X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

Why is ‘feminism’ such a dirty word?

30 September 2013

1:47 PM

30 September 2013

1:47 PM

A few years back I did one of those online debates on the Times website, the subject being why feminism had fallen out of favour. Within about 60 seconds four people had used the phrase ‘gender is a social construct’ and, well, I sort of switched off at that point.

It’s strange that the F-word is now so unpopular that even David Cameron, a man with a desperately keen ear for metro-liberal opinion, refused to identify as such last week. When asked by Red magazine, he said: ‘I don’t know what I’d call myself… it’s up to others to attach labels. But I believe men and women should be treated equally.’

This is odd because, by the classic definition of the term, Cameron is most certainly a feminist, as are most of us – yet few identify as such.

[Alt-Text]


Lots of traditionally right-wing worldviews suffer this problem, but feminism is the only (broadly) leftist ideology that has been successfully toxified. Like nationalism, it is popularly characterised by its most extreme elements; I doubt Cameron would identify as a nationalist, even though by the broader definition he, like the vast majority of humanity, believes in national sovereignty.

There are two types of feminism, as Steven Pinker wrote in The Blank Slate:

‘Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.’ 

Most people are equity feminists, including the prime minister; gender feminism is still believed in by plenty of people in the media and politics, but the vast majority of scientific research suggests that it is just that — a belief system — and most non-activists see it that way. But, then, lots of political ideas are based on pseudoscience and are still widely popular.

Neither is radical feminism an especially harmful creed. Socialism, in its worst forms, has killed millions, yet lots of people still happily identify with socialism, even people who aren’t in fact really socialists, but think socialism = generosity and niceness. With feminism it’s the opposite.

Perhaps it all comes down to sex. A lot of political activism is motivated by the mating instinct, which is why left-wing ideas have such an advantage on campus and in the media. Feminism is seen as unattractive, so any woman who proclaims herself as such (unless she is stunningly good-looking) makes herself less attractive. That may not deter the true believers or serious thinkers, but all political movements suffer if people are embarrassed to mention it on their online dating profiles. If more women identified as feminists, more men would too.

Or perhaps it’s just that the major battles of feminism have been won, so that ‘feminist’ just sounds too old-fashioned for the great moderniser of the Tory party.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close