Does the blue ribbon go to Jenny or Hillary? Does it matter? via edensgate @ flickr
In the fallout of the Mark Sanford affair (stemming from Mark Sanford’s affair) there has been some discussion about the behavior of his wife, Jenny. There have been so many instances in the past when wives of male politicians have stood next to their husbands at the press conferences in which they confess their adultery, but Mrs. Sanford clearly did not feel the need to play that role. She’s handling the whole thing with dignity and her absence at Governor Sanford’s press conference speaks louder than any statement she could put out. So the question of the day is: does all this make Jenny Sanford a model of feminism?
That’s the opinion of one op-ed writer for The State, the leading newspaper in Sanford’s state of South Carolina. Andrew Davis wrote a column earlier this week that points to Sanford as a feminist paragon while simultaneously saying she trumps Hillary Clinton in that arena. Color me confused.
Davis’ theory is that, because Clinton did not leave her husband following either the Gennifer Flowers or the Monica Lewinsky affairs, she is less worthy of the title “feminist” than Jenny Sanford is.
Comparing between the first lady of South Carolina and former First Lady Hillary Clinton shows a stark contrast of two women snared in similar situations, who reacted in remarkably different ways. Clinton stood by her husband throughout the entire scandal, and even went so far as to defend him as a victim of a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” Jenny offered no excuses or defense for Mark’s behavior.
Can I just point out one thing here? It’s been about a week since this story broke. I have no clue what Jenny Sanford will or will not say in the future, but Clinton’s notorious “vast, right-wing conspiracy” statement did not come a week after the Lewinsky scandal broke. There is also something awkward about comparing how couples deal with private matters of infidelity. I know couples who have split up over affairs, and I know couples who have stayed together after divulging that there has been cheating. I’m not really sure what is to be gained by saying that one way of reacting to this situation is superior.
Clinton’s great success as a woman in politics has overshadowed shortcomings in her personal life, and turned her into a symbol of feminist power and prestige. However, feminists would do well to look at Jenny as an unsung role model for women in the movement.
Wait, what shortcomings are those? I began to get queasy when I read that. Are we blaming Hillary for Bill’s affairs? Are we saying she’s unworthy of the admiration of feminists because she didn’t divorce her husband? See, that’s not how I think it’s supposed to go. And then Davis pulls out that famous straw (wo)man argument:
Jenny’s conservative credentials may put her at odds with many feminists, but there are few other women who demonstrate an ability to achieve in every area of life while handling themselves with grace and elegance at all times, both good and bad.
I am sick and tired of people saying that conservatives are excluded from being feminists. There is nothing about feminism that has political party motivations. I had a similar reaction to what Mary Matalin said about how conservatives don’t feel they fit into feminism because it’s purportedly a liberal movement. Actions speak louder than party affiliations. I’m certainly not going to deny that a given woman is a feminist just because she holds GOP membership if she believes in feminism. It’s not as if everyone who considers themselves liberal is supremely enlightened about feminism or even give two shits about women’s rights. So let’s leave party affiliation out of this, okay Mr. Davis?
One last thing to rankle me: the kudos for Sanford’s “grace and elegance”. What does “elegance” even mean? That she’s being perfectly ladylike in her silence? If that is what Davis interprets as being a main tenet of feminism, then he definitely has everything all wrong.
Oh, I love it when men write columns about which woman is a better feminist. Great! We really appreciate you setting up this false dichotomy between two people who have very little to do with one another. Since we just adore columns about who gets the feminist gold star when they’re written by women, goodness knows we’ll jump for joy over such an article when written by a person with a penis, instead!
However…”There is nothing about feminism that has political party motivations.” That’s true. Buuuuut feminism is a liberation movement and as such advocates change. That is exactly the opposite of what conservatism, as a social philosophy, advocates. You may disagree with me, but I really do think it’s inconsistent to be socially conservative and a feminist (or an anti-racist, etc.) I’m not saying that no Republicans can be feminists, because after all the GOP purports to be about more than social conservatism and things like fiscal responsibility and small government aren’t essentially incompatible with liberation movements. But to honestly claim to be both socially conservative and a feminist? I am dubious at best.
I want to be a better feminist, so I’m taking night classes on elegance and grace at Mr. Davis’ Finishing School for Feminist-Ladies.
