Most of us only come into contact with history during high school and most are reluctant to choose it as a subject. Where history is seriously written about and researched is within academia yet the history written in this sphere is rarely read. One reason for this is the difficulty of reading academic jargon.  And to be honest, the other is the reluctance of some to have their work move outside the ivory towers of a university. Is it then more productive to have work published outside academia? The internet is an excellent way to get information out into the public that is factually correct as Marshall Poe points out.  While it is true that anyone can publish anything online, it is also possible that any book can be published if the publisher believes a profit can be made. Marshall Poe is concerned that “uncritical, poorly informed” people can publish incorrect information online. This is also true. But should this stop historians from publishing online?  The simple answer is no. Even within academia there are arguements over theory and facts, with debates continuing over many years. The internet is no different. People agree, people disagree. And people decide who to believe.

The article by McElroy starts by suggesting feminism was an organised movement. When implying something is organised, it assumes a systematic order with limited scope for stepping outside of this order. Feminism has always consisted of different groups with differences of opinion. When there are various opinions in a social movement, it sometimes becomes hard to pinpoint facts. A fact for a religious conservative is far different from a fact for an atheist. Facts can also be manipulated for specific purposes and intentions. Who or what stipulates facts as true or false? What facts are given credibility and by who? This questioning of facts brings into doubt concepts of right or wrong, rights and duties.  What is correct is often dictated by our rights and we often perform our duties because of what is seen to be right.  Morality is also a consideration within the terms rights and duties. Some people are criticised for having suspect morals, which effectively equates to doing something wrong.   But morality is not a homogeneous ideology and over time it has been widely contested. Another concept that can be contested in this article is the term reality. McElroy says that “human values derive directly from reality and human nature”.  Reality is not singular occurrence. The reality for a single mum who has to feed her children is quite different to the reality of single male who earns $50,000 a year. We also have to consider the concept of reality within different historical periods.  If we consider these different historical periods we can see that the terms right and wrong, rights and duties and morality differ significantly and demonstrates there are no concrete definitions to these terms.

McElroy uses Henry B. Veatch as a way to introduce his concept of the “art and skills of living” in society.  The ‘art’ and ‘skills’ of living are many and varied. To suggest there is one set of skills is a simplistic idea that ignores the different skills developed by different people in different situations and even in different cultures. The notion of rights and duties are again relevant.  However this time it is to introduce a new concept.  The concept of ‘ought’ is explained by Veatch. Veatch believes every ‘ought’ is related to a natural right that achieves well-being. McElroy suggests that if one group has an ‘ought’ then it should also be extended to every other person because if it doesn’t, it then becomes a privilege.  Or in other words, the ought should be extended to everyone because this establishes their natural rights and contributes to the well-being of everyone in the same way.  This point of extending rights to everyone is obviously aimed at feminism and supports the notion that feminism privileges women because they are women. But if we extend this argument, every ought men have and benefit from should also be extended to women and other marginal groups. The reality is they have not. Another point is whether these ‘oughts’ men benefit from should actually exist to begin with. For example, because men are given the right to fight on the front line in wars, shouldn’t this be extended to women as well?  Or is it that neither women or men should be fighting in any war with this ‘ought’ being questionable from the beginning.

This article uses many references to law and justice in defence of iFeminism. The law is treated as an autonomous entity that is seen as fair and just. However one important aspect of feminism was to question the concepts of fairness and justice.  Feminism asked why did the law instigate inequality between women and men to begin with? What reasons were there to view women as unequal to men? Feminism is also criticised for having no consistent theory of justice. But does this even exist at any level?  If, as McElroy suggests, feminism has no consistent theory of justice, then why does feminism address many issues of injustice? Is it more to the point that feminism actually highlights these injustices that traditional avenues of justice are unable to deal with?  And how do avenues of justice deal with inequality in 2009 as compared to what justice will mean in 2029?  In highlighting the supposed lack of consistency in justice, McElroy is critical of feminism in its diverse reactions to two prominent harassment cases in the US. One case, according to McElroy, was supported by feminists. The other case was criticised by feminists. The differences in these opinions was seen as a “natural consequence” of an inconsistent theory of justice. This point is arguable since a difference in opinion would demonstrate a broad ability to question and decipher issues in relation to the politics of the day. This is an interesting perspective as some anti-feminists accuse feminism of thinking the same way and supporting women simply because they are women.  Yet the support and opposition of these cases would refute these anti-feminist arguments.

