The Failure of Feminism in Contemporary British and American Society

“I can’t stand whingeing women”¹. I find it disappointing that this was the response of a successful female MP upon being asked whether it was difficult being a woman in the male-dominated sphere of British politics. However, I think few people today would be surprised by this attitude. More and more it is socially unacceptable to acknowledge that opportunities for women still do not match those for men, let alone admit to being a feminist. Indeed, feminism is often something that embarrasses women, particularly young women, many of whom feel that there is genuinely no gender inequality in contemporary society, and hence no effort to be made. So deceived are people that we live in a society of equal opportunity that anyone who questions this is an embarrassment; a ‘whingeing’ feminist. We have been fooled in much the same way that the rhetoric of the American dream has duped the U.S.: it is believed that everyone has equal opportunity in the land of the free. I would argue that subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) it is widely accepted there that anyone who lives in poverty, or who hasn’t achieved the middle-class ideal, has only themselves to blame. (This is revealed, for example, in the collective attitude towards the homeless, who are referred to as ‘bums’ – ‘bumming’ is a term both for borrowing without returning [to bum a cigarette] and social loafing [bumming around]). A fairly unforgiving attitude may be inferred from this terminology.) In the same way, if Western society is indeed a level playing field, yet men still reside at the top of most professions (there are only two female CEOs of FTSE 100 companies), then we must come to the conclusion that women are intrinsically inferior. I think most of us, whether feminists or no, would reject that; hence we must accept that we still live in an overwhelmingly gender-biased culture.

So why is it so taboo to voice this? Are we to accept injustice as part of our lot, with silent dignity and the proverbial British upper lip? Is it now gracious to turn a blind eye to oppression and inequality? Perhaps this holds the key – it is considered womanly to be ‘gracious’ and, more to the point, decidedly unwomanly to be ungracious. To complain about injustice is certainly not gracious. Women and men alike are conditioned to believe that women are innately passive. In order for a woman to protest this limiting categorization she must first shun her conditioning and disbelieve it. Furthermore, the rest of society must shun their conditioning to listen and take her seriously. What happens in reality is that protestations about women’s lot somehow ‘jar’ because of the fundamental clash the act of protest has with our deeply-inured ideas about gender, and are dismissed or ignored as something slightly undignified or even fanatical. Further to this, feminism simply threatens the status quo in general by challenging it – something that people find psychologically very difficult to cope with. It is even more of a threat to those who are most influential; those at the top: if society is unequal, and they thrive, then it is a short step to the conclusion that they are at fault (although not a step I would necessarily take). The psychological need to protect themselves from such culpability is a compelling reason to ‘fail’ to see truth. (I do not think that in most cases white middle-class men have a comprehensive apprehension of the extent to which the balance is tipped in their favour and consciously conspire to keep it that way, as is sometimes intimated.)

Some women are not only embarrassed by feminism, but feel it has actively done them a disservice by cultivating an orthodoxy by which it is necessary for women to have a career if they want to be considered successful. As having a family is also, for most, desirable, the upshot of the feminist movement has been to increase the pressure on women. It is a common trope in the epicentres of pop-psychology – women’s magazines and daytime television – to devote much discussion to the expectations placed on women to be ‘superwomen’ or ‘supermums’. Furthermore, as the emancipated woman is thus far proving to be less attractive to the un-emancipated man, feminism is also held responsible for the loneliness of some women – many believe that there is an epidemic of unhappily single women (the Bridget Jones phenomenon) and that this is women’s own fault for encroaching on elements of what has traditionally been the male role. One way of dealing with this problem has been to reject the progress made thus far. Many women pretend to be less independent and successful than they really are because (apparently) women’s success emasculates men. In America, The Rules by Ellen Fein and Shelley Schneider² has become the definitive women’s guide to dating. It takes a classic sexist ‘men are men, women are women’ stance, advising women to always allow men to pay for meals, not to ask men to dance, etc.

