The vocal feminist minority

In a recent column

While I don’t intend to attack Mendelsohn’s column, I’d like to give historical context to his comments, as I understand them.

First, the concept of “good feminists” and “bad feminists” is not new. In 1989, when denied a promotion to partner, Ann Hopkins sued the top accounting firm for which she worked. Partners had made comments on the record calling her too “macho,” advising against promotion until Hopkins chose to “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear makeup, have her hair styled and wear jewelry.”

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the firm noted that it had been relatively early to promote other women and pointed to these proper ladies as the true pioneers for women’s equality. The men (and women) at the firm probably would have told Hopkins that to fight sexism, she should put on heels. But the Supreme Court sided with Hopkins, saying that freedom from gender discrimination included freedom from conformance to particular gender expectations.

My point is that anyone fighting against systemic inequality is going to be seen as radical. Additionally, it is no surprise that society and institutions of power support the least radical of social reformers.

The often-cited example of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois comes to mind. Washington was more acceptable to white society because he asked less of it, while Du Bois brought up uncomfortable truths about the legacies of slavery. Being radical in an unjust society is not unreasonable, but imperative. There are plenty of people today who think sexism is no longer a problem; there were just as many in 1950. I would suggest that there isn’t a “vocal minority of the feminist movement.” Feminists are, and have always been, the vocal minority.

I have a gay friend in my residential college who, when I told him I had been raised in a gay family, confessed that he resented the overly flamboyant gays whom he sees as setting back the movement. While I understood his point, I asked him what types of people he thought started the gay rights movement. What types of people did he think rioted at Stonewall? Who did he think had been targeted in gay bashings? Today, a gay couple can be socially accepted if they live “conservatively,” but had it not been for the brave and fabulous crusaders who risked their jobs, families and lives for social change, most would either be closeted or dead.

Mendelsohn claimed that the fight for gender equality is not a war of attrition, but a hearts-and-minds campaign. Yet rational arguments have rarely changed hearts and minds; they are used as excuses once hearts and minds have been forced to change. A good conversation would not have made Hopkins partner. Petitions would not have stopped gay bashings. Radicals shift the public discourse to move once-marginal views into the mainstream and make old beliefs unacceptable.

Even if Mendelsohn’s actions were innocent, can’t innocent actions still carry larger legacies of discrimination? Most students have jokingly called a friend “bitch.” Even if colloquial use of the term is not inherently wrong, one can still acknowledge its sexist legacy.

In that sense, the idea of male physical superiority has such a legacy. This idea has justified male control over women for women’s protection. Paternalism fundamentally denies female equality and autonomy, albeit in the nicest ways possible. Just as one can object to “bitch” even in its current neutered form, one can find the remnants of paternalism to be objectionable, even if the active ideology is no longer present.

People can have equally valid opinions about what is offensive, so the key is that we try to be respectful of the views of others, especially when no accusation of intentional sexism is made.

My fellow white males, do you ever feel that political correctness forces you to conform to an invisible set of norms and expectations and to always watch what you say and who you are saying it to? Welcome to how gender norms and racial stereotypes have made most women and minorities in America feel every day of their lives for more than 200 years.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Perhaps Mendelsohn’s friend owes him an apology, but I think he owes her one as well. Rational people can respectfully disagree about what is paternalistic or sexist. These debates are how we have always made progress. Only by having them can we police the line that so many have given so much to draw.

Allen Paltrow-Krulwich is a freshman from New York, N.Y. He can be reached at apaltrow@princeton.edu.