While attending a women's college does not necessarily make one a feminist, as a current attendee of a women's college (Smith) and one who tried to prevent another women's college from going coed via protests and a lawsuit (Wells), I feel like I have to put in my two cents here.

Putting aside the feminist/not-feminist identification of the individuals at Saint Mary's and other women's colleges, I think that women's colleges, at their very base, are inherently feminist institutions. The benefits of a women's college are feminist (empowerment, for one), and the promoting materials of successful women's colleges espouse these very feminist benefits, whether they call it feminism or not.

I think the semantics of the word, "feminism," while important, tend to overshadow the existence of the ideals of feminism. Yeah, it's sad that these women who embody feminist ideals won't call themselves feminist, and we should be striving to de-stigmatize the word, the most important part is that these women do, in fact, embody these very basic feminist ideals.

I mean I agree on some level. The article says that it is interesting because the notion of a women's college is feminist so it is interesting that so many women don't consider themselves feminists.

But I think if all these women *truly* embodied feminism, it would look different. I think there are camps of women that go to women's colleges because of very non-feminist reasons, like being good girls or having a certain reputation.

I can't relate so much because I couldn't afford to go to a small liberal arts college and ended up in a very non-feminist state school, but that is the feeling I got from some of the more upper crust women's colleges. Something along the lines of my daddy is rich and I grew up in a good family and a small all-girls school was better for me and I inherited mama's pearls and I had a Latino nanny and I can't wait to marry Adam Smith Jr. investment banker. (I know that is an exaggeration, but I just went with it.)

Obviously this is not everyone (or maybe not very many people at all, I don't know), but either way that shit is not feminist.

Am I wrong?

Sadly many women are just as patriarchal as patriarchal men - and even more so. If you grew up in the patriarchy and were only in a women-only environment for college then you've already been "programmed". An all woman college does NOT guarantee a feminist environment!

I think the problem is that we (feminist) allowed the media to control our image.

I wonder how these women would define feminist.

I agree with you that this is a really important question. To be honest, I read both feminist and non-feminist blogs and although I enjoy your blog I feel you are the ones who limit the definition of feminism. I don't mean this as an attack at all.

In the past months I have read a lot that I agree with on feministing, but I have also read gleeful attacks on Ariel Levy and Wendy Shalit and iwf.org, and pretty much anyone who doesn't advocate that sexuality should be public. I think if you attack other women who have different views about sexuality than you, and you are always swearing when that's not necessary to make your point, then women who are more (personally) conservative are of course not going to identify as feminists.

But remember, you are the ones that limited the definition of feminism. I personally am (I think) an idealistic woman who cares about issues advancing women's rights and happiness, but I am the more modest type and no I don't go around swearing all the time.

So if YOU tell me I'm not welcome in your movement because I'm "patriarchal" then I will FEEL not welcome.

It's pretty logical actually, that article makes perfect sense to me.
It all depends on the tone that the leaders of the movement set and you are not as inclusive as you could be.

Thanks for the forum you are providing here.

I would like to know your thoughts in response to this if you have time.

Re:babs2007 I see your point. However, sexuality is an important part of the women's movement and it is vital that we don't shy away from discussing it. Swearing is a different issue entirely. When reading about some of these unbelievable attacks on women's rights, I think it's entirely appropriate, indeed involuntary to swear! We need to be able to call a spade a spade, and if I think the FDA's politically motivated denial to make EC widely available without a prescription is a big "fuck you" to women then I'll respond in kind.

I don't think that it's fair to blame feminists for the negative connotation of "feminism" that now pervades our culture. I think that the negative image of feminism has been thoughtfully constructed and promoted for over the last 30 years by the conservative movement, and that if blame lies with feminists or the feminist movement, it is because there is not enough unity or a strong, common voice.

Personally, i would never want to be associated with feminism if i felt that the attitude was: do it our way or get out. To me, feminism is deeply personal, which is why it is so powerful, but also why it means something different to everyone.

Samhita is right- we all need to be educated about the history of feminism, because there is a lot of deliberate misinformation out there designed to make "feminist" a bad word. There is a new web exhibit at www.jwa.org/feminism that explores the history of jewish women and feminism. A lot of history from women from Gloria Steinem to Ruth Messinger to Susan Brownmiller and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Even there, i think you'll find that every woman in the exhibit defines feminism a little differently.

You have to put Saint Mary's in the appropriate context -- this is not Smith. This is a school that was created as a Catholic women's adjunct to Notre Dame (which didn't admit women until 1972) and in that sense the school's very existence is based on an acceptance of women as second-class. I would also think that many of its students come from midwestern Catholic high schools which are not environments that encourage young women to feel it is okay to be a feminist.

I'm wondering about how to make feminisim or the willingness to accept the label "feminist" appeal to the male studentry. I know this can bring about a slew of arguments about the potential risks of disengendering the feminist movement but as an XY self-labeling feminist it seems aparent that only in very small corners will you find male students willing to call themselves feminists. The image of feminism amongst male students seems to have been frozen in the 70's as well, and is only seen as an incidiary term used as a punchline in magazines like Maxim. There is also little effort to educate men about feminism, it's history, and it's theory. In some ways, its seen as something that belongs as all women's colleges. And don't even ask me about the attitudes of some people I've spoken to that were educated at all male institutions.

I think that feminism is about allowing women to follow their calling in life. It's about giving women choices, and tearing down the artificial road blocks that keep us from pursuing our interests. We should encourage one another to live our lives as we see fit, and not alienate those whose choices are not ones we would make for ourselves. This, to me, is the biggest mistake being made by so many within the movement.

