A dedicated reader commented on my recent post about the flap caused by Natalie Portman thanking her fiance at the Oscars ceremony for giving her “the most important role in her life.” His view of what he calls “modern” feminism in the US appears to be a composite of stereotypes of women who, the story goes, value wealth and career success above family, masculine appearance above femininity, and arrogance above God-fearing modesty. The stereotypical modern feminist, in the picture painted by my reader, is a short-haired, artificially flat-chested, pro-abortion, plain-faced woman averse to commitment. I have known and seen many radical feminists in my time, and have never seen one who embodies all of these characteristics. Andrea Dworkin’s radical feminist credentials are unparalleled, but her hair has never been short. The only women I know who make their bustlines smaller are those who undergo surgical reductions, which reduce their chance of breast cancer and chronic back problems. Abortion is seen as a difficult choice for women, but a choice nonetheless, and one which is permissible in certain circumstances by halacha. Make-up, too, is a choice. And nearly every feminist I’ve known or known of has been in a committed relationship (granted, sometimes it’s been with another woman, but that didn’t make the short list of the stereotypical feminist.) These stereotypes may have sprung from small grains of truth, but they are far from reflecting my experience of feminism in the US. (I was a full-time American before I made aliyah, went to a women’s college, and took my share of women’s studies classes there.) I understand that the impression this reader and probably many others have of this brand of feminism is negative, but since one of my little dreams in this blog is to get people to think and question, rather than just say, “Right on, Shimshonit!”, I’d like to spend a little time on this topic.
The way women are supposed to look in the modern world is worth examining in a historical and sociological context. Anyone who pays any attention to the history of art knows that the image of the ideal woman has changed over time. In the ancient world, fertility goddesses were full-figured. Egyptians created goddess images of lean, long-legged, small-breasted women, but the Greeks filled this image out a little more. Once Western art caught up to the Greek (we’re skipping the Medieval era here), women filled out again, reaching the Rococo period when beautiful women were positively zaftig. At the turn of the 20th century, Aubrey Beardsley starved his women back down to pencil-thin, and by the 1920s, the image of the short-haired, flat-chested, boyish-looking woman in low-cut, sleeveless, high-hemmed dresses was shocking at first, but nonetheless became an ideal, if not a norm. Mae West and later, to a smaller degree, Marilyn Monroe (who was not as plump as some would claim, since sizing standards changed, making numbers smaller for the same size) gave women a slight reprieve, but then Twiggy came on the scene, and that was the end of the normally-proportioned supermodel. Whether slender and athletic, like Elle MacPherson or Brooke Shields, or half-starved and sleep-deprived, like Kate Moss, thin became the rule, and has been rigidly enforced by photo-altering software (which was once used to slim down magazine photos of a plump, peachy Kate Winslet, to her outrage).
Shape has undergone changes over the ages, as have other features. In my college days, women with impeccable feminist cred would often refrain from shaving their legs. When I traveled to Germany after college on a six-month world tour, this was how I looked, and with my reasonably well-accented German, I passed for native with more than one unsuspecting person. (I was even told in a youth hostel that I couldn’t possibly be American, since I didn’t have smooth legs, lots of make-up, and big hair. It turned out the extent of this person’s knowledge of America was from “Dynasty.”) I heard once that in France at least, the only women who shaved their legs until recent decades were prostitutes. Now, of course, smooth skin is expected of a well-groomed woman, regardless of profession. If the women chosen as supermodels are anything to judge the ideal female by, even skin, large eyes, and full, colored lips are the marks of beauty. So let’s tally it up for a moment; what sort of creature sports soft, smooth, perfect skin, wide eyes, and bright red lips? A baby. (Isn’t that what they call women in rock ‘n’ roll and blues songs? And ask her, “Who’s your daddy?”) Take away the fat and add lots of long hair, and you have the ideal woman. Don’t have those features? Then Botox, collagen, make-up, plastic surgery, laser hair removal, diets, drugs, and pricey hair treatments await. Personally, I like to keep people’s expectations of my daily appearance low, so I avoid that stuff and only take out the make-up (some of which is left over from my wedding 11 years ago) for weddings and bar mitzvahs. I think people should look at a woman with eyes more interested in seeing what’s in her soul than what’s on the surface.
