'Chicks on the Right' Think Liberal Feminists Are Doing it Wrong

Two conservative bloggers are decrying the left's "screeching" (?) brand of feminism. Instead, they say they'll show us "what real feminism looks like."
Publish date:
August 14, 2013
feminism, feminists, liberal, conservative feminist, the right, conservatism, the left

Lefty feminists: You’re doing it SOOOOOOO wrong. That's according to a couple of female bloggers and radio hosts who call themselves Chicks on the Right. Get ready, because these ladies are pissed, and they've come to school us all on "real feminism."

In an op-ed for the newspaper IndyStar, two conservative women using cutesy pseudonyms for no apparent reason (Amy Jo Clark, aka "Daisy," and Miriam Weaver, aka "Mockarena") argue that assh*le liberals have been giving feminism a bad name for too goddamn long, goddammit.

The duo seem to believe that the sole qualification for being a feminist is to loudly proclaim yourself one. And though there's a kernel of truth to the idea that feminism is a self-policing thing (i.e., there's no feminist gestapo that'll come kicking down your door at night to oust you from the Swanky Fem Club), it's certainly not the whole picture. (I mean, here I was, idiotically thinking feminism was about equal pay for equal work, and social justice, and yes, the radical notion that women are real, live HUMAN BEINGS who deserve the same rights and privileges as men.) Apparently, anything these ladies spout off can and should be considered insta-feminist because they wrote it, and they are female, and THEREBY ANYTHING THEY THINK, DO OR SAY IS FEMINIST.

I'm not sure it works that way, but what do I know? I’m just a hysterical liberal who “[screeches] 'WAR ON WOMEN!' the second [I’m] faced with challenges.”

Anyway, in the spirit of generosity, I'll take a look at a few of the Chicks' more strident assertions to see whether there’s anything I remotely agree with.

STATEMENT 1: “If our husbands ever decided to leave and trade us in for younger models, we’d be emotionally devastated, sure. But we’d survive ... With or without them, we’d be OK.”

Alright, sure, that makes sense. I'll give this one to the Chicks. I may not have a husband right now, but I agree that having some guy turn me in for a “younger model” (or for ANY model, for that matter) would, indeed, be painful. And I agree with the notion of women being OK “with or without” a man. I’ve been single for a long-ass time, and yet somehow I manage to generally be OK, I think. I live alone. I get along. I pay my own way. I manage to have fun. I endure.

STATEMENT 2: Real feminism is defined by women who can, and do, take care of themselves. Real feminists don’t look for a Prince Charming to rescue them, and they don’t look for a handout."

I agree with these statements, but only somewhat. Yes, many feminists can and do take care of themselves. But does that mean a 15-year-old who still lives with (AKA mooches off) her parents but publishes a feminist zine and volunteers at an abortion clinic can't call herself a feminist? What about a second-wave feminist scholar with a medical condition that renders her unable to work? If she accepts disability payments, is she just "looking for a handout," and does her disability automatically oust her from the Feminist Party? I do not think so. I do, of course, agree with the "um, duh" idea that no woman should be sitting around waiting around for a prince to swoop in and rescue her. (We'd be waiting forever if we waited for that.)

STATEMENT 3: "Today’s Democratic platform has centered its messaging on a manufactured 'War on Women"'... Well, NOTHING is free. And relying on taxpayers to pay for your 'reproductive choices' isn’t strength. If you think that government should and will take care of you from cradle to grave, you’re no different than the chick who hopes to land an old, rich dude ..."

Whoa, Nelly. This one's going off the rails a little bit and I can't say I agree with any of it because it's just kind of ... bullsh*t. Who said anything about wanting or expecting the government to fund us from "cradle to grave"? As Erin Gloria Ryan wrote at Jezebel, "Does it occur to the Chicks on the Right that... other women are people too? That other human beings who are not ourselves and our immediate families deserve access to living a dignified, healthy life?"

STATEMENT 4: "Liberal feminism has morphed into a laughable movement filled with harpies who hold up signs saying, “Hoes before embryos” while defining themselves entirely by their 'lady parts.' We, on the other hand, define ourselves by our character, our passions, our loves, our strengths, our abilities and our successes."

This one feels like more name-calling and petty insults based on differing political ideologies instead of, y'know, REALITY. So what if Code Pink supporters occasionally wear vagina costumes at rallies and whatnot? Code Pink is not EVERY FEMINIST. And sorry, but I don't know what they're talking about on the whole "liberal fems defining ourselves entirely by our lady parts" tip. What does that even mean? No feminist I know defines herself by her vagina; ahhhhh, that would be super-bizarre and a little bit scary, actually. I feel it's safe to presume that most feminists -- most women, hell, most PEOPLE -- define themselves by their "character, passions, loves, strengths, abilities and successes." I don't think that's solely a "Chicks on the Right" thing; sorry Chicks, but we're regular humans, too.

STATEMENT 5: "Now if someone would please pass us our stilettos. We’ve got to get back to work."

I do not agree with this statement, because stilettos do not agree with me. Yup, I KNOW they look hot, and men like them (blah, whatever), and they supposedly make you look taller and skinnier. But they also HURT, like a lot, and anyone who claims they don't is brazenly lying. I do agree with the final part of their statement, however -- it IS time to get back to work. Bye now.