Though I don't agree with her assessment that women are being bashed for wanting to keep their sex lives private, I can relate to where Babs2007 is coming from. There does seem to be an awful lot of intolerance within the community for those whose lifestyles are considered to be a product of "the patriarchy."

If a woman wants to be a stay at home mom, a sex worker, or a nun, we should be supportive of her. Not every woman wants to become a business executive, gynecologist or justice of the court. It shouldn't matter whether a woman is selling stocks and bonds or selling sexual services to men; the most important thing is that she is doing what she wants to be doing, or at least that she isn't doing something she doesn't want to do.

As a sex worker I feel a great deal of contempt coming from many who identify themselves as feminists. If I wasn't so stubborn and determined, I would probably disassociate myself from the movement as well. I am so frustrated and angry with those who claim to be acting up on my behalf, using fake stories and imaginary statistics to tear down an industry that I, and so many others like me, have chosen of our own free will. And the thing that makes it most unfair is that we can't really speak for ourselves- not because we are incapable of doing so, but out of fear of incriminating ourselves.

When a group of sex workers in Berkeley organized and campaigned to pass Prop Q, a measure to decriminalize prostitution, a lot of so-called feminists fought hard and struck it down, for the sake of (if you can believe it) the prostitutes themselves.

I cringed as I listened to Melissa Farley spreading her lies about hookers servicing 30 men a day. She kept jerking people's heartstrings with her trumped up stories until people believed that only a woman hater would vote yes on prop Q. If she wants to fight for those who are forced into the business, I would support her efforts. But if she's going to try to take away the livlihood of the rest of us, she should at least stop claiming to be acting out on our own best intetests. It is offensive and demeaning to claim that you are kicking someone down for their own sake.

I think we need to make a distinction between freely made choices and being forced or coerced into doing something. If a woman wants to be a home maker and a stay at home mom- more power to her. It isn't the lifestyle I would have chosen for myself, but then it's not up for me to decide for someone else, is it? Feminism was supposed to be about giving women the option to pursue a career, even in a traditionally male line of work. But unfortunately, it seems to be becoming every bit as oppressive as the "patriarchy" we're supposed to be fighting.

There’s an interesting article by Linda Hirshman http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659that discusses the glass ceiling at home that has yet to be shattered by feminists. Part of what is being discussed here is the definition of feminism, and Hirshman talks about why it’s important to not allow women to continue to think they are choosing something when they aren’t really being given a choice. She says “The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are “choosing” to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you’ve got a perfect recipe for feminism’s stall.” “None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women’s work.”

I agree with her take on feminism, that it wasn’t too radical, it wasn’t radical enough. It tackled changing the world outside of the home, but it didn’t change the cultural norms as they relate to the woman’s role being a lesser one at home. It’s a long read but very well worth the time. She goes on to talk in a somewhat facetious tone about “the rules” and how we should change them going forward. But, what you take away from the read is a gutsy new name for feminism, the flourishing of women…. Which brings to mind so much more than just feminism, doesn’t it?

I think that Erin Kotelnicki (from the article) is not anti-female but rather anti-male. Look at what she's saying: women should have rights equal to men but NOT equal responsibilities. It's still a "man's job" to take care of the family in her view. Now, if that's the choice she wants to make in her personal life, fine. I'm sure she can find a man willing to put up with this double standard. But she's implying that men *in general* should take care of their wives, and I think that crosses the line. That's butting into someone else's business.

Flygirrl, I think women really do have a choice. It's not against the law to marry a progressive man who will share the household and child-rearing tasks. But for some reason, many women don't make that choice. I don't think feminism can change that. While feminism can change public life, it can't change private life. Women have to do that themselves as individuals, and only if they want to.

I am grateful to feminism and I consider myself a feminist. But I don't expect feminism to be a magic wand. That's why I get tired of hearing about the "failures" of feminism. Sometimes people just need to suck it up and put forth a little effort to make their own lives better. Feminism can't do it for them. What feminism can do is open doors for us; we still have to do the work.

As a student at Saint Mary’s College, I feel I must critique some comments directed attacking the fundamental values of our school and those who attend. AndiF proposes that Saint Mary’s “very existence is based on an acceptance of women as second-class” because it was founded as a college to counter the all-male Notre Dame. However, I assure you that is not the case. The founders of Saint Mary’s (1844) started an institution to educate the women of this area whom would have received no higher education otherwise. In the early 70’s, Notre Dame tried to merge with Saint Mary’s and when Saint Mary’s refused, Notre Dame swore they would force Saint Mary’s to close their doors within a few years by admitting women to their school. That was 30 years age and Saint Mary’s continues to flourish and progress, never using Notre Dame as a crutch. I once had a professor tell me that Saint Mary’s “basks in the shade, but does not live in the shadows of Notre Dame”.
Down to the very core, Saint Mary’s is a feminist institute whose primary goal is to develop women leaders and increase intellectual growth. There may be some students on campus who shy away from using the word feminist to describe themselves, however, they likely have the wrong impression of feminism and it’s ideals.
I am glad that this article has evoked so much thought. At the Saint Mary’s Women’s center, we are in the beginning stages of starting a feminist newsletter titled “The F-Word”. I would like to invite you all to write a short article about your emotions regarding the article which started this debate--let the Saint Mary’s students hear your response and opinion- send articles to Katie Kelly @ kell4936@saintmarys.edu.