One of the most contentious points of view is McElroy’s understanding of radical feminism. To begin with her understanding of the word ‘radical’ is similar to most anti-feminists or those critical of radical feminism. The common belief assumes that radical means crazy or hysterical. The term radical actually means a complete political or social reform. This definition does not fit in with McElroy’s association that radical feminism is trying to change laws that would hopefully stop discrimination against women. While radical feminism does question these laws and the legal system, it goes far beyond this which McElroy does not acknowledge. It is actually liberal feminism that strongly believes in this avenue of change. Radical feminism suggests that fundamental changes need to be made with the possibility that the legal system may be abolished because of who made the laws, who they privilege and who they disadvantage. McElroy also draws a relationship between radical feminism and its connection to an institution. McElroy doesn’t stipulate what institution she is referring to however she is correct to write that feminism does have a relationship with an institution.  Though her use of the word institution seems to come from a class perspective, she would probably reject the idea that patriarchy is an institution which we all have some form of relationship with.

Further to her contentious understanding of radical feminism is McElroy’s assertion that radical feminism supports some Marxist ideas. This is inaccurate and suggests that radical feminism uses Marxism for its own purposes.  Radical feminism is very much independent and believes that theories like Marxism do not go far enough. One criticism of Marxism is that it is actually based on the ideas of Karl Marx and lacks any real perspective on women (marxist feminists would disagree and suggest both theories compliment one another). A further misunderstanding is McElroy’s idea that radical feminism “predicts and determines” how individuals will behave. This is incorrect because it suggests a determinist framework. Determinism is a theory that believes humans cannot be held responsible for their actions due to some other uncontrollable factor. This idea is the same as those who believe men are naturally more aggressive and women are naturally more nurturing. This use of nature (and determinism) has been highly criticised by radical feminists who suggest that nature does not predict the behaviour of women or men.  Rather radical feminism says that some men do certain things but it doesn’t mean that all men will or should do the same. Radical feminism brings the actions of men to account and gives voice to what happens in traditionally private domains. While some would be reluctant to criticise what occurs in relationships in the home, radical feminism suggests we should be able to explore what occurs in private because these are often sites of unequal power.  In highlighting what some men do means these men become accountable whereas some may justify or dismiss actions because of the notion it is just ‘men being men’.  Radical feminism calls into question what happened, why it happened and who or what predetermined these behaviours as okay? McElroy draws the usual conclusion as most anti-feminists do about the connection between radical feminist theory and the ideas that all men rape. Radical feminism does not say all men rape. Rather they say that culture and other institutions make it acceptable to rape and that the threat of rape is used to control women even though it may not be acknowledged. Radical feminists have been critical of this subconscious control of women by highlighting that women are more likely to experience some degree of violence (including rape) in the place they are supposed to feel the safest; at home. Such a conclusion has brought radical feminists in conflict with anti-feminists who traditionally support the home and the roles of women as mother, wives and housekeepers and men as husbands, fathers and providers.

Yet another interesting point to iFeminism is its belief that everyone has the same political interests. Once again this is a huge generalisation. The idea that everyone is able to enact political opportunity to support their interests is false because it assumes everyone is able to act in the same way and that institutions, organisations or groups will react the same way to each individual. It also assumes there is some form of equality to begin with. An important question is whose political interests are going to be suitable? How are we going to define these? According to McElroy, these interests are self-ownership which is based on the primary characteristic of humanity. Yes, it is possible that self-ownership is important for individuals because it entitles us to make decisions about our own body and this is part of our rights as humans. But is McElroy really adopting a human rights perspective? To a certain extent, yes she is, but her brief examination of how the  ”secondary characteristics” of gender, age and ethnicity impact on human rights and our understanding of self-ownership limits the human rights perspective she adopts. Not to mention that gender, age and ethnicity are used as reasons why human rights are violated. It is also possible that a person’s humanity is experienced through these three identities with limited options for self-determination. Often when this is the case our bodies are treated in particular ways that limit our ability of self-ownership.

McElroy uses the categories of women and men to suggest both can use political means.  But is it possible that both can access these political means in the same way to the same degree and achieve the result they really desire?  If we use the example at the start, can a single mother use her political means in the same way, same degree and achieve the desired result as the single male earning $50,000?  The likelihood this would occur is slim because of  the way these groups have been treated in the past. Yet McElroy fails to consider how the past establishes precedents for the future as we see through current legal, social and political ideologies.

