A Good Feminist
Several of my Twitter friends commented about this, saying that she's not a very good feminist. These are all women whom at least I would consider to be good feminists. So when they say that, I sit up and listen. I used to work for maybe the most stringent feminist I've ever met, and I always have an interest in this. I have two friends who are pursuing Feminist Studies in school, and we have these conversations regularly--about what is and is not feminism.
So here's my 2p about this discussion.
Feminism, at its inception, was about equality. Equal choice. For women and for men. In fact, as one of my college professors so eloquently pointed out to me in my own Women's Studies class in undergrad, a true feminist argues as stridently for men's rights as they do for women's. Not women over men, not men over women. But equality. Women should have the same opportunities that men have. And vice versa.
A good feminist, according to my professor, should fight as hard for a woman to stay in the home and get married as s/he should fight for her to have a job. A good feminist should also fight as hard for a man to stay in the home and care for his children as s/he should for a man to have a job. A good feminist should fight as hard for a man to stay home and care for his family as s/he should for a woman to go to work. A good feminist should fight as hard for a woman to stay home and care for her family as s/eh should for a man to go to work. A good feminist does not need to be a women, nor feminine. Because it's all about equality.
Feminism isn't about women in the workplace. It was never intended to take away a woman's right to choose to get married and have children and be a stay-at-home mom. Yet somehow it seems to get the rap (on both sides of the fence) that it will do that. But that's not what it was intended to do. It was intended to promote equal choice for all genders.
And while I, as a woman, choose to work (and I'm not married, so I don't know who's gonna stay home and take care of the kids I don't have...), I will definitely defend the right of my fellow women (and men) to choose to let their spouse work. If a woman feels like she can't choose to do what she wants, that becomes an issue for me. But if she is given the opportunity to choose, and decides to choose housewifedom, then yay for her. It bugs me that we don't see that as a job, first of all. I have several friends who have done it, and they work harder than anyone with a corporate job I've ever seen. God bless those women who, because of economic pressures, have to be both a full-time mother and a full-time corporate worker (or other worker). I can't imagine how hard that would be.
What about you? What is your definition of "a good feminist"? What were you taught about feminism? How do you feel about choice? I know I'm taking my life into my hands in a manner of speaking, so let's try to be nice about it. But I really would like to hear your opinions.
4 comments:
Now I'm feeling like a bad feminist (specifically a bad adjunct women's studies professor) because I completely missed Ali's comment (I have the worst obsession with The Bachelor/ette; it's mortifying, really). But for what it's worth, Becca, here are my thoughts about choice feminism ...
Choice feminism -- or the idea that the women's movement empowered women to make whatever life choices they want and that all life choices should be celebrated equally -- is the feminism of most young women (if I can rely on my own life experience teaching women's studies). I don't think that choice feminism is bad or weak or anything like that. And in terms of the lived feminism of real women's (and men's) lives, I think it's a pragmatic way to make a difficult ideology work.
The problem is that, although I want to celebrate everyone’s life choices equally, many factors are standing in the way. Not every woman has the choice to quit her job and be married or raise kids or whatever. Shouldn’t jobs be flexible, shouldn’t childcare be available, shouldn’t our institutions respond to those who are raising children on their own or who can’t afford to live on one income? When we've focused on individual choices, it becomes difficult to launch structural analysis or critique because we've narrowed the movement.
Not to mention that choice feminism, by focusing on individuals rather than groups, downplays social phenomena, like poverty, race, sexuality, etc., that shape a given woman or man's experience.
Finally, what if women aren’t satisfied with their choices (whatever they are)? What if women's choices (or, again, men's choices) leave them vulnerable? I worry about the feminine mystique, women choosing to stay at home but then having trouble re-entering the workforce later on. Or having their husband leave or become disabled or die prematurely and the women might be unable to take care of a family because of "choices" related to education, professional experience, etc. Or, barring disaster, women simply look back at their lives at 60 and feeling unfulfilled.
What I am trying to say is that focusing on choice is limited because most women don’t have a choice. And even when they do, choice doesn’t guarantee happiness or stability (and I realize that feminism isn't about happiness, it's about justice, but still).
I think you're precisely right about what feminism means and I think that choice is an incredibly important concept. But I don't think it's the totality, or even the most interesting part, of the movement.
Katie, I am so glad you stopped by! It's great to hear another academic opinion. My friend Sam, a male actually, recently finished his MA in women's studies, and he and I have this discussion a lot--he actually studied this area in order to be something of a dissident voice. He's an interesting person. I also know that Mary (whom, if you're the Katie I think you are, you know, lol) specializes in feminist literature and would know much more about the movement than I would. Perhaps she'll join this conversation as well. It would be great to have all these academic voices again. I miss that.
I so appreciate your comments. I hadn't been thinking specifically of the feminist movement when I wrote my opinions (especially from an academic perspective), but I do love academic discussions, so I'm so glad you posted this. If you come back again, I would love to hear your follow-up thoughts to my comments.
From my own limited experience in Women's Studies classes, I did feel like there was an extreme difference between women (like perhaps you and Mary) who had studied the feminist movement and knew feminism in all its philosophical and critical expressions (in literature, in music, in philosophy, in film, in art, etc.) and women who were not academically feminist, but were acting out what they felt were their feminist ideals without the underpinnings of the philosophical understanding.
