Why I Am Not a Feminist

The media made a big deal about Taylor Swift being a feminist. In an effort to prove that it wasn't a big deal, she said "I just think men and women should be equal." Don't you? 

Well, maybe we're asking the wrong question.

First of all, what is feminism? Taylor Swift actually quoted the Mirriam-Webster definition:

Sounds great. But let me explain the weird underlying problem with that statement.

The concept of equality as defined by feminism carries very specific assumptions. Feminist theory is derived from conflict theory. Karl Marx, the father of conflict theory, believed that the inherent nature of society was about competition. Society existed as a means for various groups to compete for scarce resources. That's why we're together - to see who can get ahead, who can climb the ladder, who can win the game. It's based on the assumption that everyone is fundamentally motivated by self-interest.

If conflict theory/feminism is your paradigm, your main concern will be things like equality, fairness, rights, and a "level playing field" (an apt metaphor). If it's all about the competition, then naturally ANY differentiation between groups means there is inequality, or at least the potential for inequality (which is why everyone lines up at the same starting line, uses the same sized bowling pins, etc.).

If you're mainly concerned with equality and fairness between the sexes, chances are good you are a feminist.

I am not.

What? Are you saying we should be unequal? oppressed? marginalized? No. I'm saying that I don't think feminism is the solution, for four reasons:

#1 - I have a problem with the framework of competition.

Feminism adapts Marx's conflict theory by taking his idea that society is all about "bourgeouis vs proletariat" to society being all about "men vs. women" Once that becomes our framework, it's easy to start measuring who is "winning", who has the "power", and who is "oppressing" the "victim" -- all terms laden with values and assumptions. Without ignoring all of the terrible crimes that have been committed throughout history against women, I don't think that viewing men and women as competing groups is a particularly helpful way to view the world. And, considering the fundamentally cooperative natures of our biological designs (ahem, procreation), one could even argue that God doesn't think it's particularly helpful either.

Think of this argument in terms of our relationships: how much time and effort should we spend worrying about whether everything is equal between ourselves and our significant other? Do we keep score? Count the number of chores done, or money contributed, or loving gestures made by each partner? That sounds terrible to me! Even if the idea of equality sounds good, the framework of competition or comparison which is required to defend the notion of equality is inherently damaging to relationships. And if it is damaging to a marriage, it is damaging to all of society.

Feminism and conflict theory divide people into two teams. It assumes that we're inherently pitted against each other in order to reach our goals.

But do you see the inherently unnecessary construct there? It divides PEOPLE into two teams. Why don't we instead develop a theory where the two teams are us (all people) against bad situations? Against bad institutions? Bad ideas and laws? Unhelpful norms, values, and traditions? What if we assume that all of us were on the same team to fight injustice? Then maybe unity, instead of equality, would become our target goal. When our focus is equality between individuals, we unconsciously frame others as our adversaries, even if we are trying to play fair.

The father of sociology, Emile Durkheim, saw society as all members of the same team. He referred to society as a machine, or a body - I'm a hand, you're an eye, he's a heart, and we all play important but distinct roles that cooperate with each other to create society (he called this framework "functionalism").  If functionalism is how you view the world, does it particularly matter whether the hand and the eye are "equal"? Not really. It's not that we promote inequality, it's just that the concepts of equality and inequality in a functionalist framework aren't particularly relevant. Instead, he asked questions like: Is every part functional? Is everyone useful? Is everyone integrated and happy? Is everyone using their own unique skills to contribute to the whole?

Functionalism may not be your paradigm, but I hope this demonstrates a point. The framework, or metaphor, that we use to explain society and our roles within it, is not set in stone. Feminism is not the only framework for understanding society, or defending womanhood.

I don't know all the answers about gender issues, but as a Christian I don't believe that conflict theory is a particularly helpful way to look at things. In the scriptures Christ says, "He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me." Whether we (as Taylor said it) "hate men" or not, the fundamental assumption that all individuals and groups are selfish and that this is all a big fight I believe causes more problems than it solves. Competition creates the assumption of a zero-sum proposition. One of us has to lose in order for the other to win, and therefore every other person outside of my group (gender, race, religion, etc.) is also my adversary.

Doesn't that just SOUND terrible?

So - to return to Taylor Swift, if asked "do you think men and women should be equal?" I might respond by saying, well, yes, but we're asking the wrong question. A better question might be "do you think men and women should be unified?" I can't focus on being my best self if I am focused on comparing my group to some other group. Furthermore, if I'm focused on who has more, who is further ahead, and who is doing better, especially in family relationships, we all lose. I can't rejoice in or be a part of the success of others, because if they do better, I am doing worse by comparison.