The final thoughts on this article focus on the blanket terms she uses with no significant analysis.  The first term is conscious choice.  McElroy suggests conscious choice is possible.  However feminism has argued that choice is not always conscious and attitudes, beliefs and institutions structure our choice to a certain degree.  But the question of choice is certainly a philosophical one and by suggesting a conscious choice is entirely possible fails to adequately provide some understanding of its complexity.  The phrase that iFeminism is “pro-male, pro-sex and anti-PC” is again a blanket statement that needs further analysis.  If pro-sex is simply for sex then more questions have to be raised.  What kind of sex are we talking about, sex with who and does anything go with the notion of pro-sex?  Defining itself as pro-sex, pro-male and anti-PC aligns iFeminism with anti-feminist groups who believe feminism is anti-sex, anti-male and goes too far in its support of political correctness.

In conclusion, iFeminism appears to be a popular type of feminism that masquerades as a ‘sensible’ feminism.  It is easy to suggest that iFeminism can be used by individuals for their own purposes, yet there are other factors that affect individuals which are easily dismissed by those who are in a position of power.  iFeminism assumes that each individual is able to initiate and interact with necessary laws, institutions and organisations to further a feminist future for themselves.  Yet if only a few women are able to do this, how does this help to create a feminist future for women who live in poor countries or women who are treated in horrific ways because they are women.  Therefore, iFeminism empowers a few, while ignoring the majority.

The above article is interesting for the way in which it believes feminism is totally opposed to women remaining at home.  It may come as a surprise that many feminists have proposed that work done in the home should be counted and given the same credibility as work done outside of the home.  It is true that society doesn’t see housework or mothering as a full time occupation.  Rather it is a full time, 24 hour, 7 day a week occupation.  Yet even with this knowledge and the fact that a lot of women are employed away from the home, the majority of housework is still placed on the shoulders of women.  Why is this so?  Would it not be reasonable to expect that as part of a couple, both would contribute equally considering both live in the same house and both also work outside of the home?  Would this not alleviate the amount of work women have to do?  The answer, according to the author of the article, is that the amount of work women have do has increased because of feminism.  This belief alludes to current debates about the myth of ‘having it all’.  The creation of this myth is placed at the feet of feminism.  According to some, it was feminism that encouraged women to work, have children and run a household simultaneously. Is this really the fault of feminism?  Could it possibly be the case that feminism is simply an easy scapegoat for attention to be focused away from the inherent structures that have not changed at all.  For example, inflexible work places, the continuing separation of home and work (even though some work places are starting to integrate the two), the reality that men do not really share the housework and that women still receive less pay due to opposition to equal pay.  Is it possible that by blaming feminism the implication is that society has changed so much it now overwhelms us with false choices?  This perspective implies something has had the ability to alter structures that are inherently right or even natural and because of these changes, there has been detrimental consequences.  Yet at no point in this discussion by anti-feminists over changes caused by feminism, is it considered the structures themselves are the issue.

A further interesting comment is the idea that feminism has criminalised the mothering instinct.  Rather than ‘criminalising’ anything, feminism has often explored and debated how empowering giving birth and being a mother can be for women.  What some feminists suggest is that there needs to be a distinction between motherhood, being a wife and how these are shaped in present day culture.  It also asks how giving birth and being a mother is viewed and experienced in other cultures.  Should we be looking at just one understanding of motherhood as remaining at home looking after children while the husband goes to work?  Feminism was also crucial for actually discussing some taboo topics in relation to motherhood.  Motherhood is never as perfect as some anti-feminists suggest it is.  In reading Monica Dux and Zora Simic’s new book, they suggest that motherhood is glorified on the one hand yet burdened with expectations on the other.  In other words, motherhood is a complicated and sometimes rigid role  that is highly scrutinised.  Feminists have continued in recent years to explore new and different understandings of motherhood with emergence of the term ‘mother guilt’.  Once again, feminism has contributed to understandings of being a mother that often contradict how it is portrayed by some anti-feminists.  Discussion of motherhood by feminists also contradicts the anti-feminist view that feminism ‘criminalises’ motherhood.

Anna Anka’s beliefs are synonymous with some anti-feminists, particularly those from fathers’ rights groups. The irony with these groups is that while they profess to want more involvement in the lives of their children, when an opportunity offers this possibility through equality they often revert to more traditional notions of masculinity and femininity similar to Anka.  At the same time, some fathers groups are highly critical of notions that women nurture  and fathers do not.  While some revert to traditional notions of femininity and masculinity, they are also critical of courts and other established bodies that believe women are more caring.  Their argument with feminism is two fold.  On the one hand they believe it has given women too many rights through infiltration of the legal system which supposedly discriminates against fathers and on the other they believe that feminism works with unnatural notions of what it means to be woman and a man.  Yet it is feminism which can assist in breaking down understandings that suggest women should be the ones to look after the children and that men are only capable of providing.

