Ever since I minored in Women's Studies in college, I've been wondering what the definition of feminism is. It seemed simpler back then, when the world was reduced to textbooks and theories and the microcosm of the classroom. In the real world, dealing with work culture and wedding culture and parenthood culture and the dynamics of post-college relationships, everything I thought I knew about feminism was thrown into turmoil. Eight years post-Bachelor's degree now, and I'm still not sure I completely understand what it means to be a feminist.
Sometimes when I get into these dilemmas, it helps for me to think about what something isn't. Feminism isn't a parade or a picket line. It's not a poster or a slogan or manifesto. It doesn't mean being angry at men or burning bras or any of the other silly stereotypes that came out of the Second Wave. Feminism is not about making yourself more like a man. It’s not a theory, and I don’t think it’s something you can truly learn in a classroom.
So what is it? I only know this much – it’s something about the way we live our lives, how we construct our expectations, how we demand certain equalities and how we express ourselves as women. I've heard a lot of good perspectives and opinions about what feminism means in the here and now in these terms.
And I've heard a lot of bad ones as well.
I see a lot of pieces – even here on Salon – criticizing women authors and artists and politicians and other public figures for not being “feminist” enough. They’re not putting women first, they’re not toting the line as loudly as they should, something they said or did gave the “wrong message.” How they look, act, speak, write can be criticized for not being pro-woman. That confuses me. So, because I'm a woman, I need to constantly be thinking about women and how what I do, say, and wear affects every other woman around me? Isn't that a little much, even for a celebrity?
And cosmetic procedures - oh goodness, the horror! Plastic surgery is one of the more controversial feminist topics, and it's constantly rehashed somehow. It's latest incarnation has been all over People magazine for a week or so now. Truthfully, I can’t stand Heidi Montag, but if having surgery makes her feel better about herself…well, who the hell cares? Doesn’t feminism also believe that you should be able to make choices about what you can and can’t do with your own body? You can’t apply that argument to one thing yet pull the rug out from under it the second you don’t like what someone does with their body.
Whatever happened to universal truths?
On a personal level, these seeming contraditions and ridiculous standards really irritate me. I look at my novel manuscripts and realize that if I should ever get one of these published, I’m going to take a lot of heat for them. I didn’t sit down to write with a feminist agenda in mind. Or any agenda, really, other than to tell the story in my head. I did not write a feminist book. My female characters are not particularly strong people.
And as someone who has had plastic surgery – and will again, believe me – I get really irritated when people jump to the “wrong message” argument. How is increasing my self-confidence by about…oh…300% the “wrong” message? How come you’d support me if I wanted to get an abortion, but a little bit of lipo and I’m suddenly out of the club?
I get frustrated, and then I start wonder…am I really a feminist? Am I doing it wrong?
Do I really have to be in charge and empowered every waking moment of my life? Do I have to love and embrace every single square inch of my body? Do I have to be constantly sending the “right” message? Because honestly, that just sounds exhausting. I don’t think I can do it.
So am I a bad feminist because I’ve had work done? Am I a bad feminist because I think it’s okay for little girls to play with dolls and make up and fairy costumes? Am I a bad feminist for scoffing at those who criticize Taylor Swift for singing about Romeo and Juliet? Am I a bad feminist for laughing at the occasional sexist joke? Am I a bad feminist when I wear shirts that show cleavage? Am I a bad feminist when I roll my eyes after my favorite mommy blogger writes about not wanting her daughter to watch Disney princess movies because they send the “wrong” message? Am I a bad feminist for not always understanding what the “right” message is?
Here’s a big one – am I a bad feminist because sometimes I want my husband to take charge and just tell me what he wants me to do? Isn't it okay for me to defer to others sometimes, even men? Is it okay for me to say that I really love the color pink (my laptop is pink! my iPod is pink! my work calendar is pink!) or that when it comes to killing bugs and doing yardwork and paying bills, I happily allow my husband to take care of those things and just sort of tune it all out?
Is it okay that I prefer it when he drives? Should I be worrying about the symbolism of my preferred automobile arrangements? Would I be setting a bad example in front of a future daughter by letting her father take charge of certain matters?
