// essays //
December 2015
Of Feminism and Fiorina:
Is Carly Fiorina Really Part of the War on Women?
Daniella J. Greenbaum
“Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women—to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology,” or at least, so claims Carly Fiorina in one November Facebook post. If she’s right, the movement whose core tenet is a desperate search for equality now excludes fifty percent of the nation.
This Republican presidential candidate—and her ostensibly anti-women views—has thrust liberals into a dizzying ideological bind. Many feminists find themselves aghast at sharing a label with a woman who is pro-life, anti-government-mandated maternity leave, and in their estimation, just one more weapon in the grand arsenal in the ‘war on women.’ And yet, for women on both sides of the aisle there is a certain inexplicable pride in seeing one woman, surrounded on all sides by men with far more political experience, comfortably and confidently holding her own.
To Ms. Fiorina’s credit, she has hardly campaigned as a woman running for president. Rather than trying to entice would-be voters by inviting them to “make history”—as did GOP primary candidate Elizabeth Dole in her 1999 campaign—Ms. Fiorina brands herself as a person running for president, who also happens to be a woman. But instead of commending her for refraining from playing the most obvious card in her hand, mainstream media has churned out article after article challenging her identity as a feminist. Rather than debating the merits of her policies, pundits seem more interested in Fiorina’s personality. The New York Times Opinion Page dedicated an entire ‘Room for Debate’ segment to the burning question “Is Carly Fiorina a Feminist?” and featured five columns worth of answers. It seems unlikely that they would devote the same inch-space to debating whether Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Some identities are not permissible for questioning in the polite civility of the politically correct world. But Carly Fiorina’s feminism—predicated on the radical idea that women should be able to choose how to live and think themselves—is not afforded that same protection.
The reality is that Ms. Fiorina puts a good face to feminism. Confronting male competition and criticism, she has maintained composure, grace, and strength. She has risen to the top of several industries, and regardless of how this election cycle turns out, she has built a lasting legacy for herself. This campaign season has been the year of outsiders for the GOP. With Messrs. Trump and Carson jockeying for first place in the polls, it isn’t surprising that Ms. Fiorina, too, is getting more than her fair share of press coverage. But while Trump seems to relish in his shoot-from-the-hip, know-nothing aura, and Carson has had an endless supply of gaffes, Fiorina has excelled in all the debates, coming across as knowledgeable and nuanced. Whatever you might think of her policies, she is a serious candidate in a way neither of them ever could be, and she should be treated as such.
In that same November Facebook post Ms. Fiorina contends, “being empowered means having a voice. But ideological feminism shuts down conversation—on college campuses and in the media.” “If you are a man—or a woman—” she writes, “who doesn’t believe in the litanies of the left, then you are ‘waging a war on women.’” A success of the feminist movement is the rejection of a worldview that looked at women as an archetype—the housewife; the nurturer; the caretaker; the helpmeet—and instead championed them as independent individuals, capable of making choices about their professional and personal trajectories. Gender is not a weighty factor in the way people think, act, or and vote. Issues should sway opinion, not gender identity. Instead of haranguing Ms. Fiorina for her perspective on feminism—and how that perspective shapes her policies—feminists on both sides of the aisle should celebrate the fact that there are two fiercely intelligent, bold women running for president.
It is worth mentioning that Hillary Clinton, the other female presidential candidate, has not been exempt from the same strain of witch-hunting and identity-questioning that has plagued Ms. Fiorina, though it has been significantly less prolific. Millennials in particular have questioned Ms. Clinton’s dedication to feminism by examining her record on minority rights. These activists, proponents of a warped rendition of intersectionality, essentially argue that if Ms. Clinton does not share their agenda on gay rights, trans rights and immigration issues, then her feminism is somehow less valid than theirs. Their claim, in other words, is that feminism is no longer singularly focused on advancing women’s rights, but must instead include a wider array of political interests. As is the case with Ms. Fiorina’s detractors, the focus is not on the strengths or weaknesses of Ms. Clinton as a candidate, but rather on how her individual choices align with an identity that has been projected upon her. If Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wasted as much time and mental energy trying to define their movement, I wonder if women would yet have the right to vote.
As a woman and as a feminist, I’m tired of hearing about how Ms. Fiorina’s win might affect every minute detail in the lives of women. The extent to which her viewpoints are or are not in line with first, second, or third wave feminism is old, and uninteresting, news. More importantly, it is simply irrelevant. She never asked to be or positioned herself as the representative of all women, and she isn’t running to be the president of women. Ms. Fiorina is running for the highest office in the land. She is running to be the President of the United States. It is imperative that men and women alike judge her purely on her ability to do that job.
//DANIELLA J. GREENBAUM is a Junior in Barnard College. She can be reached at [email protected]. Photo courtesy of flickr user Gage Skidmore.