Notions of what constitutes a woman and a man have been contested between feminism and anti-feminism for many years. Anti-feminists have typically associated masculinised women as feminists yet feminists are a diverse group of people.  Even with this diversity of people and diversity of opinions, anti-feminists still label feminists and the consequences of feminism in very limiting ways.  Anka typifies these beliefs with her suggestions that men are now nappy-changing sissies and women are frumps who fail to take care of their husbands.  These limited views of feminism inhibited the possible benefits feminism can bring to all.

In antifeminism,women represent an interesting conundrum. On the one hand they are important for antifeminism to carry their message even further but on the other they represent a certain kind of irony.
This irony involves the political activism engaged in by anti-feminists.  This is often one point which antifeminists like to raise as to why they disagree with feminists.  Anti-feminists say feminists are too political, are too motivated to take their arguments out on the streets when they do not get their own way.   At the same time, what anti-feminists don’t look at is that without political activism there would be no antifeminism either.  What is necessary to understand this situation better is to engage a broader understanding of what political activism is. Many antifeminists and other conservatives see political activism in terms of something that movements like feminism engage in which usually involves street protests that turn into violence. This is a narrow view of what activism actually is. Even those who write a letter expressing a point of view to a newspaper editor are engaging politically.

So what are the benefits of not recognizing antifeminism as political activism? One benefit involves a distinct seperation of feminism and antifeminism. This is needed in order to validate antifeminist ideas. Another benefit is the inability of feminism to recognize antifeminism as a threat and therefore unable to recognise to what degree antifeminism has made an impact on society and feminist reforms. The last reason is so antifeminism is viewed differently to feminism. Most people have specific ideas about feminism and feminists. One only needs to ask a group of people and the usual stereotypes will be given further credibility. It also helps antifeminism remain outside of the lexicon of social movements. Perhaps this is an attempt to invisiblise the political activism of conservatives or the right and therefore continue to distance themselves from feminism. It also makes those women who are politically active in antifeminism remain distinctive from those they wish to oppose.

I find the opening line about drawing most knowledge about feminism from the pro-life movement very interesting considering the article continues in this manner.  The article seems to imply that this may have changed with further consideration of other points of view.  However upon reading the article and the line that ‘feminism was all about women demanding their right to abort’ would indicate that other points are view have been looked at but simply discarded.  This is not surprising.  This line also fails to consider that feminism was interested in so many more things besides giving women choice over abortion. What many antifeminists don’t look at is the broader reason of how feminism came to see the right to abortion as integral to a woman having total control of her body.  Historically, women have not had total control.  Often women did experience unwanted pregnancies, sometimes unwanted sex but because a common belief  was that it their duty or  men should have sex whenever men wanted, unwanted sex and pregnancy were simply tolerated.

Feminism instead said that women should not have to tolerate unwanted sex or unwanted pregnancies.  As a result, a whole new way of thinking emerged that saw women ‘reclaim’ their bodies and view them in a different light.  Sexual liberation as written in the above article implies that it was all about being able to have sex whenever and wherever a woman likes.  This is not entirely true.  Yes it was about being able to have sex and for this to be enjoyable for women, but it was also about being able to say no and for this to respected without being seen as ‘frigid’.  Sexual liberation was also about creating new understandings of women’s bodies.  Within medical and scientific theories  women’s bodies were seen as faulty, hysterical and uncontrollable.  Feminism attempted to change these ideas and show that women’s bodies were not faulty and uncontrollable.

The issue of morality is very interesting.  Like many antifeminists, morality is associated with abortion.  It is often seen to be something higher than humanity, something that guides us without our interference. This point of view is questionable as morality is often taken for granted.  But what is moral in our society changes.  What is moral in our culture is immoral in another. We also have to consider different historical periods because when we do we realise that morality is something very much influenced by people and therefore forever changing.