#2 - My second reason for not being a feminist is because the I believe the premise of feminism destroys our ability to objectively view and appreciate our distinct natures as men and women. Classic feminism is based on gender theory, which holds that any differentiation between men and women creates inequality - As demonstrated in Brown vs. Board of Education, where it was established that separate but equal is unequal (in regards to race). In other words: if we want to be equal, we must demonstrate that men and women are inherently the same. Sure, some will acknowledge, there are a few reproductive differences, but other than that we are basically the same and should therefore be treated the same. The premise holds that men and women are not apples and oranges - we are both pears.

Feminism: men and women are both pears

Believing that men and women are both pears helps in some ways - if we are pretty much the same, we can be side-by-side "compeared" (ha ha). We can sit in coed classrooms, benefit from the same learning activities, be evaluated by the same rubric. We can work in the same positions for the same pay, be given the same consideration for raises and promotions, participate together in any sport or activity, and receive all of the same legal considerations and benefits. We like that. 

But what if we're wrong? What if gender is not like race at all? What if men and women are just as different as we are alike? This is the constant debate of most books on gender - on the one side you have those who fight for similarity ("The Gender Myth", "Delusions of Gender") and on the other side you have those fighting for distinctness ("The Female Brain", "How to Raise a Son", "Why Gender Matters").

The argument against the pear perspective is that problems often arise when we pretend that gender differences don't exist, or that the differences are irrelevant. Most observed differences between boys and girls are slight - plotted, they look like two bell curves that mostly overlap. But where those differences exist, they should be taken into consideration (like the developmental differences between a 5 year-old and 8 year-old, for example). Boys and girls are different in shocking numbers of ways. They develop different brain structure and functioning, different hormonal reactions to events and medication and other people, different physical and emotional proclivities to certain skills and characteristics; they even process seeing and hearing differently. 

When we expect the same performance from girls and boys in every field (pretending everyone is a pear), the comparison hurts both sides. We either develop inferiority or superiority complexes, depending on the characteristic: one boy doesn't read as early as his sister did, or the girls don't run as fast as the boys in track. One area where we seem comfortable with these differences is in gymnastics, where men and women compete in completely different events based on physical strengths (pommel horse for men vs. balancing beam for women), but studies have shown that the differences go much deeper than just one's center of gravity and muscle mass. It is possible that apples and oranges are a better analogy after all.

After teaching classes on gender and reading a number of books on either side, I am still undecided about whether the differences between men and women are primarily social or biological, but I can say this: if our system of government or society DEPENDS on the answer to this question, then we are in big trouble! There is simply no way to ethically prove "nature or nurture" - or whether the answer is some combination of the two.

So here's the good news: we don't have to make that decision. It doesn't fundamentally matter where gender differences comes from. As long as there ARE measurable differences between men and women, boys and girls, male and female fetuses, we must have a social system that can view these differences with respect, and find value in both sets of characteristics. That means we should not freak out when we discover there are more male engineers or female English teachers, nor should we slam anyone who claims the situation is "sexist", nor rush to assign blame, nor hide behind notable exceptions (prominent female athletes, sensitive men, etc.). Recalling my earlier point about rejecting the comparison paradigm, we CAN appreciate these characteristics individually without comparing them. We can all just chill out.

It is possible that in general girls are biologically prone to be more nurturing. It could be that girls are more taught to be nurturing. It's possible that girls simply tend to fulfill more nurturing roles in society. It doesn't matter - we just need to agree as a society that being nurturing is a good characteristic to have. And, in fact, that all characteristics that tend to be attributed to women - being humble, nurturing, compassionate, cooperative - are just as important and valuable as their masculine counterparts, such as being strong, confident, assertive, and analytical. (see my article on the power of vulnerability here). If we truly value all of these characteristics, we shouldn't feel upset by or feel an obligation to change the fact that women and men demonstrate different strengths or proclivities. If we're willing to look outside of feminism and see men and women on the same team instead of opposing teams, different strengths can be seen as complementary and not threatening.

At this point, someone will likely say something like, "But Kindra, shouldn't we be encouraging boys to be nurturing too? Shouldn't girls learn to be confident and assertive?" Absolutely. We begin with the premise that God wants us ALL to develop ALL good characteristics - but if we don't acknowledge the fact that men and women come with certain predispositions that tend to be correlated with our gender, then we end up becoming angry at each other and ourselves for not being "naturally" good at certain things. 

Another example: Because of differences in how and where men and women experience sexual arousal in the brain, it is probably easier for women to control their sexual feelings. Men's sex drive seems centered in the hypothalamus, which regulates appetite, and women's sex drive lights up in the frontal cortex, which process higher thought like judgment and memory. If we've decided we're both pears, and so we ignore this difference, we women can get really angry at men when they're distracted by scantily clad women. Alternatively, men who don't understand how women view sex differently than they do may be more prone to sexual violence and rape, believing in a twisted way that since they themselves would enjoy being treated that way, women secretly must like it too. 

