Conservapedia

I bet you all thought that Conservapedia was a joke, didn't you? Well, sadly for all thinking people on the planet, it's not. Conservapedia was started in 2006 by Andy Schafly, to counter the 'liberal bias' found in Wikipedia (otherwise known as facts) and to promote a Christian conservative viewpoint. It certainly does that.

A quick scan of its 'Feminism' page provides many laughs, but also many genuinely incorrect viewpoints that are hurtful to the feminist cause. I have boldly waded in to counter some of the more, ah, radical claims made in Conservapedia. Sit back and enjoy. Oh, and by the way, the URL is http://conservapedia.com/Feminism, if you think I'm joking. I'm not.

"Specifically, a modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities, including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse with women."

Modern feminist, in their definition, is 1970s onwards. They seem to have no bones with the suffragettes of the 1920s...other than the fact that they inspired modern feminism. First off, the accusation that modern feminism opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women.

This is patently false. What feminism encourages, in a word, is choice. Pre-feminism, when women had no rights, they had no choice. They had to be homemakers and mothers. Now, feminism has allowed women to pursue what they want to do. If you want to be a homemaker and a mother, that's fantastic! Go and pursue those dreams! If you don't want to, that is splendid too.

Next up is the claim that we want to participate in predominantly male activities. Fine. You got me there. Predominantly male activities is pretty much anything and everything. Even cooking, which is one of the favored insults leveled at a feminist ("Get back in the kitchen, woman!") is dominated by men (the Culinary Institute of America has twice as many men as women). So yes, I'm going to say that feminists do want to participate in predominantly male activities, and make them equal activities.

And as for the lesbian claim...well, sure. If that's your schtick, go for it.

They've got a list of traits that will identify the Modern Feminist too, and here they are (cut for time):

"Oppose chivalry"
This one I kind of see as a depends-on-your-viewpoint thing. Some feminists, I know, are offended by chivalry. Their view is that chivalry is based on the presupposition that women are helpless and can't do anything for themselves, and carrying on these traditions is just enforcing that view. There are also women who see chivalry as something harmless, that men can carry on if they want to, or not, for all they care. My view on this is that chivalry is something that should be practised by both genders. To me, chivalry is manners. So hold doors for people; pay for the dinner if you asked the person out; share your umbrella. Be a decent person. I promise, it's not that hard.

"Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family"
Please see above point. Feminism, as I said, is about choices. If that is your choice, then feminism is behind it 100%.

"Shirk traditional gender activities, like baking"
God damn it. Someone should have told me that my modern feminist card would be revoked if I baked anything before I made those biscotti this afternoon. Again, this falls under sweeping generalizations, and we can only go back to the choice point.

"Prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"
Whether or not a man wears it is really beside the point when it comes to my sartorial choices. And in fact, I seem to remember a lot of shaming from the religious right if a guy wears jeans that are considered 'feminine.' Funny, that. At any rate, I wear pants and dresses, where pants are appropriate and where dresses are appropriate. Pants make life a lot easier - everything from walking down the street to working on a construction site is easier when you're wearing pants. Plus, you don't have to worry about windy days. Pants are a convenience thing; which is, I imagine, why guys started wearing them.

"Seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines"
This is a serious question. Should women serve in the military? Of course, it's only serious in the U.S., where women, although they can serve in non-combat roles in the military, are prohibited from actually being in the front lines. In Canada, both men and women serve in combat roles. The general arguments leveled against it are that women are, on average, less strong than men; and women when captured can face a whole other level of serious torture (eg. rape). The way that Canada dealt with it was extensive conditioning for both men and women in combat roles; so that when they're actually fighting, they're fit as they can be. And as for the heightened danger for women in combat roles: if a woman decides that she wants to brave that because she wants to serve her country, kudos to her. Another related question is whether women should be exempt from the draft. I say no: if you're going to agree that both men and women can serve equally in the military, then you're going to have to say that both men and women will be called up to fight when there is a need for it.

"Distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (eg. Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign)"
This one is just funny. The reason why Henry VIII's wives take precedence is not because of a dire feminist conspiracy to throw them into the limelight, but because they kind of took precedence in his lifetime, too. Henry was a bit of a ladies' man. We remember his wives because he set aside one to marry another for a son, and in doing so created a serious diplomatic relations disaster with Spain and split from the Catholic Church, creating the Church of England of which he was head. Shortly after he married that wife, he beheaded her. His penchant for divorcing wives and beheading them is well-known because it's a pretty major part of his character, and drove a lot of his actions.

"Believe marriage implies female servitude when it is in fact a mutual bond"
I absolutely agree with this one. It should be taken in context with the next point, however...
"Often condemn the God-Given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy Bible"
...which is frequently quoted by conservatives as evidence for wives being subservient to husbands. So this one doesn't quite add up.

"Object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey;" object to other female-only names, such as "temptress""
Gee, I can't imagine why we would object to being named temptresses.

And the last one, my personal favorite:
"Support of the homosexual agenda"
The "homosexual agenda," as defined by Conservapedia, is the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as healthy and normal (start clutching your pearls now) by homosexuals, who desire acceptance and approval of their actions.

Okay, again, you've got me. I, personally, am behind this homosexual agenda. Sign me right up. It raises an interesting question, however - should feminism, by definition, promote homosexual rights?

Feminism is the belief in/action towards full equality between the genders/sexes. In my opinion, this encompasses LGBTQ rights as well. If women or men don't have the right to marry and love whomever they want without censure, then they don't have equal rights. There can be no equality in society without every single individual having equal rights. If you give heterosexuals the right to marry and love, then you must give LGBTQ people this right as well. Feminism has to stand behind these rights, if they want true equality.

So there you have it, feminism straight from Conservapedia! If you consider yourself a modern feminist and you don't quite match up to their guidelines, don't worry. There are a lot worse things than being hated by Conservapedia. In fact, I'd say being hated by Conservapedia is a sure sign you're doing something right.