True Love Revolution’s co-president, Rachel Wagley, responded to my op-ed in The Harvard Crimson with an entry on the club’s blog today. To expand on some of my original arguments, I address her points in the following post. (I recommend reading the original op-ed and her response for context.)

In her response to my op-ed, Wagley claims that I misconstrue TLR’s beliefs about feminism and implies I didn’t do adequate research on the club’s views before writing about them. Though I apparently didn’t make much of an impression on her, I did, in fact, attend the RUS meeting where she was present and asked her several times about her views on gender construction and performance. I was not present at any TLR dinner discussions this semester, but I have attended past functions and debated a former TLR president at an event sponsored by the club. I felt that these experiences offered a sufficient understanding of the club’s stance on feminism.

Though Wagley claims I went on Google to “dig up dirt” on her, I’m not particularly interested in making ad hominem arguments, given that I actually have far more substantial grievances to address with TLR. Rather, someone forwarded me the Q&A in which Wagley names TLR, among other clubs, as a “social policy initiative”. I found it pertinent to mention this in my op-ed since the organization has repeatedly described itself as merely a group for like-minded students and has consistently denied allegations that they have any intention of legally restricting how others live. Perhaps the Q&A was a mischaracterization, but “social policy initiative” are Wagley’s words, not mine, and they certainly carry some modicum of political intent. Further, my op-ed mentioned that the club reposted a request on their blog from the organization Massachusetts Citizens For Life , which asks for written testimony against sex ed courses that teach “behaviors for pregnancy prevention” and “acceptance of consensual premarital sex”. Wagley claims that they were merely “informing interested group members about an abstinence education event”, which glosses over the political significance of the event. This was the blurb on the TLR blog:

IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING!
COMMITTEE: Joint Education Committee
HEARING LOCATION: Hearing Room A1
DATE: Tuesday, October 13, 2009
TIME: 1:00 p.m.
On October 13, 2009, the Joint Committee on Education will hold a public hearing on legislation that will affect MA children.  Please know when bills contain the term “health education” fully translated it means “sex education.” Most of the bills requiring health education attempt to make Health a core curriculum subject, thereby making implementation of the Frameworks mandatory in all school districts.  Under the Frameworks, students would be taught (numbers indicate learning standards or interdisciplinary objectives):
•    how to get an abortion without parental knowledge (4.20 and 4.a, parental notification / judicial bypass);
•    how to get contraceptives (4.7, whom to consult and 4.9, students report on state policy);
•    behaviors for pregnancy prevention (4.8);
•    acceptance of consensual premarital sex (4.b); and,
•    acceptance of homosexual behavior (4.3, 4.4, 4.14 and 4.b).
[…]

Please bring a written copy of your testimony to leave with the committee.
If you cannot attend, please send your testimony to the Joint Committee on Education, Room 473G (House), Room 511B (Senate) State House, Boston, MA, 02133.
For further information contact Massachusetts Citizens for Life 617-242-4199 or visit  http://masscitizensforlife.org/frameworks.html#agenda
Marie Sturgis, Executive Director and Lobbyist, Mass Citizens for Life

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that disseminating this information demonstrates TLR must have, at least to some extent, a political agenda and an opinion on public policy. In other words, they are not merely a support group and social network. Even if they are, Wagley makes a huge stretch when she claims that Harvard’s student body “agrees” with TLR’s views. She cites is a student publication’s sex survey as proof of this claim, since the majority of respondents said they were not sexually active. Sampling methods and scientific validity aside, just because our peers are not having sex does not mean that they intend to wait for marriage or that they, like TLR, attribute “harmful consequences” to premarital sexual activity.

The central argument in my op-ed is that TLR is misguided in targeting feminism as the scapegoat for “sexual mania”. Wagley responds by giving a “non-biased historical” perspective of feminism. She claims that the movement “had nothing to do with erasing gender roles” and was merely interested in “greater quality of life” and legal equality for women. In that case, she should probably inform Simone de Beauvoir, Wikipedia, and the entire second half of the 20th century that they need to revise their understanding of feminism. The fight for political and economic rights cannot be divorced from resistance against gender norms, a major reason for inequality in the first place. Though there were indeed early feminists who would probably support TLR’s notion of the traditional family, feminism as a movement and a body of scholarship is significantly defined by the progress made in the 1960s and 70s.

Wagley further states, “Society might expect (though hardly endorse) this vulgar behavior from men, but once women adopt vulgarity in attempts to achieve equality, we must question if equality means erasing natural differences.” First, what are our “natural” differences? There isn’t even scientific consensus on whether men are cognitively better suited for math. Unless she can point to empirical proof, Wagley should refrain from making broad generalizations about whether “vulgarity” is more natural to one sex. Second, feminism has not and does not force women “surrender special characteristics” (whatever those are) or “become exactly like men”. Feminism fights to give women the option to live without gender-related rules governing their conduct, but women are free to be mothers, professionals, wives, lesbians, virgins, or whatever else they like. Wagley argues that feminism is “demeaning” because it “lower sexual standards”. If lowering sexual standards means that society no longer ostracizes women for having sex, then I’d consider that progress. I find it far more insulting when TLR informs me that my decisions are not “the best choice”.

Finally, Wagley never addresses my point that she has misread Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs. She cites the book as an indictment against “the societal dangers of second-wave feminism”, but fails to realize that Levy doesn’t level criticism at feminism itself. Instead, Levy is critical of acts that are falsely empowering and dismayed that feminism’s message has been hijacked for profit. Wagley claims to recognize that a profit agenda drives the porn industry, but this is the first time I’ve heard her blame something other than feminism for the existence of raunch culture. Feminists, radical or otherwise, do not argue that making “any choice” should be considered empowerment, nor do they presume to know what every woman should or shouldn’t do. Any organization informing women that there is only one “best choice” to make in regard to sexuality (or anything else for that matter) is not only anti-feminist but oppressive.