Click here if you don’t see subscription options
​Helen AlvaréJune 22, 2016

In the 1970s, when feminism got loud and national and had something approaching traction in the United States, it claimed that it would “do politics” and “do business” with a new focus. The focus would be people, not processes or power. It would be the vulnerable, not the usual recipients of government or corporate largesse.

Today, confusion reigns where feminism is concerned. There are living witnesses to its earlier promises, but these are to be found, ironically, among grass-roots women who go about their business while ignoring or eschewing the feminist label. Among feminism’s self-proclaimed leaders, there is not much talk of serving the vulnerable. There is even a fair amount of the opposite.

There is additional confusion about whether there even exists anything specifically “feminine” to be feminist about. The most celebrated feminist theorist, Judith Butler, has even gone beyond Simone de Beauvoir’s famous social construction theory—“one is not born a woman but becomes one”—to the notion that sex, biological and otherwise, is strictly a matter of performance. Furthermore, at the same time that the avant-garde denies that the categories of masculine and feminine have any content, they affirm that Bruce Jenner is definitely a woman on the grounds of his subjective certainty about a basket of female traits and his stereotypically feminine clothes and makeup. And the nation’s first-ever female presidential candidate on a major party ticket, immediately after her crowning, ran to pay her dues to the left’s version of the right’s National Rifle Association: the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Both require homage before a candidate of a major party may proceed to the general election. At Planned Parenthood, in a speech highlighting abortion 16 times, women’s freedom was essentially defined as the right to sex without children, by any means necessary—no more fitting locus for such a speech, given that Planned Parenthood last year destroyed over 300,000 unborn human lives.

Enough. I officially miss the 70s .

Still, I never despair because feminism’s promise to empower the vulnerable is alive and well among grass-roots women who are serving women and men and children across the United States, reminding everyone that the best of feminism is still alive and has not lost its soul. Its truest purveyors, however, are neither elite nor even much noticed.

They are the women who welcome immigrants into the United States despite increasingly fierce opposition, who found and staff the thousands of centers that care for impoverished pregnant women and single mothers, including the Sisters of Life. They are the women who head the largest Catholic charitable associations in the United States and in the world. One woman, Sister Helen Prejean, has nearly single-handedly put the question of abolishing capital punishment back on the national agenda. And women, including me and tens of thousands of other women at the grass-roots level,are working to ameliorate the disadvantages that especially poor and working class women face in a relationship and marriage market in which casual sex and cohabitation are the price of entry. Women dislike both far more than mendo.  But men still set the terms, especially in a world where men still “do the asking” for marriage; and sex is at least “plastic,” or even nearly meaningless, thanks to its divorce from even the idea of children.

It is rare but not impossible that movements for justice attract elite money and spokespersons while staying true to their best impulses. Grass-roots efforts are proceeding apace here and there, but something bigger and more powerful is required to move the ball. Political party dynamics today hurt, not help. They are too blunt, and too much about “sending signals” to donors and interest groups, thanks to our mess of a campaign finance system. (Love him or hate him, Bernie Sanders got that issue right.) There is nothing substantial whatsoever in any political or corporate pipeline I can see today, poised to ameliorate the suffering of American women, minorities or the poor. I don’t much care who leads the charge, but I would love to see a retooled women’s movement retake this mantle and run with it.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Charles Erlinger
8 years ago
Prof. Alvare, l suggest that you go ahead and establish an "ism" of your own, define it as what you want it to mean, and promote it as you can. Once these "isms" metamorphose it seems impossible to restore the original meaning.
Jeriah Knox
8 years ago
The problem with abortion rights is that it protects the Bill Clinton's of the world and their misuse of women. Sure it gives women some new options, asking women if they want to be like Hillary or Monica, but what of the woman that wants to own her husband and have her children about her? Do we trample her rights so a bunch of juvenile men can sleep around without risk of responsibility?
Lisa Weber
8 years ago
Speaking of a woman wanting to "own her husband" is a questionable choice of words. Perhaps some other idea was meant?
Lisa Weber
8 years ago
The problem with both the Catholic Church and feminism is that they tend to define women solely in terms of her sexuality and reproductive ability. Both are trying to control the power of sexuality and reproduction when sexuality and reproduction are private matters - at least, Jesus treated sexuality as a private matter so one might imagine that the church would also. If the Catholic Church and feminists did not have the other to throw rocks at for stupidity in their views about sexuality, both would be deprived of the opportunity for publicity. It boils down to "love your enemy." You should love your enemy because your enemy is likely to be trying to gain power in what you consider to be exclusively your arena. As for defining women's work solely as working for the poor and marginalized, it is noble work but not the only work that women can or should be doing. The poor and marginalized need truth and beauty - sometimes more than they need more clothes and food. Within the church, speaking the truth is sadly neglected work that women need to be doing. Jesus talked to women about the Kingdom of Heaven, not about their wombs or sexuality. The church and the women in it need to be following his example.
Kevin Pitts
7 years 11 months ago
Lisa, thank you for your post. I'm very late to reading this article, but I still want to ask: what do you think would be a full definition of woman?
Eileen Markey
8 years ago
"Among feminism’s self-proclaimed leaders, there is not much talk of serving the vulnerable. There is even a fair amount of the opposite." I'm very confused about this statement. Do you have some kind of citation to support it?

The latest from america

The ultimate goal is to prepare the men to be able to build strong and healthy relationships with their parishioners.
Colleen DulleJune 24, 2024
The head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication has defended his department's use of expelled Jesuit priest Marko Rupnik’s artwork in its official materials.
Colleen DulleJune 21, 2024
A conversation with Rachel L. Swarns, the author of "The 272: The Families Who were Enslaved and Sold to Build The American Catholic Church"
JesuiticalJune 21, 2024
Spanish Jesuit Luis María Roma, who died in 2019, was recently discovered to have abused hundreds of Indigenous girls while serving as a missionary in rural Bolivia, and to have documented his acts in a diary.