Why I'm Not "A Feminist"

(Despite an increasing number of allegations to the contrary)

So it turns out that making a bit of a fuss about a book called The Sin of Empathy results in you… <looks around furtively and whispers> being called a feminist.

Example exhibits A and B:

Those who know me personally (or who even simply know the reputation of Sydney Anglicans, of which I’m a card-carrying member), will appreciate how humorous it is that I’m now regularly being called a feminist. If nothing else, the label evidences just how thin some of our American evangelical friends’ cultural and contextual understanding is. Their world is very narrow indeed.

But that aside, how do I respond to the moniker in principle? Well, in earlier post I asked (and answered):

That’s what it is to be a feminist now?! The bar is now so low that simply affirming the human female was designed by God to be equally capable of rationality, equally invested in preserving truth, equally concerned with guarding what is good — and, tragically, that these good design features in women were just as compromised by sin as they were in men — is enough to be branded a feminist? That’s where we’ve shifted the goal posts to, huh?

No. I’m not “a feminist”.

In a typically thoughtful comment on that post, my very perceptive friend J, wrote the following:

Until very recently, I have done a lot of rhetorical and emotional work to carefully signal to my conservative peers that I’m “not a feminist” while I seek to improve the conversation around men, women, relationships, and gender difference in the church. However, I have come to realize that most Christians I know have only a vague notion of what “a feminist” is (or that it is not one monolithic thing) and therefore it has become an almost empty term that often means “person [usually woman] whose ideas about gender I find too progressive.”

All that being said, I’m curious how YOU define what you are distancing yourself from when you say “I’m not a feminist,” and whether you would agree that you do hold to ideas that were considered “feminist” in the past (such as women’s intellectual equality with men – cf. Mary Wollstonecraft) and therefore may find yourself a type of feminist simply by affirming the human female was designed by God to be equally capable of rationality, equally invested in preserving truth, equally concerned with guarding what is good — and, tragically, that these good design features in women were just as compromised by sin as they were in men" [side note: AMEN!]".”

J’s insightful reflections and consequent questions were so thought-provoking that I decided they deserved a standalone response. You’ll see that some of what I have to say below echoes some of what she has already said (especially in her first paragraph)

So here goes my attempt to explain why I’m not a card-carrying feminist. #SpoilerAlert: I’ve left the most important reason to the end.

Because it’s Such a Woolly Word

I agree with J that:

“…most Christians I know have only a vague notion of what “a feminist” is (or that it is not one monolithic thing) and therefore it has become an almost empty term”

“Feminism” consists of eight letters that, when put together, say both everything and nothing. All at the same time. For example, consider Joe Rigney’s recent description of what feminism apparently stands for and seeks to do:

[Feminism] hates womanhood as womanhood, and it constantly seeks to turn women into men. That’s the lie of interchangeability. Feminism treats the womb as a problem, a barrier to a woman’s flourishing… Feminism convinces women to forsake or postpone marriage and child-bearing in favor of climbing the corporate ladder and breaking glass ceilings.

Well, I guess that’s one definition. But is it accurate or caricatured? Well, let’s (very briefly) consider the 150ish years of (official) feminist history.

First-wave feminism (late 19th - early 20th Centuries) led to women getting the vote, being able to own property and beginning to develop a legitimate public voice and presence. Amongst other things, Second-wave feminism (c. 1960s-1980s) was responsible for the proliferation of birth-control, abortion and female sexual autonomy abandon. Third-wave feminism (c. 1990s-2011) focused on “queering” norms and promoting allyship with other “minority identities”. Alongside its spearheading of the #MeToo movement, Fourth-wave feminism (c. 2012 to present) has devoted itself to trans ideology and rights.

Given this, what does it mean to be a “feminist” today?

Is it some of these things? All of these things? Can a feminist hold one or two of these convictions while rejecting all the others? Is it possible to believe that women’s participation in democratic elections, their ability to open a bank account and their increased presence in the workforce were good societal developments, while also believing that men and women are not interchangeable and that marriage and motherhood remain very important and noble vocations for women to pursue and even prioritise?

Can a woman, like Megan Basham be a wife and a mother and a best-selling author and a professional journalist without being in danger of being derided as “a feminist”? Or does the fact that she is married and has children automatically give her a pass? Is it just those of us women who are single and/or childless but who also have a job that need to brace ourselves for the label and be willing to bear up under its weight?

Furthermore, does being a direct beneficiary of the pioneering work of the First-wave feminists mean that all women who celebrate any of those historical developments as beneficial (for women and society alike) automatically become feminists? Would those earliest feminists willingly go by that label today? Would they even recognise their ideas amongst or consider them consistent with the mix-tape of contemporary feminism?

