Feminists Too Often End Up In the Rear Seat
In theory, feminists are a crucial part of the Left coalition. In practice, males run things and set aside women's concerns
I was recently driving on one of the local interstates and saw a billboard inviting women to apply to become surrogate mothers. Surrogate motherhood is big business and has been an unimaginable help to infertile and gay and lesbian parents. But it made me think, because back when I was in high school and college, surrogate motherhood was incredibly controversial. One of the early court cases involving a surrogate mother, Mary Beth Whitehead, resulted in a bitter custody battle between Ms. Whitehead and the couple for whom she had agreed to provide surrogacy services. And I distinctly remember something else about this— feminists took the side of Ms. Whitehead, the surrogate mother.
This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the arguments against surrogacy are much like the arguments about sex work, except turned up to eleven. Surrogacy contracts rent out the reproductive system of, usually, poor women, and require them to bear all the pain and burdens of a pregnancy for the sake of a person or couple with enough money to pay to use her body. Feminists don’t like this sort of thing. But importantly, another group that the Left cares very much about— gays— desperately want it, as it allows them to conceive a child with some of their genetic material and have the joy of a newborn baby in their life.
I’m not going to resolve the issues relating to surrogate motherhood here. Suffice to say that the important point for this essay is that feminists had a legitimate argument— indeed, it’s really hard to sustain a critique of sex work and various other forms of alleged exploitation of the female body while saying that it’s just fine to put a woman out of commission for nine months and through the severe pains and burdens of pregnancy and childbirth just because someone with a lot of money wants a genetically related newborn. But they lost it. And not only they lost it, but society has forgotten the argument was even made as surrogacy as become so much a part of life that celebrities routinely use it and it shows up on highway billboards.
If this were a one-off it would not be so interesting. But it isn’t. It’s part of a longstanding pattern where whenever a feminist position conflicts with any other member of the Left coalition, the women always lose out:
During the OJ Simpson trial, the acquittal of Simpson became a left-wing civil rights priority to send a message about police mistreatment of Blacks. The fact that Simpson was a vicious domestic abuser, and he and his defense team repeatedly minimized the brutal violence he inflicted on his late wife, was put on the back burner.
The credible allegations of sexual harassment, rape, and abuse of power against Bill Clinton were minimized and the women who made them treated like stalkers and floozies.
The sexist insult “Karen” quickly became a standard part of left-wing discourse to become the latest acceptable derogatory description for assertive women.
As trans rights became a left wing cause, feminists who expressed concern about the sanctity of women’s spaces including changing rooms, prisons, and sports got labeled transphobes and bigots.
The demand was made of lesbians that they repudiate their sexual orientation and sleep with assigned males with penises whom they are not sexually attracted to in order to show their enlightenment and tolerance.
All feminist concerns about pornography have been forgotten as society has become awash in material that is far more degrading and depicts far more abuse of women than the material that causes feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon to raise complaints in the 1980’s.
All feminist concerns about sex work have been subordinated to arguments for its legalization and decriminalization.
What do all of these things have in common? It’s pretty simple. When feminist goals come into conflict with other parts of the Left coalition, it’s always the feminists who get the shaft.
This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, during the heyday of Left activism in the 1960’s, many of the men who ran the movement maintained blatantly misogynist postures and mistreated women. But that was before the successes of second wave feminism, which included everything from abortion rights (since, sadly, rolled back) to the right of married women to have their own finances. One would think that the position of feminists would be more secure within the Left after all those victories and the entry of large numbers of feminist women into politics, Left activism, and advocacy groups.
But the evidence instead shows that women are still, within the Left, treated like the second sex, and their concerns are dismissed whenever they come in conflict with other goals.
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying there are not counterarguments with respect to some of these issues or that feminists should win every intra-coalitional fight. But what’s striking is the sense in which feminist arguments have not only been rejected, but forgotten. When’s the last time you’ve even heard a feminist articulate the feminist critique against the renting of women’s bodies to become surrogates? And it’s worth noting- it’s not like the form of that argument is unfamiliar; we’ve all heard references to dystopian scenarios like The Handmaid’s Tale in the abortion debate. It’s not at all like the Left has forgotten that hijacking a woman’s body in nine months to produce a baby that may be given up for adoption is a problematic scenario. Rather, it has just conveniently forgotten that feminists made the same argument about surrogacy, because that would require asking other coalition members (gays) to consider the views of women.
And that, in the end, is why this situation is such a problem. The Left gets a lot of support from feminists and has for many decades. That support should have at least bought feminists a seat at the table where feminist concerns are heard and taken seriously. Instead, feminists are taken for granted, and the interests of women are treated as disposable and unworthy even of serious discussion. Feminists are owed more than that.
A quote from the essay: "This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, during the heyday of Left activism in the 1960’s, many of the men who ran the movement maintained blatantly misogynist postures and mistreated women."
I saw some of this in real time when I was in college in the late 60's & early 70's. I was the manager of a bar that was popular with grad students and leftists. People from SDS, women's liberation, gay activists, and other liberal causes often came to have a few beers and talk after their constant meetings. A prominent member of the SDS was married and he often came to the bar with his wife where his girlfriend was waiting at the big table they always formed in the middle of the room. I remember how sad the man's wife seemed to be sitting at that table. He was not the only leftwing male activist who used women in this way. One who cooked and did the chores and a side piece or two to make life more interesting - for him.
Really interesting!
> When feminist goals come into conflict with other parts of the Left coalition, it’s always the feminists who get the shaft.
You've made a strong case, but I don't think "always" is accurate, and it may even be the case that they win and lose precisely proportional to their size in the coalition. The key is clearly distinguishing "Feminists" from "women", further delineating various feminist positions from one another, and finally, thinking about the sociology of feminism on the left.
Maybe that's all too abstract. I'm really just saying that the examples you listed are extremely varied; different levels of salience, impact, popularity among feminists, *and* popularity on the left. For example, the conflict between trans activists and feminists is really a conflict with a _subset_ of feminists. You might argue that "gender critical" feminists are the real feminists, and I'd be inclined to agree, but it does mean that we're talking about a smaller number of coalition members than the broadest construction of "feminist" implies. More importantly, the conflict isn't settled! I strongly suspect most leftists would prefer that trans activists moderated their rhetoric and demands.
Alternately, take the pornography question. Whatever you think about pornography, Dworkin and McKinnon are marginal figures with very little influence on the left in 2024. Meghan Murphy notwithstanding, they have very few visible champions today, much less influential ones.
Do feminists ever win? All of my quibbles are irrelevant if feminists never win intra-coalitional conflicts. But feminists have a cluster of decisive wins where they are most numerous and strongest: in universities and professional-managerial environments, particularly relating to procedures related to sexual harassment and abuse. This is not to say that feminists have gotten everything)they want or that their victories have even made their lives better, just that those cases frequently create intra-coalitional crises - and feminists prevail more often than not. Even when they don't lose in the specific instance, their principles carry the day.