Liberté vs Liberty

Recently, I watched a Jubilee debate where liberal political commentator Dean Withers sat across from a group of conservative, MAGA women, many of whom openly rejected feminism. Throughout the video, they debated women in leadership, abortion, gender roles, and whether feminism still benefits women. What struck me most was not simply that I disagreed with many of these women, but the contradiction of the situation itself. They were sitting in a room, publicly expressing political opinions, debating a man as an equal, and choosing for themselves what they believed a woman’s role should be, all freedoms generations of feminists fought to make possible.

This raises a question: Can you support women’s rights while rejecting feminism?

Feminism does not mean that every woman has to become a CEO, reject motherhood, vote Democrat, or live a certain lifestyle. At its core, feminism is about women having the same rights, opportunities, and ability to make choices as men. A woman choosing to become a stay-at-home mother is not inherently anti-feminist. In fact, having the freedom to make that choice is part of the point. The problem begins when personal preference becomes an argument for what all women should be expected or allowed to do.

This is why I found parts of the Jubilee debate so frustrating. Women today are able to vote, receive an education, pursue careers, own property, participate in politics, and openly challenge the opinions of men because previous generations refused to accept the roles society assigned them. These freedoms did not simply appear. Women protested, organized, wrote, marched, went to court, and faced enormous backlash to obtain them. To enjoy those freedoms while dismissing the movement responsible for fighting for them seems deeply contradictory.

It is also easy to reject feminism when many of its victories have become so normal that we forget they were ever controversial. A woman voting does not feel radical today. Neither does a woman attending university, becoming a lawyer, running for office, or having her own bank account. Yet at different points in history, women demanding these freedoms were considered disruptive, improper, and even dangerous. Many arguments made against feminism today, that it has gone “too far” or threatens traditional values, sound remarkably similar to arguments used against earlier women’s rights movements.

That does not mean feminism should be immune from criticism. There are legitimate debates about what modern feminism should prioritize, who it represents, and how it approaches complicated issues. Women also do not have to agree simply because they are women. Equality includes the freedom to hold conservative beliefs, criticize feminism, or embrace traditional gender roles. But there is a difference between criticizing parts of a movement and dismissing the necessity of the movement altogether.

Perhaps that is what I found most ironic about the debate. The women speaking against feminism were simultaneously demonstrating one of feminism’s greatest achievements: women having the independence and public voice to disagree openly.

For me, feminism has never been about telling women what choices they should make. It is about making sure those choices actually exist. A woman should be able to become a mother or a politician, stay home or pursue a career, embrace tradition or reject it completely. The goal is not for every woman to live the same life. It is for being a woman to never be the reason she is prevented from choosing her own.

So, can someone support women’s rights without calling herself a feminist? Of course she can reject the label. But rejecting the label does not erase the history behind the freedoms she exercises. The ability to sit in a room, debate politics, challenge a man, and publicly decide for yourself what being a woman should mean is not evidence that feminism was unnecessary. It is evidence that feminism worked.