I don’t know. I really don’t.
Deep down, I happen to think I'm a fairly decent everyday sort of feminist. I will correct wrong attitudes when I encounter them (see last post for proof of that.) I will question things people say if I think they may be hinting at something potentially derogatory. I don't always laugh at the sexist jokes - sometimes I break out my best disapproving stare and chase the offender out of my office. I love to celebrate women's success. And yes, I'd love to see a woman become President - as long as it's the right woman. I don't want to see a woman in charge simply for the sake of having a woman in charge.
Does that make me a bad feminist? Should I be supporting a woman just because she’s a woman? The rules are so confusing!
Now that I'm resting comfortably in the very tip of my 30's, I'm starting to think that what feminism is truly about is having a choice, having options, having (or not having) expectations. I have options that even my mother and grandmother didn't. I can go into lines of work besides nursing or teaching. I will not be expected to stay home with my kids, should I ever have any - being a stay at home mom is a choice, not a requirement. I expect that any woman who wants to follow a certain career path or lifestyle can and will do so, and I expect that women could and should be able to think for themselves without having to defer to others for guidance. In my marriage, I'm not expected to be submissive or to have dinner on the table precisely at 6pm every night. I can choose, and decide, and not feel confined. My husband is not demanding or misogynistic.
I have never felt held back by my sex/gender. Admittedly, I was brought up in a religious tradition that had some very strange and fearful views of women's sexuality, but I no longer follow that tradition, and I don’t feel particularly harmed by it. Other than that, I was never told that there was something I couldn't do because I’m female. I know I've been lucky, because I am personally acquainted with women who have felt held back, whose families do have certain traditional expectations of them regarding marriage and child-rearing, and I've seen their struggles. But those struggles in and of themselves are positive things - if they're struggling, it's because they're thinking, and not just blindly accepting the notion that that's what my family wants, that’s what women have always done, so that's what I have to do. Conflict can be good. To me, that's everyday feminism at play. To me, that's progress.
Do we still have work to do? Certainly. Example: my insurance doesn't cover my birth control, but if my husband wanted Viagra, that would be covered. If I think about that long enough, I can work myself into a pretty decent feeling of righteous indignation. I get irritated when I see women's bodies (or body parts) being used to sell cars or candy or insurance. A lot of women I know, myself included, are fairly conflicted about pornography. Female celebrities being forced into being role models and how expectations on them seem to differ from male celebrities is a little bit of a grey area for me. The sexualization of lesbianism by certain male-centric magazines freaks me out a bit. There’s definitely room for improvement as far as sociocultural attitudes go.
Problem is, things don't change overnight. Sexism, racism, homophobia - these are not things that will go away quietly, and perhaps not ever. I don’t know that I have quite that much faith in humanity. But we need to try, so where do we start? Nitpicking a teenage girl's song lyrics for feminist/anti-feminist messages? Worrying about the length of a politician’s skirt? Not really high on the list, in my opinion. But teaching yours sons to respect women and your daughters to respect themselves is a good start. Getting out and voting on various issues that affect women is a good start. Not looking down on women who choose to be stay at home moms, or demonizing women who choose a career outside of the home is a good start. Questioning people when they make uncomfortable or blatantly wrong statements is a good start. There are dozens of ways that all of us can make a difference in our everyday lives if we stop and think about it.
The best we can do, I think, is to be aware of the things that we still need to fix or be concerned about, and to raise that awareness in others, and to not be afraid to speak up when it's necessary, or even when it's not.
Have I answered my question yet? Be mindful, participate in the dialogue, and don't beat yourself up for asking your husband kill the spiders. That's feminism to me.
But maybe I’m doing it wrong.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kim Brittingham
Roger Fallihee
Heather Michon
Sparking
LadyMiko
Dragonfly
Salon.com
Comments
I kept thinking every time I read about feminism ... shouldn't we all just concentrate on being humanists? Where we all work together and get along? I know ... I am an optimist but sometimes, I feel that half of society's issues would be slashed if we started thinking that we're humans and some of us just don't like to kill spiders ... while others can do it, regardless of our sex! ;o)
R
I think most of the stuff you're talking about is cosmetic, but if it's really okay that your insurance will pay for your husband's viagra and not your birth control, than my sense is, you didn't get much out of thinking much about feminism at all. If you have daughters, and it's okay that their brothers' health is more important than theirs, well, okay then. Your call.