The point of my post, which I hope didn’t get lost in the bit of ranting I did, is that feminism is a good thing, but only when it’s channeled toward healthy choices for each individual. It’s decidedly NOT good if it’s used to make women feel guilty (either for staying home or for going back to work after having a child) or to condemn their choices. It’s not a stick to beat women with who either try to make the most of their appearance, or don’t spend excessive amounts of money on cosmetics and time in front of a mirror. It’s not the sole address of who’s responsible for unwanted pregnancy. (There was someone else involved, remember, but he doesn’t have to face society’s scorn because it doesn’t show on him and he isn’t the one who has to choose the path his life will take, with or without a baby.) It’s what’s responsible for relieving women’s honorifics of their tie to marital status (something that has never affected men). If women hadn’t fought hard for the right to vote, it would never have been offered them willingly by men. Without feminism, women would still be considered chattel in society.
I was grateful for Rav Averick’s support of women who choose motherhood. I’ve been viewed as a wastrel and a shiftless layabout by dozens of people since choosing to be the primary caregiver in my children’s lives. (Apparently, unless one is being paid to care for children, it doesn’t carry the same merit.) But I also thought his criticism of Wildman’s piece was harsh in its condemnation of the inevitable questions that come up when women see other women hold up motherhood as the ideal state. That hearkens back painfully to the 1950s (and later) when motherhood was considered by society to be the fulfillment of womanhood, and the only desired result of a woman’s higher education, marriage, and (temporary) career. It’s inevitable that comments like Portman’s will provoke a response from feminists. But I found the substance of the feminist buzz and reactions to Portman’s comments to be full of willful misunderstandings and overreactions to her words. The whole thing, on both sides, was in bad taste, as is so much of what passes for news and commentary.
Feminism took women out of the private sphere and gave them the opportunity to become actors in the public sphere. It gave them the vote, the chance to hold office, to influence policy, to own property and enjoy full rights as citizens. One of the things women have attempted to do is to secure the right to keep others out of their personal decision-making. When a public furor erupts over a woman’s stated preference for a public, professional life (as happened to Sarah Palin) or for motherhood, the public reaction seems to be the same, to excoriate the woman for doing what she’s doing, and not doing what she’s not. When people finally look at a woman — as they would look at any man — and judge her based on the quality of what she’s doing rather than on what they think she supposed to be doing, then feminism will finally have succeeded.
Shimshonit 
Thanks for writing such an extensive reply to my comment under your earlier post.
First and foremost, I chose my words carefully when I posted. I specifically used the term “hardcore” to describe the list of beliefs I made, since there are of course shades of gray as to just how far feminists take their beliefs in this matter. Whether or not any feminist is entirely black (i.e. adopting all of the beliefs in the list) is admittedly debatable, but just because some feminist who has been labeled as “radical” does not cut her hair does not mean that there aren’t “radical” feminists who don’t cut their hair including, for instance, Mary Daly. And she embodies every characteristic on that list except for binding her chest.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to arrive at when you bring up society’s infatuation with youth. Maybe you’re trying to claim that a focus on abortion is subconsciously an attempt to keep oneself relativistically younger compared to the population at large, by preventing the appearance of genuine youth? Of course society’s infatuation with youth has nothing to do with feminism as it is not the exlusive object of infatuation by women. Mens’ interest magazines portray very muscular men, strength being the domain of young men, including such musculature being visible in the abdominal area where it is impossible to be found on older men. I never see men with gray hair being depicted as sex symbols in any segment of the media; the oldest such male characters that come to mind would be James Bond who is arguably no older than 35 in any of his films. Certainly there are older male characters who make snide, suggestive comments but they are never actually filmed doing anything suggestive or otherwise. Indeed, counter-examples abound in such films such The Rebound (Catherine Zeta Jones) that continue to portray women as sexual beings going into their 40’s as well as the immortality of figures such as Madonna, who released in 2005 at the “ripe old age” of 48 her single “Hung Up”, the video of which (on YouTube) is unmistakably her trying to deny that she isn’t 25 anymore. My point? Shades of gray…
I think what I was trying to get to in my division of classical vs. modern feminism is that I agree with you that feminism is valuable as a means of encouraging women to be pro-active. Certainly women should find out about the world and vote accordingly. Certainly women should not spend their days on idleness just waiting for suitors and should instead get a career. Certainly women should try to advance in their careers. Certainly women should be able to make their own decisions as to the state of their marriage and seek a divorce if her marriage cannot be salvaged (abusive husband or otherwise). These are all, as you put it, “healthy choices”, put forth as part of the feminist platform, and sanctioned under halacha (an agunah still has redress against a husband who will not give her a get because the beit din in her community will pressure her husband to give her a get. This kind of pressure is of course halachically acceptable).