December 2015
Of Feminism and Fiorina:
Is Carly Fiorina Really Part of the War on Women?
Daniella J. Greenbaum
“Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women—to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology,” or at least, so claims Carly Fiorina in one November Facebook post. If she’s right, the movement whose core tenet is a desperate search for equality now excludes fifty percent of the nation.
This Republican presidential candidate—and her ostensibly anti-women views—has thrust liberals into a dizzying ideological bind. Many feminists find themselves aghast at sharing a label with a woman who is pro-life, anti-government-mandated maternity leave, and in their estimation, just one more weapon in the grand arsenal in the ‘war on women.’ And yet, for women on both sides of the aisle there is a certain inexplicable pride in seeing one woman, surrounded on all sides by men with far more political experience, comfortably and confidently holding her own.
To Ms. Fiorina’s credit, she has hardly campaigned as a woman running for president. Rather than trying to entice would-be voters by inviting them to “make history”—as did GOP primary candidate Elizabeth Dole in her 1999 campaign—Ms. Fiorina brands herself as a person running for president, who also happens to be a woman. But instead of commending her for refraining from playing the most obvious card in her hand, mainstream media has churned out article after article challenging her identity as a feminist. Rather than debating the merits of her policies, pundits seem more interested in Fiorina’s personality. The New York Times Opinion Page dedicated an entire ‘Room for Debate’ segment to the burning question “Is Carly Fiorina a Feminist?” and featured five columns worth of answers. It seems unlikely that they would devote the same inch-space to debating whether Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Some identities are not permissible for questioning in the polite civility of the politically correct world. But Carly Fiorina’s feminism—predicated on the radical idea that women should be able to choose how to live and think themselves—is not afforded that same protection.
The reality is that Ms. Fiorina puts a good face to feminism. Confronting male competition and criticism, she has maintained composure, grace, and strength. She has risen to the top of several industries, and regardless of how this election cycle turns out, she has built a lasting legacy for herself. This campaign season has been the year of outsiders for the GOP. With Messrs. Trump and Carson jockeying for first place in the polls, it isn’t surprising that Ms. Fiorina, too, is getting more than her fair share of press coverage. But while Trump seems to relish in his shoot-from-the-hip, know-nothing aura, and Carson has had an endless supply of gaffes, Fiorina has excelled in all the debates, coming across as knowledgeable and nuanced. Whatever you might think of her policies, she is a serious candidate in a way neither of them ever could be, and she should be treated as such.
In that same November Facebook post Ms. Fiorina contends, “being empowered means having a voice. But ideological feminism shuts down conversation—on college campuses and in the media.” “If you are a man—or a woman—” she writes, “who doesn’t believe in the litanies of the left, then you are ‘waging a war on women.’” A success of the feminist movement is the rejection of a worldview that looked at women as an archetype—the housewife; the nurturer; the caretaker; the helpmeet—and instead championed them as independent individuals, capable of making choices about their professional and personal trajectories. Gender is not a weighty factor in the way people think, act, or and vote. Issues should sway opinion, not gender identity. Instead of haranguing Ms. Fiorina for her perspective on feminism—and how that perspective shapes her policies—feminists on both sides of the aisle should celebrate the fact that there are two fiercely intelligent, bold women running for president.
It is worth mentioning that Hillary Clinton, the other female presidential candidate, has not been exempt from the same strain of witch-hunting and identity-questioning that has plagued Ms. Fiorina, though it has been significantly less prolific. Millennials in particular have questioned Ms. Clinton’s dedication to feminism by examining her record on minority rights. These activists, proponents of a warped rendition of intersectionality, essentially argue that if Ms. Clinton does not share their agenda on gay rights, trans rights and immigration issues, then her feminism is somehow less valid than theirs. Their claim, in other words, is that feminism is no longer singularly focused on advancing women’s rights, but must instead include a wider array of political interests. As is the case with Ms. Fiorina’s detractors, the focus is not on the strengths or weaknesses of Ms. Clinton as a candidate, but rather on how her individual choices align with an identity that has been projected upon her. If Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wasted as much time and mental energy trying to define their movement, I wonder if women would yet have the right to vote.
As a woman and as a feminist, I’m tired of hearing about how Ms. Fiorina’s win might affect every minute detail in the lives of women. The extent to which her viewpoints are or are not in line with first, second, or third wave feminism is old, and uninteresting, news. More importantly, it is simply irrelevant. She never asked to be or positioned herself as the representative of all women, and she isn’t running to be the president of women. Ms. Fiorina is running for the highest office in the land. She is running to be the President of the United States. It is imperative that men and women alike judge her purely on her ability to do that job.
//DANIELLA J. GREENBAUM is a Junior in Barnard College. She can be reached at [email protected]. Photo courtesy of flickr user Gage Skidmore.