Of course, the real reason why it is so hard to be a woman in today’s Western society is because that society is still as male-orientated as it is dominated by Judeo-Christian values. I would argue that the changes women have seen thus far are largely pragmatic in nature – for example, enfranchisement, the right to own property, employment legislation etc. – so, in a sense, superficial. The greatest hurdle – that of society’s collective attitude towards gender roles – has yet to be tackled. Women are still seen as essentially passive, are required to uphold a standard of appearance, etc. They have taken on new roles, whilst retaining all the pressures of their old ones; hence the current difficulties. I think it is very sad that because we have not yet made the giant leaps necessary such anti-progressive strategies as The Rules have been adopted. As is often the case when achieving something that is worthwhile, the interim stage is a tough one, but it is extremely short-sighted to give up at that point. Whilst it is true that women moving in on male territory can threaten men, it also paves the way for men to break free of their gender stereotypes and behave in ways more traditionally associated with the female role – for example, taking a more proactive part in child-rearing is be a great pleasure for many men. It is often overlooked that feminism can be beneficial to men as well, allowing them greater liberty also. This puts ‘emasculation’ in a positive light.

It is interesting to note that many rejectors of feminism, whilst denying being feminist, actually espouse some feminist tenets. Without knowing really what it is, or that it is a philosophy to which they do in part subscribe, they reject it outright because of its currently unfashionable status. For example, I think it would be uncontroversial to assert that most people in our society, both male and female, believe men and women (however separate their skills are perceived to be) are ‘equal’ (in some undefined way) and as such deserving of equal rights and opportunities. Few under forty claim that they expect the female in (heterosexual) relationships to bear the significant proportion of responsibility for household tasks or cooking. Neither do I think that most regard women as less intelligent or less capable. However, I believe in many individuals there is some tension between the lofty egalitarian ideologies that are held abstractly, and the more ‘concrete’ beliefs that lie behind the plethora of sexist behaviour we observe moment to moment. This is what I call ‘passive sexism’. Whilst aggressive sexism no doubt thrives as well (bum-slapping bosses alas cannot yet be consigned to the museum of quaint tradition), this conduct is so patently unreasonable as not to be a threat – there is no chance that society will be insidiously subverted. Passive sexism, however, is proving remarkably tricky to unseat. Whilst it is difficult to defend the weight of domestic chores being the woman’s responsibility when both partners have full-time jobs, in reality, this traditional domestic arrangement remains predominant. Similarly, whilst it may be regarded as unfair by many that women’s social status is still dependent upon their physical attributes, this too shows little sign of changing. Again, this is down to individual psychology and the conviction with which we hold the validity of the traditional gender characteristics. Incidentally, I don’t think the tension between what I refer to as concrete and abstract belief is peculiar to the issue of sexism – there often appears to be a rift between people’s moral convictions and their behaviour: for example, I cannot think many would condone sweatshop manufacturing and child labour, yet despite much publicity of the fair-trade issue, most people perpetuate it with their consumption habits.

The decline of feminism can also be attributed to the worrying general trend towards anti-liberalism, currently enjoying mainstream status in the U.S. (where ‘liberalism’ is now a dirty word, often prefixed by ‘bleeding heart’) and becoming increasingly acceptable here (much to the delight of contributors to the Telegraph letters page, in which ‘liberalism’ is invariably preceded by the epithet ‘woolly’). Dare to criticize the middle-class middle-aged white male and one is dismissed with contempt as PC. Indeed, the backlash against political correctness is a fascinating microcosm of the anti-liberal phenomenon. Much like feminism, the term ‘political correctness’ has been subverted by conservatives to mean something pejorative. To be politically correct is to avoid using language that will offend and (more controversially) to change terminology in which prejudice is inherent. Like feminism, in reality this is a practice which most of us adopt (although unlike feminism, it is adopted in a very practical way) – few would find it acceptable to employ the terms ‘nigger’ or ‘Kraut’ (I acknowledge that the former has recently been reclaimed by the black community, much as the term ‘suffragette’ [initially a snide anti-suffrage moniker] was by women and ‘queer’ by homosexuals). The avoidance of such terminology is political correctness in action, as is avoiding linguistic stereotyping and racist or homophobic jokes. (It is interesting to note how much better the anti-racism and gay-rights movements have fared compared to feminism – whilst the stereotyping of ethnic minorities and homosexuals is now taboo, as is telling jokes at their expense, sexist jokes are still prevalent and gender stereotyping remains the norm.) Political correctness also extends to linguistic engineering; the adulterating of innately prejudiced terminology: for example, where the word ‘mankind’ would be employed, the term ‘humankind’ might be substituted. The problem here is, of course, that people differ greatly on their ideas of what is prejudiced. Often perceived as a kind of linguistic fascism, this is the aspect of political correctness most often pounced on and decried: “McCarthyism to counteract imagined totalitarianism”³.

