Sunday, April 20, 2008

Conservative Feminist - Defined

The Gloria Steinem brand of feminism (or NOW, or NARAL) is an anti-feminist movement driven by one agenda (abortion) and tied to one political party (Democrat) – an exclusive, rather than inclusive school of thought. There is another type of feminism, one that is inclusive and non-judgmental, and that is a brand of conservative feminism that allows for all women, regardless of political affiliation to promote the ideals of feminism – especially, equality in the workforce. Anyone who has been through a woman’s study course understands (or should have been taught), that feminists are their own worst enemies, precisely because politics take precedence over “sisterhood”. When I was personally told that I could not be a feminist because I did not support abortion, I was inclined to disagree and developed a definition of conservative feminism that was based upon input from historical references as well as women across the country who understand how far we came, how far we have fallen behind as a result of political polarization and what steps are necessary in order to move forward.


  • Holds the rights and advancement of women in the workplace, political arena and the home to be inviolate

  • Holds the rights of children to be loved, protected, and cared for in a manner which allows for a happy childhood to be paramount.

  • Demands equal pay for equal work.

  • Understands there are differences between genders. To deny biology is inherently imbecilic. Men are able to do many things that require strength that women either cannot or prefer not to do – Women are able to do many things given their biological make-up that men are incapable of doing. Celebrate who you are.

  • Understands, in relationship to gender differences, one is not better than, or less than the other, but equal to and in partnership with one-another.

  • Makes no judgment as to career choices other woman may make which includes the career of Mother and Wife.

  • Makes no judgment as to political affiliations.

  • Considers a women’s right to be feminine as paramount.

  • Takes offense and objects to women in high-profile positions that are judged by the media and others by the following: clothing, hair style, emotions shown, emotions not shown.

  • Considers the Right to Life to be paramount.

  • Considers the Protection of Children and Women paramount under the law.

  • Considers the rights of rapists, pedophiles and those that prey upon women and children to be non-existent. There is no cure – there are mandatory sentences.

  • Understands the need to protect our borders as a national security issue; protecting our borders protects our children and our property.

  • Understands that the schools are not a substitute for rearing one’s children.

  • Understands that one “cannot have it all” unless one is willing to sacrifice: their children, their finances (pay daycare, pay housekeeper, pay landscaper, pay cook, pay accountant) and possibly their own self.

  • Understands that few women are able to “have it all” due to socio-economic boundaries yet, are unfairly expected to do so.

  • Holds that any country, religion and/or territory where women are not allowed to: drive a car, uncover their head, show an ankle, be in the company of men, or be treated as less than equal under the law in any manner should be held in the highest contempt.

  • Holds that any woman in a position of authority that panders or promotes a nation that does not extend equal rights to women and protection under the law should be considered anti-feminist.

  • Women who choose to become full-time mothers and household managers should be given family tax incentives as well as re-education opportunities when they are ready to pursue a first, second or third career. Children are a countries asset. Protecting a national asset should be a paid position with benefits. This should be a federal mandate.

  • A conservative feminist understands there are few to no role models for our children. Musicians, athletes, politicians, religious leaders, actors and actresses, all in the public arena; have proven to be corrupt by a media who celebrates rather than denigrates bad behavior.

  • Any person who celebrates the debauchery of women, including women themselves, should not be held in high esteem. Examples: women in positions of power who promote the interest of their husbands business over the rights of women, women in the media who promote themselves as nothing more than a sexual icon.

  • A women’s worth should not be judged by a man’s standards.
  • 20 comments:

    SaraQuestions said...

    Who would of thought that I too could be considered a feminist even though I think that (gasp!) men and women are...different!

    I'm very appreciative of your definition.

    Easy Ed said...

    Pardon this male intrusion, but I do enjoy your thoughts and site.

    Ed Buckley
    Conservative Party (MA)

    Tina Hemond said...

    Hi Sara, I'm glad to see your questions, and yes, women and men are different (to deny is denial!) feminism is what it is, the right for women to be equal to, not beneath or above - to be afforded respect, especially from one another.

    Hi Ed,

    I don't take your stopping in as a male instrusion - rather, I welcome constructive dialogue and hope you continue to enjoy the site - One Massachusetts Conservative to another.

    Easy Ed said...

    Please feel free to stop by our site and add your thoughts, any time.

    Anonymous said...

    Mumbles must go. This guy sounds like he's got something in his mouth! I just don't want to know what it is! He is a disgrace of a person; it's a shame that we have to choose from a pool of scum for congress! Where are the morals in America!

    Anonymous said...

    what is your stance on the rights of lesbian women to marry their partners or adopt children?