But I have no problem with you calling yourself whatever you want.
Feminisms is a big tent. I just don't think there's room in the tent for the inherent belief that men should be treated better than women.
That's it for me.
Great piece though.
-R-
@Amy: Oh yes, there's a big bad conspiracy to get women back in the kitchen, chained and submissive to their masters! :/ What year are you living in, 1750?
I think the whole Viagra/birth control complaint is problematic. It is equating two things that are not equal. Men's bodies are made to have erections and sexual intercourse. This is a basic activity of life. If they can't have those, then there is a bodily, medical disorder, similar to an inability to use your hand, for example.
It is not a dysfunction or disease if a woman gets pregnant. The body is working the way it is supposed to in that case. Really, it is a dysfunction if the woman can't get pregnant. The real outrage should be that fertility services are only rarely covered, when they restore a natural function of the body, just as Viagra does.
That being said, I worked toward and helped accomplish a new benefit for birth control in my employer's insurance policy. I believe that as a prescription drug, prescribed by a doctor for the use for which it was approved by the FDA, it should be covered as any other prescription.
But I don't see any double standard in a plan's decision to cover Viagra and not birth control. They are not equivalents.
Also not too happy about the general coarsening of our culture...too many female body parts out there in ads, etc. Also, don't dare age if you are female!
I guess I could go on, but I'll stop there.
And LadyMiko, what is up with your response to Amy? Pointing out inequities in the power structure is NOT equivalent to postulating that there is a conspiracy against women. So illogical.
The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God."
The words of scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:
"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)
Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.
The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."
According to INRA:
"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.
"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."
In the winter of 1990, INRA’s Executive Director, the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God’s creatures."
In a pamphlet entitled "The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals," Reverend Wessels writes: "We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.
"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the ‘rights’ of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."
According to Reverend Wessels, "The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.
"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."
Reverend Wessels notes that: "In the Bible, which we understand as the divine revelation of God, there is ample evidence of the vastness and goodness of God toward animals. The scriptures announce God as the creator of all life, the One responsible for calling life into being and placing it in an ordered fashion which reflects God’s glory. Humans and animals are a part of this arrangement. Humanity has a special relationship with particular duties to God’s created order, a connection to the animals by which they are morally bound by God’s covenant with them.
"According to the scriptures, Christians are called to respect the life of animals and to be ethically engaged in protecting the life and liberty of all sentient creatures. As that is the case, human needs and rights do not usurp an animal’s intrinsic rights, nor should they deny the basic liberty of either individual animals or specific species. If the Christian call can be understood as being a command to be righteous, then Christians must have a higher regard for the lives of animals.
"Jesus’ life was one of compassion and liberation;" concludes Reverend Wessels, "his ministry was one which understood and expressed the needs of the oppressed. Especially in the past decade, Christians have been reminded that their faith requires them to take seriously the cries of the oppressed.
"Theologians such as Gutierrez, Miranda, and Hinkelammert have defined the Christian message as one which liberates lives and transforms social patterns of oppression. That concept of Christianity which sees God as the creator of the universe and the One who seeks justice is not exclusive; immunity from cruelty and injustice is not only a human desire or need—the animal kingdom also needs liberation."
A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled "Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals," Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyala University as having made the same observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University—a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"
On Earth Day, 1990, Reverend Wessels observed: "It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women’s suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."
I get the sense that what you're struggling with is that you aren't convinced of your own integrity. Trust yourself.
I'm one of those who have accused other women of being "bad" feminists - and ended up feeling like a jerk for it. (I have also been accused of being a bad feminist, and resented it bitterly).
A feminist is in the eye of the beholder, and the only beholder who matters is You.
One of the most Feminist things we can do as women, is to STOP letting other people tell us who we are. You're as good a feminist as you say you are, sister - poop on anyone else's opinion.
(I also happen to LOVE pink!)