Political correctness has now come to be used in a context outwith language simply pertaining to self-consciously democratic policies. This plays right into the hands of conservatives, as it has become a way to demean those who actively practise non-prejudice. “Something is rotten in the United States of America and it threatens the whole basis of that great society’s role as a protector of the free world and inspiration for those who yearn to be free. American politics is being corrupted and diminished by the doctrine of Political Correctness which demands rigid adherence to the political attitudes and social mores of the liberal-left, and which exhibits a malevolent intolerance to anybody who dares not to comply with them.”⁴ I, for one, do not wish to be ‘tolerant’ of, for example, racism. Do we allow atrocities to be committed because to forbid them infringes someone’s right to commit them? The couching of anti-political-correctness in the terminology of libertarianism is a classic ploy. There is a line between protecting decency and infringing civil rights, and accusing political correctness of crossing it is a cheap shot. The anti-political-correctness movement provides a refuge for racists and sexists and, like the new sanitized face of the BNP, allows them to appear reasonable. I’m not an enthusiastic advocate of linguistic engineering, but I object far more to the objectors; those who are vociferously against it. Find me a PC objector and I will point you out a bigot. Arguably there is a silly element to political correctness, and where the line is to be drawn between justified and silly is a moot point. However, to use it as an excuse to condone the unjustifiable is outrageous.

Some cultural commentators⁵ believe the decline of feminism to be symptomatic of increasing political apathy. I don’t think this is a particularly helpful diagnosis because this only shifts the focus of the problem (what causes the political apathy?). Whilst they are related, it seems to me that both are effects of the same cause: a complacent faith in the political and corporate establishment. People are dimly aware that injustices still exist, but perceive them to be anomalies not indicative of a problem with the system. In fact, there is a delusion that democracy has all but been fully realized in 21st century Anglo-American society, (despite history teaching us that this is highly unlikely to be the case). So why is this conviction held? Because it has been ‘sold’ to us by the increasingly honed PR machines of the political and corporate establishment.

PR was invented by Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays, who was employed by government and corporations to create and manipulate consumers. Using Freud’s insights, he designed stunts and campaigns to appeal to the subconscious, manipulating people by bypassing their rational minds. (Freud supported the creation of consumer society because he believed that within the subconscious lurked dangerous urges, and the creation of consumer zombies would be an effective method of social control.) Psychology was (and still is) cynically used to control the masses. This is still not seen as undemocratic or undermining of individuality. One early job saw Bernays contracted by a conglomerate of America’s most powerful businesses, including General Motors, to persuade people that without capitalism, democracy was not possible, and that business and not politicians were responsible for the great modern America. This discredited Roosevelt’s government whose socialist New Deal was costing corporate America a great deal of revenue. So began the corporate takeover. From the beginning PR was also used to whitewash corporate-political atrocities, such as the American bombing of Guatemala. In the early ‘50s, most of Guatemala was owned by United Fruits. The democratically elected government made it their policy to reclaim the land. United Fruits hired Bernays, who created a communist threat to democracy and American values (in fact, the Guatemalan government was democratic socialist and had no connection to Moscow). Whilst Bernays was in Guatemala there was an anti-American demonstration; many think he staged it. He also set up a false news agency, releasing the fabrication that Moscow was using Guatemala as part of an invasion plan – a soviet outpost in New Orleans’s backyard. The CIA were instructed to organize a coup. They trained soldiers and waged a terror campaign that included dropping bombs. Meanwhile Bernays had convinced America that this was a freedom crusade. In 1954 the elected president fled and a stooge favourably inclined towards United Fruits was installed in his place. Marxist literature was planted and then ‘found’. It was said that there would now be “prosperity and liberty” for the people. This was an instance pure fascism, in the name of consumerism.