@baraqiel: Buuuuut feminism is a liberation movement and as such advocates change. That is exactly the opposite of what conservatism, as a social philosophy, advocates. I think it’s a sticky area and a bit of a gray area as well. But I’m wary of saying that every member of the GOP holds beliefs that are either conflicting with or antithetical to feminism — just as there are many Democrats who are perceived as liberal and advancing social change who, in the end, don’t give a rat’s ass about women’s equality. The bottom line is that I don’t know enough about Jenny Sanford to ascribe any kind of feminist label to her, but I take issue with Davis’ assertion that it’s because of her GOP membership that nobody is celebrating what he believes to be her feminist act of appearing not to stand by her man in the way Clinton did.
Duh. Hillary gets the ribbon. Lookit all them Aitches on it! Honorary Harpy Hillary, Holla!
I always get confused when people act like infidelity, or men behaving badly when you try to date or marry them, is some kind of feminist issue. I mean it CAN be in the way that everything can be a feminist issue, but I’ve never been one of those women who identifies with men being “bad” and women being you know the keepers of chastity. There is a way in which Jenny’s behavior can be seen as very traditional and conservative. She reminds me of some conservative girls I used to know who really thought it was their job to keep boys from getting handsy on dates, to sort of uphold sexual morality.
Her whole “god says sons are a blessing” sort of belies the whole feminist message too.
And as far as I can see they are BOTH willing to work on their marriage after revelation of infidelity on their partners’ part; I don’t see a huge difference here anyway. I wonder what Jenny would have done if she had been in the white house instead of the governor’s mansion.
@s.o.a.l.g. – “But I’m wary of saying that every member of the GOP holds beliefs that are either conflicting with or antithetical to feminism” Sure, as am I. But like I said, I don’t think this has anything to do with party affiliations. As Pennsylvania’s illustrious senators show, it’s possible to be a Democrat and socially conservative, or a Republican and only concerned with gaining and keeping power without caring about any principles of any sort (thanks, Arlen).
As far as philosophies go, however, I don’t see how social conservatism, which bases itself on extant social norms and the purported social norms of the past, is compatible with any liberation movement.
I’m really tired of the good feminist/bad feminist diatribe. A lot of men and women seem to have a set idea of what makes a “good” feminist. The thing is, trying to get women to follow a set of rules to qualify as a good feminist, is just as detrimental as coercing women to follow a set of rules to be a good woman/wife/mother.
As for the conservative women can’t be feminists trope: other than abortion, no feminist tenets follow political lines. And being that not all conservitives are pro-life, and (although some may disagree, I’d argue that) not all feminists are pro-choice, one can certainly be a conservative feminist. However, I do see why a lot of them feel unwelcome, as conservative issues like gun rights are often made fun of in feminist circles, and the validity of the feminist label is often called into question for anyone who is pro-life.
Firstly, Imaginary Caaaatttt Fiiiiiiighttttt!!!!!
Secondly, Ms. Sanford might have made a different decision if she wanted to run for President. Ms. Clinton might have made a different decision if she knew she wasn’t going to win, and she might change her mind in the future. *shrug*
This seems like a variation of the Feminists hate Stay at Home Moms meme, which is to say, more or less made up.
Elsenet, I’ve read that Jenny and Mark Sanford had actually *talked* about his other relationship, and that he had her explicit approval to pursue it.
And you know, if that’s the case, more power to them. Actually communicating about changing relationships – possibly to the point of opening them up, if all parties are amenable – may not be a specifically feminist virtue, but it beats the heck out of the usual Cheater-Betrayed Spouse-Other Woman model.
You can be a registered Republican or self-identify as conservative and still call yourself a feminist. But feminism is about dismantling/changing an oppressive system, and social conservatism is about maintaining the traditional (oppressive) system. It’s a contradiction in terms to be a socially conservative feminist. In those cases where people claim to be, they’re just social conservatives taking advantage of feminist gains to make their own lives more comfortable. Not to mention, no you can’t be a feminist and believe that women should have less legal control over their bodies than men have over theirs. Anti-choice people should be challenged when they call themselves feminists because, well, they’re not.
Brava, Spark. That’s exactly it.
@spark @baraqiel: I guess my point is more about Jenny Sanford than the overall “feminism/anti-feminism” merits of the entire GOP. I agree that social conservatism stands in conflict with feminism, and anyone anti-choice will never be seen as a feminist by me. I was more referring to the fact that Davis seems to be convinced that nobody would see Sanford as a feminist hero because she happens to be married to a governor who’s a Republican, and because she’s a Republican. Which is why I called it out for being a straw man argument: it completely sets up this argument that the criterion for being revered as a feminist icon is solely along party lines and that’s the only reason Hillary is seen as such and Jenny Sanford will not be.