Is it possible that, like a lot of academic conversation, there needs to sort of be a philsophical conversation about being a "good feminist" and a separate praxis conversation? Again, I'm not familiar with the movement, but I would assume that, like a lot of movements, it encompasses so much broader an ideology than the media or the general academic culture can label. Which then means that there are several different ways to be a good feminist.
I still would argue that calling a woman a bad feminist because she chooses to be a housewife when she could easily choose to do whatever she wants is actually bad feminism. But I'm okay if people don't agree with that. :-)
Part of being human (male or female) is that our choices have consequences. And I certainly think it's necessary and good that we continue to fight for *all* women to be able to make the choices they want to make. There is still a lot of inequality, especially when it comes to social status and education. I also think that, at a certain point, once we've made our choices, we need to learn that they have consequences. If, as a woman, I choose to stay home to be a mother and wife, then I need to know that I may have difficulty reentering the workforce later on if I have to. Hopefully, I can continue to do things that will allow me to reenter the workforce if I have to. But if I do choose to do that anyway, I don't think that makes me a bad feminist.
Anyway, good thoughts, Katie, as always. I appreciate your expertise!! I'm not much for the Bachelor/ette shows. Oddly, I watch a lot of reality TV, but just never got into this one (and I even write romance novels, haha). This post doesn't make me want to watch it anymore than I did before. :-) But I certainly do appreciate your thoughts!!
I know what you mean, Becca. I guess I personally am not invested in evaluating anyone else's feminism. If someone wants to identify as a feminist and be a housewife, or The Bachelorette, or whatever, that's fine by me. Very few men or women identify with that label, so I don't have an interest in running anyone out of the movement. (Though, if you want to see a feminist making this argument, Google Linda Hirshman and The American Prospect; she wrote a very incendiary article about opting out that I teach in my intro to women's studies course. It definitely gets the discussion started.)
And I absolutely think one could be a housewife and a feminist at the same time. My concern is that choice is a really ephemeral thing to center a movement on. Which I don't actually think overstates the importance of "choice" to contemporary feminism. I'm thinking now of that episode of Sex and the City where Charlotte quits her job after Trey and she gets married; Miranda is criticizing her and Charlotte starts yelling, "I chose my choice! I chose my choice!"
Given all of the structural issues that color people's "choices" (i.e. discrimination again people who take time off of work for family reasons; the lack of good and affordable childcare; etc.), and given that most people who choose to take time off to raise kids or to care for sick parents are women, I just think that equating choice and feminism is a red herring.
There's a long-standing argument, growing I think out of the Frankfurt School critics, about how late market capitalism focuses on choice when really, there's no outside. You may have 400 channels, but when there's no way to escape the society of the spectacle, what does that choice mean? I'm trying -- very incoherently -- to suggest that choice feminism may be masking a similar situation.
That is a really interesting point about not being invested in evaluating anyone's feminism. I had to stop and think about it for a second... am I interested in evaluating someone's feminism? I would say, not until someone attacks someone else. I do that with a lot of things I'm not normally invested in, though. When someone gets attacked for being something, or for being a bad something, I definitely am the first to jump up and defend them. Unless they're being stupid of course, then I just don't care. :-)
After spending years in academia, and then not being in academia, I have a very different perspective than I used to on the value of academic discourse. I think I used to believe that academic discourse trumped everything. And that we should leave it to academics to figure things out. I would love to hold to that, because I still think that most people do not have the background or the wherewithall to fully understand nuanced ideologies the way that academics who devote their life to studying are able to.
However, it is increasingly apparent to me that part of the spread of education is what I like to call "Survey Academics." People take a survey course on Psychology, for instance, and they start thinking they are capable of diagnosing complex and intricate issues because of a list they picked up in a general information course. Now, while general information courses serve their purpose and are infinitely helpful for a well-rounded, solid-based education... to coin a phrase... one swallow does not a summer make. In other words, one survey course does not an academic make.
I say all that to say that I will defer to you on all academic matters. You're much more educated in that area than I could ever hope to be, and you've studied it with rigor and understand the particular nuance of the theory.
I will say... the equation of choice and feminism might be a red herring in the larger scope of the feminist movement. But I don't think it's fair to say that just because something might divert attention from other issues within a large scope, that means it's not a worthwhile pursuit for discussion. And perhaps it's not as much about choice itself as it is just the right to choose, on a grander scale. I mean that in the way that I'm not just talking about choosing to be a housewife or a working mother or a working woman... but choice on a large scale. The right to have a choice put before us. I do think that's an awfully important part of where feminism began.
As far as choice feminism goes, I am only invested in protecting a woman's right to be a housewife if she wants to. Or to go to work if she wants to. That's about as far as I am interested in taking my feminism... and even then, only when it's challenged.
I almost hate to admit that, because I do like to study and theorize. But I did. And I think it's true for me. Thank God, Katie, that there are people like you in the world, who devote themselves to the study of one field. :-) At one time in my life, I thought that would be me, too (only, of course, in a different area). But when it comes down to it, I'm unfortunately much closer to Survey Academics than I am to what you do. Would that were different, but it is not. :-)
Post a Comment