I don't want to hijack the thread for a side discussion, but many, many people are covered by self-funded insurance plans, where the claims are paid by the employer, and the insurance company is just an administrator receiving a monthly fee to process claims and maintain a network. My employer decides what the benefits will be for our plan. The health plan is part of compensation, and the benefits are tailored to be those of use and benefit to the covered populations, as a tool to attract and retain employees. It's not perfect, but there is absolutely no profit involved (except what the administrator can make on their set, contracted, monthly per member per month fee, which encourages them to become more efficient).
Most public and very large private employers have self-funded insurance plans.
Look, diabetes is natural. So are so many other things I could name. Why is controlling your body's constant desire to be pregnant not the equivalent of controlling your desire to enjoy sex?
KC--If I was harsh in my first response, I apologize. I hate when women tell other women they are bad feminists. All I would ask you to consider is that decisions by your health insurance that have an impact on you as a woman have an impact on your daughter. And so ask yourself whether protecting your daughter's rights matter to you. That's where I would start.
1985- As I sat in my cubicle (proud to begin with my professional career) she called and suggested I find a man, quickly before I lost my looks (do the math, I was 23).
1997-I got married in my mid 30's. At the wedding, my mom told anyone who would listen how she never thought it would happen.
Immediately thereafter, her only goal for me was to have a child. We were lucky that way, because she helped us financially with adoption.
Lots of mixed messages from just my mom. Then add messages from friends, dates and People magazine...
Today, I just make my own way... I am lucky to do what i want right now, which is being an at home mom. I will go back to work when it's time and that's fine too. Husband will be quite happy to have me helping out with a paycheck! AND I don't like deep lines in my forehead, so a little botox is ok too. We wanted to have it all back then, and I think I do.
I still call myself a feminist (proudly!)
And if you wanna wear four-inch spike heels, or goth makeup, or go totally vegan… well, whatever, sister. It’s a big world, and the possibilities and the choices are endless."
Lots of discussion of this - which I took as proving my point:
http://open.salon.com/blog/sgt_mom/2009/08/28/i_used_to_be_a_feminist
Regana - fair enough, I'm no expert on self-funded insurance plans, though I would still think that if employers choose not to include birth control it is still for financial reasons. (Cost not profit)
KC - sorry if this is considered hijacking your blog - not my intent at all! Some people on OS don't seem to mind lots of discussion and side threads in comments and others do mind. Please let me know if you want me to knock it off. I do not wish to disrespect you or anyone else.
On the other hand, most sex involves a man and a woman. The wife of a man with erectile dysfunction loses her sex life, too, unless she cheats or gets a divorce.
Read the definition from my book, TALKING THE WALK, The Grassroots Language of Feminism (c) Marilyn Casselman 2008 - at Google Knol:
http://knol.google.com/k/marilyn-casselman/feminism/17in86fpobktk/4#
---John Stuart Mill
While it is known that the feminist movement originally opposed abortion as “child-murder” (Susan B. Anthony’s words) and as a form of violence that women are forced to turn to in a patriarchal society, a society that shows virtually no concern or respect for new mothers, it is generally not known that many of the early American feminists—including Lucy Stone, Amelia Bloomer, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton—were connected with the 19th century animal welfare movement. Together, they would meet with anti-slavery editor Horace Greeley to toast “Women’s Rights and Vegetarianism.”
Many of the early American feminists thus saw animal rights as social progress in the tradition of women’s rights and civil rights.
Feminists differ on a number of issues. Some oppose pornography; others do not. Some feminists groups like COYOTE (“Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics”) support the legalization of prostitution. So it’s disingenuous to claim contemporary pro-life feminist organizations, like Feminists For Life, aren’t really feminist.
In The Sexual Politics of Meat, vegan feminist author Carol J. Adams notes that throughout human history, beginning with the hunter-gatherer tribes, meat has been associated with male violence and masculinity, people with power, the aristocracy, etc.
Meat is associated with male virility, whereas vegetable and nonmeat foods are viewed as women’s food. "Meat is a symbol of patriarchy" writes Adams bluntly. She cites a fictional illustration from Mary McCarthy’s Birds of America. Miss Scott, a vegetarian, is invited to a NATO general’s house for Thanksgiving. Her refusal of turkey angers the general.
