Laura Bush and feminist evangelism

A tiresome human being has vandalized the lock to my campus office (and, according to our small police force, the offices of several other faculty members.)  While I wait for our famously cheerful college locksmith, "Barney", to work his magic, I'm using the computer in the adjunct faculty lab.

Many things to blog about today, but this for starters:  Count me among those delighted that Laura Bush has chosen to refer to herself as a feminist.

In a separate interview on ABC's ``This Week'' program, the first lady described herself as a feminist. She said much of what she does internationally involves women's rights, particularly the right to an education.

``If women are educated, then they're more likely to be able to make wise and healthy decisions for their children,'' Bush, a former school teacher, said. While women in Afghanistan were once ``actually forbidden to be educated,'' now ``we see girls and women in Afghanistan hungry to be educated.''

I recognize that many of my fellow feminists in the blogosphere will wince at Laura Bush's claim.  Indeed, many have suggested that she represents the antithesis of feminism -- in comparison to her immediate predecessor as First Lady, she is perceived as far more traditional in terms of both her marriage and her public persona.   

Is Laura Bush "my kind" of feminist?  Perhaps not.  Is she someone whom we traditionally associate with feminism?  No.  Do her views line up with the majority of self-described feminists in the world?  No.  But her views on women's empowerment and education place her somewhere on what I've long argued is the broad and diverse spectrum of feminisms.  To paraphrase the Gospel, "In the feminist house, there are many rooms", and Laura Bush has made it clear she considers herself to be living in one of them.

What heartens me about the First Lady's use of the term to describe herself is that it serves as a useful corrective to the "I'm not a feminist, but..." view we hear so often from conservative young (and not so young) women.  By embracing the word feminist -- and at least some basic feminist principles (like the right to education and self-determination) -- Laura Bush gives women who might previously have paused before calling themselves "feminists" permission to take the leap and use it to describe themselves.  By making the term more acceptable to women on the center and the right of the political spectrum, she does more traditionally progressive feminists a huge service.  How many feminist organizations, how many women's studies classes, may see a boost in interest and enrollment now that the immensely popular First Lady has given feminism her explicit imprimatur? 

Once we can overcome the false perceptions and suspicions that so many folks have about feminism, we can begin the exciting process of reaching young and old alike with a powerful message about justice, about happiness, about equality, about autonomy.  In calling herself a "feminist", Laura Bush has given those of us who work in this field a powerful new angle for evangelism as we work to reach the previously unreached.

Comments

[Tara]

I think I agree with you that this is really cool. On the other hand, sometimes it seems like the only women referring to themselves as feminists are those far on the left, who believe unreservedly in autonomy and empowerment for women and recognize the existence of sexism 'even' in the United States, and those far on the right, who seem to capitalize on the term feminist to legitimize views that actually wilfully obscure sexism in our own backyard.

[Hugo]

That's fair, Tara -- reaching the "silent majority" is clearly the task before us...

[ku nkiko]

I agree with you in some ways, but at the same time it does seem a lot to me like the whole bait-and-switch bit the right pulls so often. They attempt to co-opt a word or a concept so that they can make a point wholly inconsistant with that concept. Like the "women's rights" advocates who are against abortion on account of it being just like "another rape," which Amanda talked about recently in her post over at Pandagon: http://pandagon.net/2006/05/14/anti-choice-pseudo-feminism/

I think I'd almost rather people not associate themselves with the word so long as they're not going to associate with what it means - since when does Laura Bush believe in autonomy for women?

[Anthony]

Ku Nkiko - why do you say that Laura Bush doesn't believe in autonomy for women? Just because she's married, and didn't have paying jobs whie raising her children? Or because she's a Republican and married to a Republican?

By helping women in Afghanistan get education, she's doing far, far more for autonomy for women than most feminists in the US who want to make economic relations ever more regulated by the government.

[Hugo]

I think these internecine battles among feminists (or socialists, or Baptists, etc.) are tragic -- and perhaps unavoidable. Somehow, there will always be a struggle between those who insist that to belong to the group one must assent to a very specific list of essentials from which no deviation will be tolerated, and those who advocate a more inclusive approach that acknowledges many roads to accomplishing the great goal (be it healing the world, fulfilling the great commission, seeing the revolution come, or creating a world where women are seen as equals to men.)

[brian423]

Now that you're back from your family business, Hugo, I would greatly appreciate a reply to my previous comment:
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/10/jessica_at_femi.html#comment-17118620

[The Gonzman]

But there is no Feminism Purity Police....

[Amanda Marcotte]

To me this actually says something else, which is that BushCo is desperate to put a feminist-friendly face on very anti-woman policies. This is only heartening in that it's evidence that the word "feminist" isn't as scary as we are commonly led to believe.

[ku nkiko]

Well, she certainly doesn't believe women can marry other women, or decide what to do about unwanted pregnancies in their bodies. She doesn't believe that women should receive an education so far as it concerns those things she believes conflict with her husband's faith, i.e., evolution. She doesn't believe that women should be free to raise their children with health care, or decent educational systems. And etc. etc. etc. repeat until convinced.

Education is not everything. It is a lot of things, but it is not everything. It is not an end to FGM, or to forced marriages, or to forced pregnancies, or to forced motherhood. It is not an end to sexual assault committed against women. It is not the vote. It is not freedom to marry. It is not ownership of their own bodies.

[Hugo]

Actually, I don't know that we know all of those things, ku nkiko. Where is your evidence that she doesn't believe in decent educational systems? Or are you judging her by her husband's policies rather than by her own statements?

[Anthony]

Ku Nkiko - other than the abortion issue, where is the evidence that Mrs. Bush believes that *women* should be specially disabled in this way. Even if she believes that creationism or ID/IOT should be taught in schools, show me that she believes that men should not be taught the same thing. Show me that she believes that *men* should get health care but that women should not.

A huge problem that feminism faces is that it has won its political battles, which means either moving into the messier and more difficult realm of non-political personal relationships, or of trying to generate ever more hysteria over ever smaller issues to justify the existence of large political lobbying groups. The former work is respectable, even though it's difficult, and will face more *reasonable* opposition than political feminism did. Generating political hysteria is never respectable, no matter who does it. Hugo is doing the respectable thing to advance feminism. You're not.