    Anonymous said...

    You consider your movement inclusive, yet exclude women who demand the right to bodily autonomy (legal abortion)? That doesn't make sense.

    Is conservatism now defined by opposition to legal abortion?

    This isn't feminism, although it shares some commonalities with it. Are you interested in working with feminists on issues you agree on (like equal pay for equal work, for example), or are you just trying to co-opt the term?

    Tina Hemond said...

    To the anonymous posters:
    1. Gay marriage is a separate issue, and is not exclusive to women (i.e. lesbians), father to both genders – my personal belief is that all unions be civil – with licenses issued by a state, and should one be religious, a separate certificate of marriage would then be issued by the institution of choice. As of now, both gay marriage and abortion are used by politicians as political footballs and nothing will be done as these are court issues, until the Supreme Court weighs in, there will be no solution on a national basis. The only way a politician would have the ability to influence either issue, would be by voting for a Supreme Court Justice – therefore, the personal feelings and/or promises made by presidential candidates and/or any other are akin to spitting into the wind, totally lacking in substance.
    2 On abortion and feminism. That particular issue (see above) is not mutually exclusive to feminist, be they liberal or conservative. It is ludicrous for anyone to think feminism is tied or owned by one issue – to paint a woman as non-feminist or anti-feminist on the issue of being either pro-life or pro-abortion, is political and does nothing to further the basic tenant of feminism – equal pay for equal work. Women (or men, as being anonymous, the poster could be either), should politely agree to disagree on that particular issue and work together on others that stand a snowballs chance in Hades of being resolved. That is a favorite ploy of NOW, who endorsed a man with a better NARAL rating, over a much more qualified woman candidate. Where were the feminist who stood by and mutely watched Hillary Clinton robbed of the Presidency during the Democrat Convention? NOW, who’s membership totals 250,000 does no more represent a liberal thinking woman, than a conservative thinker – the decision was based on a better pro-abortion rating, throwing Hillary Clinton, the most qualified candidate in the entire 2008 field, under the proverbial bus.
    How dare you state that conservative feminism is not feminism and is co-opting a feminist movement, when those “feminists” movements are so anti-woman? Would you be willing to put a name to your anonymous face and work on any issue (pick one) with a woman who brands herself as conservative and feminist? Or would you prefer, based on that one issue, to lose the ability to vote for a conservative feminist who might have the ability to push legislation that would help women in this nation on issues ranging from pay to mandatory sentencing for those who abuse women and children?
    How very narrow minded of you and your ilk. True conservative feminist admire and support women of different political backgrounds based on a summary of the whole, not on one point of disagreement that no-one is about to solve. You are nothing more than a “tool” of some man.

    Cammie Novara said...

    The first second I read this jaw dropping hilarious Yes We Scam! B.S. We Can Believe In! Obama Approval Plummets Hubpages Hub I said that Degrees Of Moderation's web visitors have to be able to have their say on this link: http://hubpages.com/hub/Yes-We-Scam-BS-We-Can-Believe-In-Obama-Approval-Plummets

    m Andrea said...

    This reads like a list from a 1940's housewife. Nothing wrong with that -- if it was still 1940 and we were still expanding our god-given right to subdue the entire planet. I mean seriously, the only genuinely feminist goal you appear to recognize is equal rights in regards to employment; everything else on your list is busy propping up your owner's property rights.

    You've obviously given much thought to this and you're probably a very nice person, so humble apologies for not being able to phrase a more tactful response. But have you noticed? In every generation without exception, each decade's current crop of conservation women will politely beg for rights which radical feminists have already busted our butts seventy years ago to get those particular talking points on the radar. Considering how conservative feminists fought tooth and nail to keep women tied to the kitchen sink, I'm glad ya'll have finally decided that women are entitled to equal job opportunities and I'd love to see what conservative feminists perceive as "feminist" in another seventy years.

    Tina Hemond said...

    Dear m Andrea,

    First, welcome, and second, you're probably a very nice person as well - however, perhaps you missed a point or two within the essay - one which I believe is hindering women from basic achievement overall, and that is the fact that women deny each other the right to be who they are - whether one is pro-choice, or pro-family, whether one is a "stay at home mom" or one is VP of cupcakes (a term used by feminists when the glass ceiling was almost broken-circa 1978-1979)(but has never really been broken in the workforce, except for very few exceptions). In regards to politics, it is a woman who undergoes scrutiny by so-called feminist icons and women in general, regardless of party - not on political ideology, rather on hairstyle, makeup and God forbid pantsuits!