According to Adams, "Male belligerence in this area is not limited to fictional military men. Men who batter women have often used the absence of meat as a pretext for violence against women."
Adams compares "The Rape of Animals" to "the Butchering of Women," as well as "Sexual Violence and Meat Eating." She quotes the organizer of a "Bunny Bop" in which rabbits are killed by clubs, feet, stones, etc. as saying, "What would all these rabbit hunters be doing if they weren’t letting off all this steam? I’ll tell you what they'd be doing. They’d be drinking and carousing and beating their wives."
Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human "dominion" over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.
Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.
In his 1975 book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes:
"A liberation movement is a demand for an end to prejudice and discrimination based upon an arbitrary characteristic like race or sex. The classic instance is the Black Liberation movement. The immediate appeal of this movement, and its initial, if limited, success, made it a model for other oppressed groups. We soon became familiar with Gay Liberation and movements on behalf of American Indians and Spanish-speaking Americans. When a majority group—women—began their campaign some thought we had come to the end of the road."
Singer notes that "In comparison with other liberation movements, Animal Liberation has a lot of handicaps. First and most obvious is the fact that the exploited group cannot themselves make an organized protest against the treatment they receive (though they can and do protest to the best of their abilities individually).
"We have to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. You can appreciate how serious this handicap is by asking yourself how long blacks would have had to wait for equal rights if they had not been able to stand up for themselves and demand it. The less able a group is to stand up and organize against oppression, the more easily it is oppressed."
In Animal Liberation, Singer optimistically observes: "The environmental movement...has led people to think about our relations with other animals that seemed impossible only a decade ago. To date, environmentalists have been more concerned with wildlife and endangered species than with animals in general, but it is not too big a jump from the thought that it is wrong to treat whales as giant vessels filled with oil and blubber to the thought that it is wrong to treat pigs as machines for converting grains to flesh."
Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."
Because women before you ate, drank, acted and marched their ideals to get you those options. It's good that you realize you're benefiting to some degree from their total commitment.
Not everyone is supposed to be a revolutionary. But just thinking nice equitable thoughts isn't going to do diddly squat. We have to wait for another time, another cultural seismic shift, to get to the equitable world we all deserve—male and female.
But go right ahead preferring pink. You know you're being brain-washed into thinking that's girly, don't you? It's our culture that's assigned that color to the feminine. Actually, even in Victorian England deep blue was for girls and red was for boys. Then the scheme switched for some reason. The next shift was to light shades of those colors. Someone suddenly decided that babies equaled light colors around the turn of the last century. Elsa Schiaparelli created the color "hot pink" int the '50's—wasn't known before then. That was one influential woman.
But go on enjoying your culturally-imposed preferences.
I think women who look down on other women for not acting, reacting, believing or opposing in a certain way, or along flowing guidelines, are guilty of the same type of negative, group-think judgment that men were unquestionably allowed for so long.
Be proud of what has been achieved, be aware of attempts to force you to lose value on the cultural abacus, and just be yourself.
My two cents.
In a 1983 Washington Post article, “Feminists: Developing a ‘Party Line’”, Richard Cohen writes:
“...feminists...are developing their own party line. They are attempting to define a movement very narrowly: You can’t be against abortion. You can’t be blasé about pornography...You have to be this and you have to be that. But...all you need to be a feminist is to believe in, and work for, the equality of women. It’s my club, too—and anyone can join.”
(Reprinted in Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices, edited by Gail Grenier Sweet, 1985)
Thoughtful post. Well done.
“I am praying for you that God’s blessing may be with you in all that you are doing to create concern for the animals which are often subjected to much cruelty. They, too, are created by the same loving Hand of God which created us. As we humans are gifted with intelligence which the animals lack, it is our duty to protect them and to promote their well being.
“We also owe it to them as they serve us with such wonderful docility and loyalty. A person who shows cruelty to these creatures cannot be kind to other humans also. Let us do all we can to become instruments of peace—where we are—the true peace that comes from loving and caring and respecting each person as a child of God—my brother—my sister.”
