Bowdren's Definition of Feminism Too Narrow

For someone who claims she "knows something about the various strains of feminism," Kelly A. Bowdren could have fooled me. Contrary to what she might think, in her opinion piece entitled "With Friends Like These..." (The Crimson 12/8/93), Bowdren presents an interpretation of "feminism" similarly narrow in scope to that which she criticizes, proposed in a Lighthouse magazine article by Karen E. Boyle.

While Bowdren correctly criticizes Boyle's assertion that "Harvard feminist" and the feminist movement say women must reject traditional female roles, Bowdren's characterization is not much better. After touting her own knowledge and stating that "the word 'feminist' carries a lot more baggage," Bowdren does a laughable job of reducing feminism to what she thinks "most feminist" believe: "men and women are equal because deep down men and women are the same."

Let me set the record straight, for anyone who has and will misconstrue the term: "feminism" has many different strands and meanings, and cannot be pigeonholed into one narrow definition. While Bowdren admits that feminists form a "disparate group," she continues to address and reject one kind of feminism, that which includes Boyle's superwoman/have-it-all idea. In reality, there are liberal enlightenment feminists, cultural feminists, radical feminists, and more. There's a place for Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Daly, Katie Roiphe and Madonna in feminist discourse--all of whom, I would argue, can be called "feminists" in one way or another. For your information, Ms. Bowdren, some feminists do not believe that men and women are equal--some feminists believe that women are essentially different from men and good in their own, uniquely female ways. If one more conservative group tries to tell me what a "feminist" is by categorizing and generalizing, I am going to sic Camille Paglia on them. There is no one "evil feminist," except perhaps, as the Peninsula staff would have you believe, any "evil woman with a brain."

As for Bowdren's claim that "with Karen Boyle on the 'right' and [Crimson writer] Michael Mayo on the left, no wonder women are confused," just what exactly is it that Bowdren thinks she does? She vehemently and aggressively argues the case that biologically, women are less aggressive than men. By taking an active stance in defining women as weaker and more passive by nature, Bowdren herself goes against the very definition she wishes to support. Doing herself and others a disservice, her own participation on the Peninsula Council is oxymoronic, with an emphasis on the moronic. Perhaps if Bowdren had really listened during Women's Studies 10b, instead of defensively gathering material for her Peninsula article, she would have learned something. Stephanie C. Bornstein '94