But there’s a point where we all have to put our foot down and realize that many of the contentious issues today are no longer about healthy choices but the pursuit of passion and desire. Abortion as intentional strategy at the time of conception to avoid childbirth (which is not allowed by halacha, since the only time abortion is allowed in halacha is when the woman’s life is in danger etc. which is post-conception) is NEVER a healthy choice (and those who doubt me on that can view the mountains of physical evidence showing that abortions sometimes interfere with a woman’s later desire to have children, as well as the similar but separate mountains of psychological evidence as to the negative psychological effects that many if not most women go through after having an abortion). Motherhood is, for married members of the population, always a healthy choice (at least for the first child, financial health may become a question down the line…). The opposition by American conservatives to abortion laws etc. is under the religious ideal that young girls aren’t having sex, and that young girls therefore won’t need to get abortions in order to not wreck their future lives. We can’t simply resign to a fatalist worldview and say that our teenage daughters will get pregnant regardless of what we do, because that’s not the Torah way. We have to understand that these new feminist ideologies (pro-choice etc.) cannot be reconciled with halacha, although we can still proclaim that we support the older feminist ideologies (pro-suffrage etc.). This is what I’m trying to get to with classical vs. modern feminism – that I can support a classical feminism that is in-line with halacha, but that I cannot support a modern feminism that is not in-line with halacha. Since “feminism” today as a stand-alone term designates “modern feminism”, I cannot describe myself as a feminist – that doesn’t mean that there aren’t feminist positions which I do not support.
Sol: My discussion of women’s appearance was based on the fact that three out of five of your descriptors of far-out feminists were physical in nature, and not on society’s obsession with youth. (And not that it’s my point at all, but Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery, George Clooney, Harrison Ford, and dozens of other older men have been touted as sex symbols well into their 50s and 60s.)
My feminist views are divided into two categories: the political and the personal. In the political arena, I support greater freedoms for women in society, since attempts to limit women’s freedom often come at the behest of groups which demonize women in general, and would like to see all of society conform to their group’s own religious beliefs. Privately, I support organizations like Efrat (not my town) in Israel, which provides assistance to women who cannot keep their children, but need help to carry them to term before putting them up for adoption. I also teach my daughters that sex is something that belongs in marriage, where both partners are committed to the care and rearing of children. I explain (when they ask) that while children are sometimes born out of wedlock, it is difficult emotionally, financially, and socially for parents and children in that situation, and that children are much more likely to grow up happy, healthy, and successful with the security of an intact family around them.
My political feminist views (regarding the US especially) are founded on the belief that I have no more right to impose halacha on non-Jews than they have to impose their pagan views on me. I understand your views, but cannot share them when I think they compromise the freedom, health, and safety of all women. The fatalism about teen pregnancy you eschew is simply the flip side of the coin of shame and punishment Christian fanatics wish to see visited on girls who conceive out of wedlock (but not the males who impregnated them). I believe in acting to change the conditions in society which lead to unwanted pregnancy through education, affordable and accessible health care, and influencing the culture through means other than shame, empty religious slogans, and scare tactics.
I think we understand each other’s opinions on this matter; I just wanted to clarify for any other readers my purpose in this post.