I cite these examples to show that even during its first few stumbling steps, PR was a breathtakingly effective tool for social control. Today, this industry has come a long way and its skills have had fifty years and billions of dollars of fine-tuning. Capitalism has established a strangle-hold and PR gurus excel at convincing people there is no crisis, whatever the magnitude of a problem (even if it means warmongering to deflect attention from domestic shortcomings – there’s nothing like xenophobia to unite people). Whilst people are aware of political glibness they remain apathetic for two reasons. Firstly many feel unrepresented by the increasingly inappropriate, but self-perpetuating two-party system in both Britain and America. The parties have become all but indistinguishable in policies, which discourages people from voting. If no party represents your values, and neither varies to any great degree from the other, then not voting is eminently understandable. It has been established that in a two-party system, many will vote with their allegiances, no matter what the campaign platforms. The 1992 Clinton campaign in the U.S. was the first in which the majority of policies were tailored to appeal only to a very small minority – the swing voters. Consequently non-issues, such as seatbelts on school buses, became huge campaign platforms because this pacified a particular (in this case, middle class, suburban) swing-vote demographic. Of course, the prominence of such issues is bewildering to the majority of voters, who don’t care about school buses, and is the other reason for low election turn-out. (In Britain, Blair’s government has taken this even further, not only using this tactic to gain power, but to maintain their popularity once election victory has been achieved. Endless spin fronts nothing but a vacuum where substantive policy used to be.)

In short, as a result of increasingly sophisticated methods of social control using public relations, we have become greater consumers, politically apathetic, and convinced that no crisis need ever be responded to: zombified. I believe the decline of feminism can be attributed in large part to the fact that we are now virtually incapable of independent anti-establishment thought. Whilst Tony Blair smiles at us from under an expensive suit, nobody will believe that anything can really be wrong with our society. Nobody thinks that important-looking seemingly-capable white men in suits will really do anything that bad. Much as people are unenamoured of our political parties and system, deep down they actually have an unshakable faith in the corporate, political, and cultural establishment. This is evidenced by society’s reaction to those who demur: the feminists, the environmentalists, the anti-capitalists, and so on, are treated as fanatics whose opinions are invalid by virtue of their non-adherence to the socio-cultural norms. It has always been the case that to question the establishment has been psychologically difficult for humans as a result of our overwhelming herding instinct. As Einstein, a young upstart who dared to question Newton, said “the foolish faith in authority is the enemy of truth”: humanity’s downfall is the ease with which we accept the status quo, and our disinclination to question it. However, the problem is much worse now than in Einstein’s day, when the PR beast had not yet reared its ugly head.