Feminism is a woolly word that means different things to different people in different places at different times within different contexts (as Joe Rigney demonstrates in the quote above).

And so while there are some aspects of early feminist advocacy which I not only agree with, but am thankful for, I choose not to call myself a feminist (or even directly associate with it) because who even knows what I would mean by doing so? The label creates confusion rather than clarity.

That’s the first reason I don’t call myself a “feminist”.

Because it’s Become the Boogey(wo)man

In The Nightmare Before Christmas, Oogie Boogie is the literal (or, at least, the animatedly literal) embodiment of the Boogeyman. He’s a villainous burlap sack, stuffed full of writhing insects. He thrives on generating fear and chaos. He wields terror to scare people into staying in line.

When Mr. Oogie Boogie says
There's trouble close at hand
You'd better pay attention, now
'Cause I'm the Boogie Man
And if you aren't shaking
There's something very wrong
'Cause this may be the last time you hear the Boogie song

For many evangelicals, “feminism” is the Oogie Boogie of the contemporary evangelical world.

It’s the monster lurking in the corner waiting to devour your God-fearing girls (and so empowering them to devour your God-fearing boys). It’s the red-eyed devil that wants you shaking in your boots so you’re willing to do its progressive bidding. It’s the sacrilegious ideology, ‘The Queen of the Woke’ and the primary source of all theological anthropological distortion in Western culture.

Consider Megan Basham’s earlier comments about my (supposed) feminist tendencies:

“The objections are clearly feminist in nature”.
”It seems pretty obvious that you have tendencies towards a feminist outlook”

She’s not interested in encouraging you towards a healthy evaluation of what aspects of my objections are (allegedly) feminist and in what particular sense that is the case. She’s not trying to inspire you to undertake an even-handed analysis of my outlook to identify what features are (allegedly) a problematic inheritance of historical feminism or a destructive expression of contemporary feminism. She provides no definition, exploration or justification of exactly what she means by “feminism”. She’s not interested in establishing why, in her view, having a “feminist outlook” is an altogether destructive thing.

But why would she be? That’s not the point, is it?

Rather, the point is to paint me (as a critic of something she wants to defend) as an enemy to be defeated—or at the very least, trolled into oblivion. The point is to “abject other” me so that the substance of my ideas doesn’t need to be dealt with. Those comments about my “clear” and “obvious” feminism are nothing more than a dog-whistle to everyone who is already convinced that feminism is The Boogey(wo)man set on devouring not only the evangelical church, but Western society as a whole.

Forget acknowledging that the same best-selling female journalist with over 155K followers on Twitter/X and who writes for the Daily Wire, the Wall Street Journal and the Telegraph wouldn’t have ever been in a position to achieve any of that had the First-wave (and also the Second-wave) of feminism never materialised. We don’t need to bother with inconvenient, complex stuff like historical reality. All we need to know is that feminism is the dark shadow looming in the corner, ready to terrify you into doing its will.

And so, if you want to conveniently dismiss someone’s argument, sideline their critique or caricature them personally—especially if they are a woman— then all you need to do is call them a “feminist”. Congratulations. Your work here is done.

That’s the second reason I don’t call myself a “feminist”.

Because of All the Invisible Tripwires

Recently, a foolish controversy erupted on X/Twitter (what else is new?) when one man posted the following in response to another man’s post in which he celebrated a Christian woman’s appointment to an editorial position at Crossway.

He then followed it up with this…

And this…

And this…

I could continue with more of his posts on the topic, but for all of our sakes, I’ll leave it there.

Now, don’t worry about the details here. The thing I want you to note is how we are told over and over again that the real problem with a qualified Christian woman being appointed to an editorial position within a Christian publisher (instead of a Christian man and father) is, yep, you guessed it: Feminism. Also known as the “feminizing” of evangelicalism (it’s a woolly word, remember?).

Thankfully, a bunch of male Christian leaders (eventually) came to the defense of this Christian sister who had been turned into a social-media punching bag. But a primary argument—especially amongst the most conservatively minded of them—was that her appointment wasn’t problematic because:

1. They knew her personally and could confirm that she isn’t a feminist. Stand down, everyone. She’s not one of “them”.
   
   and/or…
   

2. It’s not like she had been appointed as CEO or something. Her editorial work wasn’t significant enough to trigger the feminist alarm.

In other words, it turned out that (some) of Christian Twitter decided her appointment was to be allowed. But not because of what it was. No. It was to be allowed because of what it wasn’t: feminism in action.

