrow the potential audience for those two key issues. 

Abortion is only a potential choice for women of child-bearing years.  The average age for the onset of menses is 12 or 13, and the average age for a woman to go through menopause is 51.  (See: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20061107/menstruation-whats-normal-for-girls and http://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/menopause.)  That means that, on average, a woman could become pregnant for 38-39 years of her life time.  But the average life expectancy for women is 86.  (See: http://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.htm.).  Thus, more than half of the life time of an average woman abortion is not even a physical possibility! 

The relevance of abortion is narrowed even more because most females don't become sexually active immediately at the onset of menses.  Further, contraception is widely used in the United States, which limits even more the potential for pregnancies when abortion might be considered. 

I have had many close female friends over the years, a few of which have confided that they have had abortions to terminate unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.  In every case, the pregnancies occurred when the women were in their teens or early twenties.  They had been sexually active with people they were not prepared to marry.  In several instances, the women had used a lot of alcohol and/or narcotics before realizing they were pregnant.  In those situations, the decision to seek an abortion was in part due to concern that the child would otherwise be born with severe birth defects or other health problems.

Over the years, I have also had several friends share that they considered having an abortion at some point, though they did not ultimately seek one.  In those situations, there were quite different commonalities.  These women were older (i.e., in their 30s), happily married, healthy and comfortable financially.  These women also were already mothers and loved that role.  However, the consideration of selecting to terminate their fetus was prompted by prenatal test results indicating their child had severe health issues that would be a huge long-term challenge, which they were unsure they could handle given their resources and support system. 

More frequently in my social circles, I have encountered women who struggle with infertility.  IVF and adoption issues (including the huge costs associated with both options) have been much more prominent with the women I've known. 

I flag all these points simply to note how limited appeal the issue of abortion rights is and how alienating it is to many women, particularly in red states.

Similarly limited is the appeal of LGBT rights.  Sexual minorities are just that--numerical minorities.  Though it is notoriously difficult to estimate the percentage of people in society who are gay, it is safe to say the number is less than 10% of the general population.  And the number of lesbians tends to be smaller than the number of gay men.  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States.) 

While it is true that people who are not directly impacted by issues can be motivated by them, that happens less frequently and will generally less passion.  One tends to get more motivated to support issues, with which one has familiarity and for which one has a personal interest.  For this reason, the public's continual linkage of these two issues with feminism means that Blue State Feminism will be DOA for a long time to come.


 

Back Story (Part V) (Embrace of the "F Word")

Feminism was the "F Word" in the conservative, red state culture where I lived, worked and had roots.  I don't think I ever knew anyone who embraced the term.  No one I knew joined NOW (National Organization of Women).  I didn't know any women praising Phyllis Schlafly, but Gloria Steinem was hardly admired either.

Few people like being the odd man (or woman) out.  So, I never embraced the F Word.  That would have been a pretty lonely, if not isolating thing to do in my culture.  "Feminist, party of one, please."

And it has been my experience that people in marginalized groups often do not like to admit they are being ill-treated unless it is to the point of violence or otherwise extreme so that it cannot be denied.  It is not fun to be the victim.  It is not fun to be maligned. 

I've particularly found this phenomenon to occur among otherwise well-educated or professionally successful people.  My husband's boss for many years was the only African American person in their office.  He quoted Rush Limbaugh with the best of them.  More recently, Morgan Freeman controversially declared that inequality due to race is a thing of the past.  I've had gay friends who bitterly resent efforts by the LGBTQ community to unify and support one another.  One friend called it ghettoization, and he thought that integration was a much better goal.

I think that the same thing often happens with women.  Particularly career-oriented women.  We don't like to think that we aren't being treated as well as our male co-workers.  We don't like to think that we are less likely to advance and be promoted due to our gender.  And in my experience, women who focus full-time on raising their kids are often removed from situations where gender bias might pose problems.  As a result, I've found that sexism is even less on their radar.

But what is ironic is that frequently the women who focus full-time on their families are the ones that experience the strongest sexism.  That is counterintuitive in many ways, so let me back up a bit to explain why that would be.

Several years ago, I left industry and became an academic.  Part of my responsibilities as a tenure track faculty member was to do research to produce scholarship and to be more knowledgeable about the courses I was teaching.  One article I wrote was inspired by a trend I had seen in my profession: early in their careers, women stepped out of the work force temporarily for several years or permanently.  This trend had particularly gotten my attention because it included women who had been at the top of their classes at prestigious schools.  They left lucrative, promising careers most typically when they became moms.  Our profession is very demanding.  And it has long been dominated by men, so the notion of flexible scheduling is still pretty foreign.  Moreover, most firms have a rigid "up or out system" where one must make partner within 6-8 years or one must find another job elsewhere.  The result is that some of the most demanding years professionally are when women are starting families.  If push comes to shove, they can step away from their careers, but their biological time clocks are less flexible.  If they are going to bear children, there is a fairly narrow window after they graduate from school and enter the work force.

In the course of doing the research for this article, I came to understand that this trend was not unique to my profession but went on in others as well.  I learned so much from that project and it opened my eyes tremendously.  It really peaked my interest in gender issues, as well as how they interplay in family life and in professional contexts. 

One resource I came across in my research was particularly enlightening: Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It (Oxford University Press, 2000).  The author is Joan C. Williams, who is a well-respected law professor.  She is currently at Hastings College of Law.  Her book was such an epiphany to me.  I will write more about that as this blog progresses.  I encourage everyone to read that book--and have a pencil ready to mark passages that particularly impress you!

Among other things, in reading Professor Williams' book, I began to realize that even though we as a society have made a lot of progress in terms of gender equality in the work place (though more is still needed!), much less progress has taken place on the home front.  And that lack of progress at home has huge ripple effects that most of us overlook.  It is easier in some ways to talk about structural changes in schools and work places to help women achieve professional equality.  To do that, one is typically asking a faceless institution to do something.  In many ways, it is much harder to ask one's partner to make big changes to advance gender equality.  In the constant negotiation that is any long-term relationship, such requests can rock the boat and may be ignored if the requested party believes they are too burdensome.

I will explore these topics more.  But right now, I just want to note that I didn't really embrace the F word until I was a mom.  Even then, it was a gradual evolution.  In some ways, it was only because of the gender research I began for my article.  And it was helped along as my children got older such that the responsibilities of raising them became more nuanced and challenging.  It is one thing to give a baby a bottle or change its diaper.  It is quite another thing to counsel a child through awkward social issues with their peers and the challenges of algebra.  As my children have gotten older and their needs have changed, I have become cognizant that I am much more in tune with those needs and how to help them.  This has been quite a shock because my husband has always been a trailblazer in terms of gender equality and is a kind-hearted person.  He is not some stereotypical man like Archie Bunker!  It has been a mystery to me how in a theoretically egalitarian relationship like ours, things are often so lopsided.  But in my further research, I have come to understand this is incredibly typical in modern American heterosexual couples.  More on that and other exciting topics in future blog posts!