    It matters not that women still earn less on the dollar, despite Kennedy (JFK) signing any Equal Pay Legislation, it matters not that women are still considered "less than adequate in the political arena", it matters a great deal, that as a majority, women are pigeonholed as a minority.

    What matters is that women regardless of "brand of feminism", stick up for one another on key issues, while agreeing to disagree on those "one issue" opinions that allow one to negate more than half of the feminist. One is not owned as a women, unless one allows themselves to be shackled not by a partner (as in husband, and or wife), but as a minority, one who is expected not to rise above, but to remain a "category". One who is a "slave" to the government (be it state or federal).

    I would be interested to hear your viewpoint on a line by line issue basis as to how each tenant makes one a "slave" to anyone - debate is a healthy form of communication and it appears you have the ability to keep an open mind.

    Anonymous said...

    I am a man, and I would like to say that this is an interesting essay. My best friend (also a man) and I took the orders of knighthood a few years ago. One of the things we want to accomplish is teaching men how to be (real) men and women how to be (real) women: by means of an updated code of chivalry. Your points here are very close to ideas we are developing. I would like to discuss this topic with you more, if you are willing.

    Chivalrous behaviour doesn't favour either sex, but does favour excellent conduct and respect of each individual and their equal rights under the law. Modern Marxist and Feminist views of Chivalry view it as very misogynistic, but this was not so. It is interesting to see that those objecting to your several points (all of your statements are suitably rational) take liberal political positions, and the one who decried your supposed support of private property is most likely arguing--no, reacting, arguing requires thinking--from a Marxist perspective: from a political motivation "with a vengeance."

    But yours is the sanest and most pro-woman view of feminism I have every seen. I have a few questions about some of the points, but I can readily agree with the vast majority of them at first reading. Don't let these Marxist, man-hating, woman-hating (they don't seem to love and support women like you who disagree with them, choosing to disagree with you and insult women like you instead) politicos bother you. They only show the rest of us how bad their own bitter position really is and that they think everyone needs to be as rudely vicious as they are. Nothing could be further from the truth for anyone who is even trying to make an argument, as you did, for increasing the recognition of dignity and therefore political equality too, between men and women.

    There are a lot more of us out here who agree with you than with them.

    รพ

    Tina Hemond said...

    Dear Anonymous, thank you for the complement, my point was that feminism is not a one-subject, nor one-political philosophy ideology, rather all inclusive, and should build on both the advancement and the protection of women and children's rights. I would enjoy learning more, about what you are studying - please feel free to contact me via the email form and/or my profile email.

    Regards,

    Tina Hemond

    Luke said...

    To be honest for the longest time I had a lot of frustration with feminists. Let me just be clear that I am certainly in no way a male chauvinist. I simply had a few bad experiences with radical "women are superior to men" and "I will lecture you for an hour in your college english class because you called me Mrs. and my wedding ring was just a way to temp you to do so" feminazis. this had scarred me away from crossing paths with anyone with feminist ideas. but this conservative feminism ideal is absolutely wonderful an I am a very big fan of it!

    Tina Hemond said...

    Luke, nice to meet you - there are more women who feel this way than one would imagine - those are the women that want to be equal to - not better than - partners showing equal respect - but - getting paid the same as their male counterpart - it is really a simple concept -

    Anonymous said...

    Hi, I found this post looking up definitions of "feminist," and find your point of view an interesting one. I have two questions on your bullet points above, and would be grateful if you could address them:

    First, how is "wife" a career? Is "husband" also a career? (certainly "parent" is a full time job...)

    Second, and admittedly more controversially, can you elaborate on how you reconcile being a feminist with being opposed to a woman's right to choose an abortion in at least certain instances? I am truly curious to hear the rationale behind this viewpoint, which I don't believe you explain in your response above.

    Thank you.

    Tina Hemond said...