According to PETA:
We know animal tests are poor science. Official figures show that an astonishing 92 per cent of drugs tested on animals prove to be ineffective or unsafe for humans. As renowned pathologist Dr Bruno Fedi points out, "The abolition of vivisection would in no way halt medical progress, just the opposite is the case. .... No surgeon can gain the least knowledge from experiments on animals, and all the great surgeons of the past and of the present day are in agreement on that."
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally acceptable to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
---Charles R. Magel, professor of philosophy
Opposition to animal experimentation and women involved in the cause of animal welfare has a long history. The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) was founded by Caroline Earle White in 1883...long before PETA, which was founded in 1980, and even longer than before the current debate over stem-cell research!
An editorial in the now-defunct Animals' Agenda from 2001 or 2002, noted that animal research goes on unquestioned, while debate rages over stem-cell research, for no other reason than the stem-cells have human chromosomes. This is speciesism--discrimination on the basis of species...a term which has not caught on or become part of the American vernacular, even among progressives, the way words like "Ms." or "homophobia" have become part of the American lexicon.
"The women we recognize today as the founders of AAVS," writes Lily Santoro, "were pioneers in the world of animal welfare but not in the sphere of reform movements. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a rise in reform movements known as the Progressive Era.
"Inspired by the new science of sociology and cultural movements like the social gospel, middle and upper class Americans increasingly engaged in reform movements aimed at uplifting the downtrodden and improving society.
"Women were central to the Progressive Era reforms. In the late nineteenth century, women made great strides in reform movements like Temperance, Sunday Schools, food and drug regulation, women's suffrage, and child-labor laws.
"In a world where women were supposed to be relegated to their own 'separate sphere,' many women joined reform movements wherein they acted as the 'moral compass' of American society. Caring for the weak and voiceless in society was the focus of progressive era reforms. Animal welfare met this category perfectly."
Then there are the universal truths you speak about -- we know those in our guts. Humanism is the only ism we should have.
BTW, I don't think anyone's refuting your comments...I just think at least one person took issue with the tone. Of course, tone can be easily misinterpreted in a text-only environment, but your comment was a little rude. Which is fine...it's easy to be rude online, and I don't take these things personally. :-)
@fingerlakeswander - Please reread my entry more carefully. I *never* said it was okay that the insurance won't cover my birth control. I believe I used the phrase "righteous indignation" in reference to this. Otherwise, I agree that basic equality is essential.
@ JOY MARS - I would argue that if culture assigns meaning to something, then that things holds that meaning. So...yes, pink = girly in our culture. I wouldn't say I'm brainwashed...I'm aware that it's a pretty arbitrary assignment and pretty recent in the grand scheme of things. But so are many labels, really. So what? My point was that feminism, IMHO, isn't about denying what's "girly" or traditionally associated with the feminine, which I've seen some people do. Some people seem to get touchy about mixing feminism with lipstick and high heels. I personally don't see that as problematic. Also never downplayed the amazing accomplishments 1st and 2nd waves. I think my real question for you is, why leave an angry comment? What did you hope to accomplish with that?
@fernsy - I like the word Humanism a lot better than Feminism. I'm with you on being a little turned off by WS classes. Some of the things we would talk about and debate and worry about just seemed, quite frankly, silly. But people get really hung up on details.
@LadyMiko - thank you! I kind of had the same thought. My post brought out the hostility in a few people...which is why I wrote it to begin with. Feminism is one of those hot button issues that a lot of people have really strong feelings about.
@rebelmom - I think you're right. And I like optimists. :-) Life's too short to be angry. Too much to enjoy.
@RavingBits - once again, the word Humanists. I like it! And yes, the hypocrisy...it's frustrating. I'm glad you get me. Not everyone seemed to.
Thanks in general for all the comments!
I don't see what's wrong with writing a manifesto on behalf of "Heidi Feminism" either. Chapter titles would be easy--"Feel-Good Feminist Surgery," "Feminist Thin--Betty Friedan Could Have Lost a Few Pounds You Know," and "Is Rape Wrong if the Guy's Really Hot?" And you can wrap up "Heidi Feminism: Finally a Feminism for All Women" with "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star."
