What chicks are left?

It wasn’t until college that I found a group of people who openly and proudly identified as feminists, so I’m happy the Indianapolis Star has been devoting space a few times a month to two women who wear the feminist label like a badge of honor.

I would be happier, though, if these “Chicks on the Right” hadn’t decided that my feminism — the feminism I have identified with since I was 14-years-old, the feminism that got me called “feminazi” in high school — isn’t real.

Which is the first among a list of reasons I wish the preeminent feminist voices in Hoosier media weren’t theirs.

Not only do they want to limit who is really feminist, but they prioritize their conservatism over feminist critique.

Their debut, “Here’s what real feminism looks like,” maintained that liberal feminism isn’t real.

It’s not really in women’s best interest because, like all crazy liberal ideas, it encourages women to be dependent victims rather than personally responsible actors.
Just because you disagree with one type of feminism doesn’t mean it’s not “real” feminism.

There are incredible flaws embedded in the feminism associated with the suffragettes (they thought women’s place was in the home), the Second Wavers (Betty Freidan infamously called lesbians “the lavender menace”) and today’s liberal feminists (it’s kind of hard for poor women to Lean In), but they are all feminists.

Don’t deny my reality just because my feminism doesn’t match yours. The failure to consider feminism as a wide-reaching movement of “feminisms” reflects the Chicks’ overall lack of empathy.

They care for feminists as long as they are conservative. They care for LGBT individuals as long as they are conservative.

Opinionated news media tends to fall into the chasm of party alignment. Admittedly, I have probably not written enough about my disappointment in the Obama administration. But I’d like to think that my feminist columns are relatively nonpartisan.

I understand that being “on the right” is part of their shtick, but at times, the Chicks unnecessarily and fallaciously reinforce divisions.

I was shocked at the gall of their column, “Wendy Davis is Democrats’ latest cult phenomenon,” which was peppered with exclamations by media outlets about how Davis looks. “We now know her choice of designer pants!” the op-ed shouted. “This, after all, is what matters, and it’s what wins elections for Democrats.”

Given Sarah Palin’s embarrassing sideshow in the 2008 election, I’m surprised to hear that throwing pretty women in front of the electorate is a Democratic strategy.

I’m even more surprised that the Chicks would willfully twist a problem with the media into a problem with Democrats, but I suppose I shouldn’t be.

Sexist expectations of female politicians is a bipartisan issue — unless you are trying to imply that your opponent is frivolous and stupid.

Then damaging female stereotypes are fair game — at least for the Chicks. But this wasn’t the only instance in which the Chicks let their allegiance to the right compromise their feminist backbone.

Their column, “Stop being offended — it’s not sexist to be chivalrous,” seemed to purposely misunderstand what benevolent sexism is.

“Apparently those groundbreaking studies should be making us question what sort of sexist jerks we married, what with all of their helpfulness and compliments and whatnot,” the Chicks complain.

Benevolent sexism is the idea that some “positives” of being a woman are actually damaging, like the idea that men should pay for dates or open the car door for women.

The theory recognizes that these behaviors reinforce sexism but does not necessitate that anyone who participates in these behaviors is a raging misogynist.

In this way, the Chicks fail to meaningfully engage with critics or alternate ideas.

Instead, they use sassy rhetoric to rile those who already agree with them.

Sure, they convinced many who wouldn’t otherwise identify as feminists to do so, but how much will these new feminists engage in the movement or the dialogue?

Would I be able to bond with them over feminism, or would they shun me as a fake because I don’t buy the Chick Doctrine?

I am thrilled to see feminist issues discussed in the Indianapolis Star, but I wish those discussing them weren’t trying to force other feminists out of the conversation.

­— casefarr@indiana.edu
Follow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.