    Part I
    Dear Anonymous, thank you for writing and your very pointed questions – I take it you are referring to: “Makes no judgment as to career choices other woman may make which includes the career of Mother and Wife.” – the role (which is normally the way one finds the moniker noted) of wife and mother, has an historical as well as practical element – and has been a practice for centuries by a multitude of cultures – including those found in the U.S. – to whit, a woman chooses to marry and stay at home to raise children – this choice runs across all socio-economic demographics. Some women who so choose, find that they are working harder – depending upon that status, some of that work is spent defending themselves to their peers. It is a choice, and one should not be denigrated for making that choice. From an economic standpoint, those who choose to be Wife and Mother manage the household and all that entails, also providing childcare services – they are accountant, chef, party planner, teacher, all rolled into one. From the perspective of women who are hard-line or progressive feminists, the belief is held that women should send a child to day-care and then pursue a career, or resume a career – being a “wife and mother” is “backwards”, somehow terribly wrong! When in effect it is a choice, sometimes a religious choice, sometimes a personal choice, and sometimes a choice made in regards to economics and the costs of quality daycare – one might stay home with one’s children, until the child is ready for either a public or private pre-school or kindergarten program, while doing so take on the roles described above. A man or husband might certainly take on the same duties, but, as this was written solely with women in mind and from a feminist point of view. Men, in general, tend, from a practical and sometimes traditional (religious or otherwise), work outside the home, providing the income to maintain the household, which the wife (partner if one will) manages. (Perhaps when the Congress and the Senate and a like-minded Chief Executive decide to finally implement and enforce John F. Kennedy’s 1963 Equal Pay Act – you might read the act here: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-045-001.aspx -women might make another choice - it has yet to be enforced (but then again, who is really paying attention to the fact that women, despite the law, are still paid less than their male counterparts on the dollar – the most egregious – our government!) – So – the point, it is a choice a woman is able to make, and if one makes that choice, no one should denigrate that choice.

    Tina Hemond said...

    Part I
    Dear Anonymous, thank you for writing and your very pointed questions – I take it you are referring to: “Makes no judgment as to career choices other woman may make which includes the career of Mother and Wife.” – the role (which is normally the way one finds the moniker noted) of wife and mother, has an historical as well as practical element – and has been a practice for centuries by a multitude of cultures – including those found in the U.S. – to whit, a woman chooses to marry and stay at home to raise children – this choice runs across all socio-economic demographics. Some women who so choose, find that they are working harder – depending upon that status, some of that work is spent defending themselves to their peers. It is a choice, and one should not be denigrated for making that choice. From an economic standpoint, those who choose to be Wife and Mother manage the household and all that entails, also providing childcare services – they are accountant, chef, party planner, teacher, all rolled into one. From the perspective of women who are hard-line or progressive feminists, the belief is held that women should send a child to day-care and then pursue a career, or resume a career – being a “wife and mother” is “backwards”, somehow terribly wrong! When in effect it is a choice, sometimes a religious choice, sometimes a personal choice, and sometimes a choice made in regards to economics and the costs of quality daycare – one might stay home with one’s children, until the child is ready for either a public or private pre-school or kindergarten program, while doing so take on the roles described above. A man or husband might certainly take on the same duties, but, as this was written solely with women in mind and from a feminist point of view. Men, in general, tend, from a practical and sometimes traditional (religious or otherwise), work outside the home, providing the income to maintain the household, which the wife (partner if one will) manages. (Perhaps when the Congress and the Senate and a like-minded Chief Executive decide to finally implement and enforce John F. Kennedy’s 1963 Equal Pay Act – you might read the act here: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-045-001.aspx -women might make another choice - it has yet to be enforced (but then again, who is really paying attention to the fact that women, despite the law, are still paid less than their male counterparts on the dollar – the most egregious – our government!) – So – the point, it is a choice a woman is able to make, and if one makes that choice, no one should denigrate that choice.

    Tina Hemond said...

    Part II
    Ah second point, abortion, which apparently is the sole purview of feminist and the pillar on which all feminism must rest – my personal belief is that life, no matter if it is a child in the womb, an individual on death row, – all both off the table – I am personally opposed to what I can only term as “state executions” – therefore, my personal belief (and with today’s medical technology one cannot deny a beating heart), that abortion that is paid for by the taxpayer, and or the execution of the criminal, paid for by the taxpayer, allows that taxpayer to be complicit in “State Sanctioned Murder”. Perhaps I was not clear in my preamble – there is so much to be accomplished as to women’s rights, yet, instead of being inclusive, and politely agreeing to disagree on one subject, (abortion), feminist push aside their conservative counterparts on one issue only – instead of working with conservatives on equal pay enforcement, for example, or pick a subject. I would term it “Complete Sisterhood” where women, despite one difference (or perhaps two, although I’d be hard pressed to take another bullet point and find it objectionable across the board), would work towards the common good of all women.

    I welcome your comments and questions, and continued comments – if, there are open and honest debates and questions, then everyone benefits, as we are able to learn from each other – but with, again, the ability to respect one anthers opinions where they might differ.

    felicia said...

    of all the definitions of feminism i have read, this one perfectly describes my thoughts about feminism...as a woman, i value the sanctity of life and marriage, i strongly believe the role of women in shaping our society to become a better place to live in...and that men and women are co-equals, power plays between sexes are actually unnecessary

    Amazon Picks

    Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

    FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

    Contact Me:

    Your Name
    Your Email Address
    Subject
    Message