In this week’s Times magazine, Deborah Solomon interviews the Supreme Court’s first female justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired. While I like and admire Justice O’Connor, I had a moment of distinct annoyance at this exchange:
Do you call yourself a feminist?
I never did. I care very much about women and their progress. I didn’t go march in the streets, but when I was in the Arizona Legislature, one of the things that I did was to examine every single statute in the state of Arizona to pick out the ones that discriminated against women and get them changed.So do you call yourself a feminist today?
I don’t call myself that.Is there a label you prefer?
A fair judge and a hard worker.
I suspect that like many women of her generation, feminism sounds too radical to Justice O’Connor, with too many partisan, adversarial overtones for a lawyer who ultimately chose the peace and quiet of an (allegedly) unbiased judiciary over the rough-and-tumble of legislative politics. Normally I’m reluctant to contradict someone when they reject a specific label. But not here. Maybe I’m more comfortable embracing the term “feminist” because the term is less loaded for someone born in 1975 than for someone born in 1930. But, of course, the reason feminism is more socially acceptable these days is because of trailblazers like Sandra Day O’Connor, whose achievements contradict everything the Patriarchy would have us believe about women’s abilities and authority.
But Merriam-Webster defines feminism as: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. You, Justice O’Connor, are a feminist, whether you like the term or not. Not to worry, though. I’ll carry your card for you.
This is actually something of a fraught question for me, and let me be clear at the outset because I don’t want to inspire anyone to think I’m calling them a bad feminist. I actually kind of find such discussions boring and stupid, and after long reflection, I am not much married to the word itself, particularly not if it is at the expense of other women.
But I do think we need to talk about limits on the term in a more coherent way than we currently do.
Day O’Connor, on the whole, was not always fabu for women. She voted to invalidate VAWA, for example, back in the day. Elsewhere in that interview she recoils at being recognized as a successful woman (she says something like “I’d rather be a successful judge”). While I get that she’s saying she’d rather not be reduced to her genitalia, I think her line of thinking goes too far in the other direction. Her genitalia, in short, is not irrelevant to who she is, where she’s been, and where she’s going. And I think to be a feminist, you need to be comfortable with that underlying fact: that gender is always, irrevocably, there.
I feel like I can count on one hand the number of women in the public eye who say they’re not feminists because they didn’t march in the streets, burn bras, etc. It’s frustrating and missing the fucking point.
Okay, screwed that comment. I meant to say I can count on one hand the number of women in the public eye who DON’T say they’re not feminists because they didn’t march in the streets, burn bras, etc.
It’s a double negative anyway, so perhaps just ignore my comment.
Now I’m starting to wonder if I’m a feminist (according to Merriam Webster). Unless participating in feminist blog discussions counts as “organized activity,” in which case, I’m golden.
(Becky, did you post this from the airport?)
I feel compelled to leave this link again. Read the whole thing. You, too, Judge O’Connor.
I don’t pay much attention to Official Dictionary Definitions, Kivrin. You don’t need to attend meetings to be a feminist. You know that!
I’m sort of disappointed in Day O’Connor, not only because she shuns the word “feminist” so much, but because (as PSoul points out) she’s not that woman-friendly to begin with!
I completely understand someone who has been a judge for years not embracing the term feminist.
Nowadays, the term feminist almost inherently also means politically liberal. If someone’s career involves (supposedly) NOT being political, but being impartial (supposedly), it’s not that surprising to not want to adhere to a label which screams DEMOCRAT!.