@Spark – yes, exactly.
@Alyssa – I think this conversation (not just here, but in general) runs into confusion due to how we use the word “conservative”, i.e. as both a label for certain kinds of fiscal/social/political philosophies and as a label for a group of positions that are often but not always associated with those philosophies. Only one of those things — a social conservative philosophy — is essentially incompatible with feminism. Fiscal conservatism, political conservatism, and certain positions that don’t necessarily follow from conservative thought but are often found in its company, are not by their natures incompatible with feminism.
@s.o.a.l.g. – Yes, I agree with you there. I also think it’s worth noting that he’s making the easy argument (“Jenny Sanford won’t be welcomed as a feminist hero because she’s a Republican”) over the more valid and challenging one (“Jenny Sanford won’t be welcomed as a feminist hero because it takes more to be a feminist hero than making one ambiguous choice about your personal life”).
I think it is the well known journamalistic doormat phenomenon.
“I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”
Rebecca West
@baraqiel: I agree that the only comparison between conservitives and feminists is when we are talking about social conservatives. I even agree that the tenets of social conserivitism and feminism are in direct opposition of each other. However some people (and in my experience most people) do not agree 100% with the social platform they identify with. In other words, it is completely conceivable that there are people who identify as a social conservative because they agree with issues like gun rights, but when it comes to women’s issues they agree with feminists, and thus also identify as a feminist.
@all: This is the same reason I don’t think it’s appropriate to use one issue (even abortion) as a litmus test for feminism. If a woman dedicates her life to help women who are victims of and prevent rape and domestic violence, who advocates for all mothers and pregnant women to receive financial and emotional support in raising their children, who promotes equal pay, but votes pro-life, I’d be hard pressed to say she can’t identify as a feminist.
And isn’t that what this whole post is about? Isn’t this post (and the previous one about cooking) about we can’t judge someone as a good/bad/not at all feminist by one or two things? I’m pushing this idea a little further by applying it to the larger issue of abortion. If you don’t agree with me, I totally understand and respect your opinion. I’m just trying to shed light on how some people can ascribe to two contradictory social platforms.
@Alyssa – I think you’re still conflating a philosophy with positions associated with that philosophy. There is no real reason that gun rights are a “conservative” issue, unless you want to make an argument about strict interpretation of the Constitution being a conservative value. Even then, that demands a certain understanding of “strict interpretation”, and it’s also a matter of political, rather than social, conservatism. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to *identify* both as a social conservative and a feminist, but it’s impossible to hold both stances in a way that is logically consistent. Of course people often hold stances that are logically inconsistent, but in my experience, that means they haven’t really thought things through.
Your second paragraph raises an interesting question about the differences between actions and philosophies. Feminism, in my understanding, is a philosophy, and actions proceed from that philosophy. Being anti-choice is in direct contradiction with that philosophy. It is possible to act in a way that appears to proceed from a certain philosophy without actually holding that philosophy (or, indeed, understanding it). Were I to meet a woman such as you posit, I would say that either she does not understand what’s at play in issues of reproductive choice, or she does not understand feminism. Ultimately, in my understanding, feminism is not about improving the lives of individual women, which is what that woman is engaged with doing. That is certainly an admirable and important thing to do! As well, those are activities engaged in by many feminists! However, in my opinion, feminism is concerned with changing the way that gender operates in our society much more so than it is concerned with making individual women happier, or safer, or healthier, because those things are all in some sense a stop-gap on the larger problem that is causing them sadness/danger in the first place. The question of choice is integral to that change because it deals intimately with whether or not we as a society deem women’s bodies and reproductive capabilities to be a public matter. If a woman is anti-choice, she is tacitly saying that women’s bodies should be publicly controlled, which is anti-feminist, full stop. This is why I think that no matter how many women are helped by a person who is anti-choice, that person cannot be rightly called a feminist.
@baraqiel: Yeah I see your point. I think the biggest reason I would still consider that hypothetical woman a feminist is because I’m looking more at actions that philosophy. (I tend to think a person’s philosophy is moot if their actions aren’t consistent with said philosophy, which happens a lot). I also believe that if someone agrees with 90% of the platform, then it’s enough for them to own the label. But looking at feminism as a philosophy rather than a political platform does change that a bit, so like I said I definitely see your point.