One more way in which ignoring gender differences hurt us both: If you look at hormonal responses to danger, men tend to release testosterone, which feels good - they get a rush! By comparison, women in dangerous or risky situations release hormones that make us feel nauseous. If we're thinking everyone's a pear, women think of men as inherently irresponsible, and men will think women are just wusses because they are less prone to taking risks, and think of them as mentally weak. Different strengths and weaknesses are merely that: different.  It is a feminist perspective that demands a hierarchy.

#3 - The third reason I am not a feminist is because feminism condemns and fights against the existence of gender roles and stereotypes. It is simply unrealistic to demand or even expect the elimination of all gender roles in society. I think we have this idea in our mind that a perfect society would have all husbands and wives both working and caring for children in equal amounts, or at least having an equal number of stay-at-home moms and dads. But what if that's not what we want? If you're a feminist, and your priority is to eliminate inequality by eliminating differences, then you end up condemning a lot of people for making any life decisions that feed into gender stereotypes. Most women do want to have children, for example, and work only part time if at all. If we eliminated all legal and social restrictions so that men and women could make whatever choices they wanted to, it's possible that we would still make different choices, regardless of whether our strengths and preferences are inherently biological or social. Are we okay with that? 

It is possible that women would rather teach than be engineers. It is possible that when offered great maternity benefits from their high-paying career, women will want to give it up anyway and stay home to raise children, because of an overwhelming sense of love and connection and commitment to care for those children. Are we really going to call that internalized sexism? Or can we admit that teachers and engineers are both important; and that having a cool job and raising kids are both valuable contributions to society? I'm fine with expanding opportunities - but I also insist that we grant men and women the freedom to choose their own route to happiness, even if we do end up with more stay-at-home moms and more male engineers.

#4 - Feminism squashes the beauty and unique significance of womanhood. Here's an uncomfortable juxtaposition: If we're equal, as feminists demand, can we also be special? Would we rather have equal rights, like equal pay, or would we prefer special rights, like maternity benefits? This debate goes back to the Seneca Falls convention. Some modern feminists claim that while their focus is on equality, feminism is also about recognizing the role of women in society - that a woman's perspective is important and unique, and that events, legislation, and literature needs to be viewed in terms of how they influence women specifically. But do you see the inherent contradiction in that position? That is an apples and orange perspective! That says that a woman's viewpoints needs to be considered because it IS different and special, and therefore women and men are NOT interchangeable.

(As a side note, I do very much believe in the modern feminist idea that a woman's perspective is unique and important. If that's your definition of feminism, ignore the title of this post and count me in. But you must also recognize that the natural companion of that perspective is a belief in the inherent difference between men and women, and that gender is not entirely a social construct. Most feminists won't go there with me) 

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post with regards to race - we cannot decide that gender is both special and irrelevant. Being a woman either makes you special - and gives you special characteristics, roles, responsibilities, which may influence the way you behave and the way you are treated - or it must be irrelevant. 

First of all, as a daughter of God, I am proud of being a woman, and I do believe that gender is a critical part of my identity. Secondly - and without going too far on this tangent - I also believe that eliminating gender in an effort to make society all-inclusive has led to a sense of universal directionlessness. If there's nothing special about being a man, then there's nothing society expects of you because of that. You are never taught any special regard for women or womanhood. There's nothing about your identity as a man that you're taught to value or treasure, or gifts you're taught to recognize in yourself. If there's nothing special about you as a man or as a woman, then there's nothing special that you need to do.

I think enough social research has demonstrated that, despite popular opinion, people are HAPPIER and MORE SUCCESSFUL when they are given clear roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Even though kids complain about it, children of permissive parents (high on love, low on rules and expectations) turn out to be the least happy of any other parenting styles. 


You can never meet expectations that don't exist, and more often than not, for men, when expectations are not placed on them, they make few expectations of themselves. For women, when expectations are not placed on them, they make unlimited expectations of themselves. I know that a lot of people don't fit traditional gender expectations, but eliminating them entirely cannot be the answer. No one is likely to experience success or happiness under these conditions. 

I believe God has a plan for his sons and daughters, and he has specific work for us to accomplish in this life BECAUSE OF, not in spite of, our similarities and differences. I do believe that men and women are meant to be seen as complementary, not competitive, sexes. The essential framework of feminism abolishes strengths, magnifies weaknesses, pits husbands and wives against each other, condemns us for our natural desires, and eliminates the unique male and female qualities that add vibrancy, complexity, strength and beauty to society. I hope we will eventually get sick of comparing pears and choose a social framework that allows us as men and women to be as distinct and yet equally beautiful as apples and oranges. When we recognize gender as an important part of human development and identity, we will cultivate greater love and respect for ourselves and others, and we will hopefully put more effort into making society a cooperative venture instead of a competitive one.