A regular team challenge featured in some of my favourite strategy-based reality TV shows involves contestants entering a dark room tricked out with red-laser beams acting as digital trip wires. One by one, they need to contort their bodies over, under and around all of those beams without setting any of them off. Recently, the producers of one particular show upped the ante by making the wires invisible to the naked eye. They divided the contestants into pairs and gave one of each pair a set of goggles that magically (OK, probably scientifically) allowed them to see the laser beams. That person’s job was to yell out verbal instructions to guide their metaphorically blind (and usually very confused, frustrated, and even panicky) partner through the maze of metaphorically dangerous beams and safely out the other side.

That’s precisely how “feminism” is used by many evangelicals today. It’s a complex maze of invisible and highly sensitive trip wires, each rigged to be set off as soon as someone (especially a woman) brushes up against it.

But many of us (especially women) can’t see the wires. We’re told that we have become so conditioned by and to our environment that we’re now blind to their location. Even their presence. And so we need to rely upon (typically male) guides who have the special ability to see the invisible wires on our behalf. They need to instruct us on exactly how many steps we can take in any one direction before we trip over one of them and tumble headfirst into that thing called “feminism”. They have the authoritative knowledge and insight. They tell the rest of us when we must freeze and go no further. They yell when we have taken a step too far and set off the alarm.

Meanwhile, our job is to accept without question that the laser beams they can see are not only there but in the exact location they claim them to be. When they announce that we’ve triggered one of the beams and tripped the warning system, our job is to retreat without hesitation or investigation.

Here’s the problem, though. For a guide who:

1. Sees in the woolly word whatever meaning they wish to see in it, and…

2. Sees feminism as the nasty boogey(wo)man set on devouring church and society as a whole…

… then pretty much everything they don’t like is a tripwire.

Or as J. put it in her comment:

“[Feminism] has become an almost empty term that often means “person [usually woman] whose ideas about gender I find too progressive.”

The boundaries are whatever they say they are. The limits are whatever limits they have decided to set. They dictate what feminism is and is not. They proclaim which women do and do not have a “feminist outlook”. They determine which jobs a woman can and cannot do without tumbling into the pit of ideology from which there can be no return.

And we… well, we have no right of reply.

And if we do dare pop our head above the parapet and say “Ummm. Are you sure? That doesn’t seem quite right”, we are immediately met with “Shut up you feminist!”

Being seen to have any sort of affinity with anything that could be remotely considered to have any vague association with feminism immediately renders you an evangelical transgressor. (Unless you are a Megan Basham-esque figure with a profile that is high enough, an agenda that is conservative enough and a platform that is useful enough to earn you a pass). You’re surrounded by invisible tripwires whose complex layout has been pre-determined according to the goggles someone else is peering through. Indeed, there are multiple sets of tripwires, multiple people, multiple goggles to negotiate.

The deck is stacked. The game is rigged. You’ve lost before you even made your first move. So why even try and play them at their game?

That’s the third reason I don’t call myself a “feminist”.

Because I’m a Christian

But here’s the most important reason why I choose not to articulate or advocate for my beliefs about what it is to be a woman in this world in association with feminism.

It’s because I am a Christian.

Now, before some of you get your metaphorical knickers in a metaphorical knot, let me say what I don’t mean by that.

• I don’t mean that being a Christian and having any sort of affinity with feminist thought is always and utterly incompatible.

• I don’t mean these things are always and obviously compatible with each other either. I think there is plenty within (particularly recent/later) feminist ideology that stands in direct contradiction with life lived in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

• I don’t mean that Christians should not be alert to, able to discerningly evaluate and speak out about where secular ideology (including tenets of contemporary feminism) corrupts faithful theology and life in the household of God.

So, what do I mean by saying that I’m not a feminist because I’m a Christian?

I mean that the primary reason I don’t align myself with or borrow from a secular or ideological feminist framework to determine and describe what it means to live, love and relate as a woman of God is because I have a far more eternal and reliable framework for doing precisely that. It’s a Jesus-shaped one.

The tenets of feminism (woolly word that it is) do not account for what I believe. The teaching of the Bible informs what I believe.

I don’t need historical feminism to defend the rightful equality of women and men. God himself has made it clear that both men and women are created in his image and that salvation in Christ comes to male and female alike.

My impulse to identify misogyny where I see it is not informed by “pretty obvious…tendencies towards a feminist outlook”. Rather, it is compelled by how Jesus himself loves, dignifies and values his female disciples and calls us to do the same.

I’m not a feminist because, before, over, and above anything else I could ever be, I’m a Christian.

And that is more than enough for a woman like me.
In fact, that is everything.