When something serious is minimised (like domestic violence perpetrated by a sports star) it suggests that people should ignore or treat diffeently the actions of people because of their professional status. It also begins to invalidate the experience of the ‘victim’. Blaming the girlfriend/wife is the same as relationships in the outside world. Placing the blame on women is symptomatic of larger beliefs when it comes to domestic violence in the community. These focus on implicit understandings about the use of space and how women and men use these differently. The dominance of men in sport is a classic example of this with preference given to men in all male teams while all women are spectators along with other men (especially with AFL and rugby). Anything considered a disruption to a game of all men (such as a girlfriend) is treated with contempt. Not just by a boyfriend but by others who exist outside the world of sport.

This article from The Australian shows how anti-feminists continue to blame feminism without considering larger and more complex reasons why women choose not to have children.  While Janet Albrechtsen acknowledges that feminism did do some good for women she still believes that overall, feminism has forgotten or refuses to speak about one important issue for some women: when or if to have a baby. This issue is not usually one that factors into the lives of men to the same degree as it does for women.  While some men wonder whether they will have children with their chosen partner, women are concerned with whether their body will still be able to reproduce a child when and if they are ready.  This question over feminism and its failure to inform women over their inability to have a long term career, a baby plus an equal relationship is seriously questionable.  The fact that feminism did create this opportunity is an achievement in itself when previous generations of women had little control over their fertility and large families were common. However, it is not the fault of feminism for failing to inform women this was unachievable.   Perhaps if we use a similar line of thought we could say it is the fault of employers and therefore capitalism for failing to inform women that they were not going to fully support working women at the same time as women attempted to have children.

The time period feminism started to advocate this was very different to the one we live in now.  The prospect for social change was enormous in the late 1960s and 1970s.  The opportunity that societal attitudes would change kept a lot of social movements aiming for well intentioned social change for groups who had previously experienced society in very negative ways.  Anti-feminism has since negated this period from which feminism continued to grow and develop.  Not only is it important to consider the actual environment which social movements come from but it is important to realise that feminism does not exist in a social vacuum.  It exists in a multi-layered and complex social system with considerable bodies of knowledge where individuals and groups have given credibility to these bodies of knowledge over time.  This complex social system is often simplified by anti-feminists who see society in very simplistic terms and these provide the support and grounding for anti-feminist ideas.  One simplisitc idea is the basis for the above article; that it is the fault of feminism that women reject motherhood.  Perhaps the reason why women reject motherhood is because of the realities of being a mother.  Being a mother is not all sunshine and roses.  It is hard work that is rarely acknowledged or given credibility.  This reality has been recognised by anti-feminists themselves with a number of women consciously reinforcing the idea that mothering is a woman’s true calling.   If this is a woman’s true calling why do anti-feminists have to keep reinforcing the idea? Women who do not feel this are many and varied however anti-feminists believe that feminism is the cause of all of these feelings. Once again, this is too simplistic for the reasons why some women do not want to become mothers.

The notion of motherhood being a woman’s true calling is reinforcement of the ideas about the natural roles for women and men. The idea that something is natural underpins it as enevitable and debilitates us from making a conscious choice. While feminists were sceptical of something being ‘natural’, they have also thought about whether there could be a seperation of giving birth and being a mother in ways that differ from present day society. Instead of motherhood being a ‘role’ in a woman’s life, why couldn’t it be a woman centred experience? Feminists have written about this and how motherhood can be a postive feminist experience. Adrienne Rich first wrote about this in the 1970s and there have been a variety of books similar to this. New understandings of motherhood have evenuated including the notion of ‘mother guilt’. Perhaps the biggest difference in understandings of motherhood is who should be a mother.  The possible answers to this question have anti-feminists paradoxically opposing some women wanting to have children.   The emergence of lesbians who want to become mothers has steadily risen yet there has been increased opposition to these women and their choice of motherhood.  This opposition tells us that being a mother is more than simply giving birth but is related to a whole set of ideas around who should be a mother and who is fit to mother. It is also related to understandings of the family and how some families are given prominence over others. It also has to do with the family roles given to women and men by society and the continuing social pressure for men to ‘provide’ and for women to nurture.  Perhaps this opposition from anti-feminists about lesbian mothers is because lesbians take the notion of conscious choice to the extreme, thus showing how the idea of a woman’s ‘true calling’ is questionable.  For anti-feminists, this demonstrates the continuing influence of  feminism despite their many arguements against it.

Commonly, anti-feminists see the world in black and white. That is, it is either right or wrong. For example, something happens to B because of A. But anti-feminists don’t think that B may have had extenuating factors as to why they couldn’t perform to the standards of A. The lack of flexibility in anti-feminist arguments indicates their unwillingness to see the many shades of grey in life.