Again, we come back to the weakness of the human mind as being the real enemy of feminism and, indeed, all revolutionary movements. However, it must be noted that society does change, and cultural norms have evolved over time. Such changes always begin with a minority who eventually exert what is called ‘minority influence’ upon the majority. Certain factors affect the extent and speed of this influence or indeed dictate whether there is influence or no, for example, the within-group consistency of the minority, and the consistency over time of the minority position. Lack of consistency may be a problem in the case of feminism (and tends to be a problem in general with left-wing philosophies) as there are many schools of thought splintering from the central idea, some of which have changed over the decades. However I think there is more to the failure of the educated minority to promote change in the case of feminism. Let us compare the relative success of the anti-racism movement. One of the catalysts in combating slavery was when black people adopted some of the cultural traditions of white people (e.g., becoming Christian)⁶, thus highlighting for the whites their similarities. Of course, it is highly undesirable for a culture to be sacrificed in order that it might be assimilated without prejudice into another culture, but as an interim (if unfortunate) step it could be considered a success in the battle for racial equality. Similarly what has thus far been achieved by feminism is showcasing women’s ability to do things that it was formerly considered only men could do. The main causes of racism are ignorance, unfamiliarity, and fear. After the initial hurdle of proving some common ground, this can (and in many cases has been) combated – integration and education dispel ignorance and unfamiliarity, and with them departs fear. However, sexism is not perpetuated by the same factors, but rather by cultural transference. Where ignorance can be educated away, social construct is much harder to demolish, paradoxically because of its arbitrary nature. The gender gulf is greatly exaggerated and upheld in almost all cultures. The extent of the intrinsic gender gap is a matter for science and debate, however I would contend it that clearly it is minimal, and furthermore, rendered irrelevant in the face of individual differences, which are significant. I think that in the case of the gender difference, the lady protests too much (or rather, society protests the lady too much). In order to perpetuate what is essentially an arbitrary categorization (like nationality and most other in-group/out-group distinctions) a rigid and exaggerated gender stereotype has evolved.

There is a social psychological phenomenon called the fundamental attribution error, whereby people are overinclined to attribute the behaviour of another to their enduring characteristics rather than to external circumstance. For example, in one experiment⁷ students were given some pro-Castro and anti-Castro essays to read and informed that the authors had been told to write pro- or anti-Castro essays respectively. They were then asked to judge the real attitude of the author. It was thought that the evidence of the essay content would be discounted; however, this was not the case. The subjects seemed to attribute the essays’ contents to the disposition of the authors, despite convincing evidence that in fact situational factors were predominant. I think there is some similarity between this phenomenon and the mechanism employed to perpetuate gender stereotypes in that this also relies on an error of attribution. The gender element as a causative factor is constantly overemphasized. For example, if a man is a bad driver, then he is just a bad driver, yet if the bad driver is a woman, then it is invariably inferred that she is a bad driver because she is a women (when in reality her bad driving probably has very little to do with her gender status). Although the parallel falls down by way of the characteristic of bad driving also being an internal factor, I believe the overattribution of gender factors is another sort of consistent attribution error. In this manner people are brainwashed by their gender conditioning, which, unlike the causes of racism, is self-perpetuating.

It seems to me that the failure of the feminist ethos to affect real social change boils down to the weakness of human psychology. The predominance of spin in today’s society discourages individual thought, reinforcing an inherent psychological flaw: our unwillingness to challenge the orthodoxy. Fundamentally what oppresses women is the cultural legacy of gender conditioning, something that has thus far proved impervious to intellectual attack. Inculcation of gender stereotypes is self-perpetuating – we must all create ourselves in such a fashion that we thrive, and we can only thrive by adhering to the cultural norms. We may have evolved perfect sociobiological tools for ensuring group survival on the Serengeti ten thousand years ago, but for a truly egalitarian society we are less than equipped. We must examine the very mechanics by which this cultural transmission is perpetuated, which may or may not involve some form of instinctive attribution error. Feminism currently has a poor public image, being perceived as largely irrelevant, embarrassing, or even damaging because its achievements thus far have arguably made life in the short term more difficult for women. This, along with the modern trope of anti-liberalism means that feminism is unlikely to affect change in the near future.


¹Former shadow-home-secretary Ann Widdecombe on BBC television’s Parkinson, 2002.
² 1995, Warner Books.
³ Jasmin Alibhai-Brown, The Independent, 11 Aug 1993
⁴ Sunday Times (20th October 1991)
⁵ e.g., Noreena Hertz in The Silent Takeover, William Heinemann, 2001
⁶ See The Interesting Narrative, Olaudah Equiano, 1789.

04/01/03