Oh Wait! That title's already been taken.
You could even get Heidi herself to write a blurb--if you paid her enough.
Here’s a big one – am I a bad feminist because sometimes I want my husband to take charge and just tell me what he wants me to do? "
OK, I'll be the bad gal and bite. The answer: YES! Now, if you want to move forward from there in the direction that suits you, feel free. But that is not feminism--don't pussy-foot around with the definition.
I'm not a purist, but I am clear with myself when I engage in behaviors that advance a less than equal agenda. You too should be straight about it.
The above rationalization of yours reminds me of the recent Republican anti-reform ad featuring a bunch of regular people spouting, "Well, I guess I'm a racist." Yes, if you are willing to say so...particularly on a public platform where damage to confused minds may or may not be done.
Also, as I said, I don't know if it's feasible - for me, anyway - to feel like I have to be constantly aware of when I may or may not be advancing an equal agenda. And what does that mean, anyway? Asking someone else to make a decision isn't necessarily moving backwards or negatively influencing anything...it's simply a give and take. I don't always feel like dealing with certain things. So what? Let him have his turn. Give and take - that's equality.
Me being in charge all of the time and making all the decisions - that's just flipping the coin. See? Doesn't make sense to demand that of women. Doesn't make sense in my definition of feminism. To me, equality means equality...as in, he gets to take charge of sometimes, and I get to take charge sometimes.
Give and take.
So why don't you tell me - what is feminism? If I'm "pussyfooting" around it...then enlighten me. See, it's easy to criticize and tear others down. What's not easy is to offer an alternative. Constructive criticism will advance the cause much faster than spreading anger and hostility. So please, tell me what it is you think I should be spending my time considering. And perhaps I will.
@ Ric Caric - it's just that...what's your point, really? I think your goal was to try to piss me off. I understand what sarcasm is, believe it or not. Even we superficial girls can tell the difference between seriousness and sarcasm. ;-) I don't think you had any intention of engaging me in any sort of meaningful dialogue, so why should I spend time taking your comment seriously?
But if you want me to, then here's my reply: if I'm being superficial, then what's the opposite of that? What would make me appear deeper? If I taught poli-sci in a red state? Or delved into politics for a living, or wrote a lengthy angry rant about some issue citing supreme court cases and NYT articles? I've done that. It was called grad school. I'm over it. I chose to put my energy elsewhere.
I'm a little surprised that an educator would choose to make such a sarcastic reply. When I taught, in a blue state liberal college, no less, I used a method with my students called constructive criticism. Maybe you've heard of it? I still tend to employ it as a tactic on online discussions and writers groups, even though I don't teach anymore. The way I figure it, it's the best way to get someone to listen to what I have to say. I try to disagree in a spirit of respectfulness and offer them other options to consider - in a non-sarcastic manner.
So, again, to you and ghost writer both - it's easy to sling criticism and perpetuate negativity, but why don't you both offer me some ideas of what I could do to be less superficial? Why don't you offer some actual other options? Your critiques are woefully incomplete, ghost writer's because no definition of feminism was offered to me to consider, and yours because it wasn't serious.
So how does that help me? Or was the point just to make yourselves feel more superior?
"Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"
It's like this: I'm all for you doing whatever you want with/to yourself, but realize your actions do not disappear into a vacuum. Everything you do communicates with everything else in life. The question is what do you want communicated?
Like I said, I support a woman and her right to do whatever she wants to herself--go all Heidi Montague (sp?), but I do not believe that she should pretend that her actions are anything but what they are. If you want me to spell out "what they are," I'd say that they play into the notion that a woman's value is contingent upon her ability to remain youthful and ageless in appearance--this is counter to notions that apply to men. That makes it, I'm afraid, counter to the cause. You align yourself with every other woman who buys into the same belief, as well as the power structure that seeks to keep women distracted by these insecurities. You make the social pressure that much more heavy for those who try to go another way; it has a negative impact on the community.
But, hey, it's a dog eat dog world, right? How else is a girl gonna keep ahead of the pack? If she doesn't have a pretty face, then how is she every going to be taken seriously?
Knock yourself out sister.