Monday, 2 April 2012

How to be a feminist

Are you a feminist?

I am.

I think.

I think of course I'm a feminist.  I believe, profoundly, that women should not be treated differently because of their gender.  That they should have equal pay for an equal job.  That they should have the right to choose with whom they have sex, when, where, and indeed how.  That they should not be barred from medical care, employment, social activities, sports or anything else purely because of being what they are.

Female.

I have never, once, thought of myself, a woman, as less able, less capable, less entitled than a man. Any man*.

Of course I'm a feminist.  Aren't we all?  Women and men?

But I also wax my legs (not as often as I should), wear make up and bras (I've breast-fed four children, of course I wear bras), take the primary role in caring for those children,  map-read rather than driving, cook the majority of the meals, accept that sometimes employing a woman (me) who goes off on maternity leave three times in five years is less than convenient or ideal and realise that there are some things that men and women do, and will always do, differently.

Am I a feminist?

I've been thinking recently that what I really am, above anything else, is a chronic relativist. I find it very easy to see the other side and, as a result, very difficult to come down on one side or the other.  There is very little I'm certain about.  Very little on which I have a hard, unshakeable opinion.  Very little on which I cannot see that perhaps the others may have a point.

I'm sure it makes me very irritating.  But I'm also sure it doesn't stop me being a feminist.  Whatever those others may think.

Wikipedia (of course) says  
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

And I find myself thinking: Well, yes.  Naturally.  But what does "equal" mean?

Caitlin Moran's a feminist. She's written a whole book about it: How to be a womanA (her words) funny, but polemic book about feminism.

And I wanted to love it. I wanted to agree with everything she says.  I wanted to shout about it, and make every woman, and man, I know, read it.  But I couldn't.  She made me laugh, lots. She made me nod my head in agreement, lots.  But somehow she didn't quite convince me.

There's the premise for a start.  She would have me believe that she doesn't know how to be a woman. That she was an ugly, ungainly teenager desperately wondering how to be a woman.  That works as an idea.  It even works with her self-deprecating stories.  It just doesn't work if, like me, you spent most of your teenage years wondering not, how to be a woman, but how to be Caitlin Moran.  Terrifyingly clever, terrifyingly cool, undeniably a woman.

More importantly, I'm not sure her arguments work.  She's very keen on flirting, for instance.   She describes herself as a natural flirt. (Another reason, incidentally, I find it hard to believe she ever struggled with being a woman:  in my experience, natural flirts sail through life on a sea of half-raised eyelashes, coy glances and witty asides.  Life for them is much easier than it is for the rest of us).  And she says, I heartily believe that, should they wish to, strident feminists are allowed to flirt their way to the top.  Her logic is that it's just the same as male bonding, and if it gets you where you want to go, then you should do it.

But I'm just not sure.  She approves of flirting your way to the top, but she loathes, loathes with a passion, lap-dancing clubs.  And I can't help but feel that one is the top of the very large slippery slope that leads to the other.  Not that I'm saying that flirting is the same as lap-dancing, but I am saying that it seems to me that if you flirt your way to the top you are using your femininity to exploit men's weakness for that femininity to your advantage.

Is that really that different from using your nice bottom and pretty breasts to convince men to stick £50 notes in your pants, if you are not being coerced or forced into it and if that is what you actively want to do?

I also think she misses a big, glaring, probably pink, elephant in the room.  She covers pants (should be bigger), bikini "grooming" (not necessary and actually probably rather damaging in more ways than just the obvious), weight (doesn't really matter as long as you're healthy and happy - and oh, isn't she missing something with that innocuous "happy" at the end there?),  how to cope with your body and what it does and men's bodies and what they do, pregnancy, motherhood and abortion, sexism, feminism and it-bags and she's very shouty on all of it, very funny on much of it, and terrifyingly accurate on most of it.  But she doesn't deal with the one issue which for me hits right at feminism in the West in the 21st century.

How do we combine our hard-won right to work, to fulfill ourselves, to get to the top of whatever it is we do, to be the best, be paid the best and enjoy all of the privileges that brings with the fact that, however you cut it, we're still the ones that have the babies.  What does feminism say about that fight? About that argument? About the juggling act that is what got me blogging in the first place?

And when will we stop being judged for it?

She doesn't say.  And I'd really have liked to know.

And maybe it's my chronic relativism, or maybe it's just my experience, but I think that that one fact:  the fact that we have the babies, means that after we've done that (and, as she says, it doesn't really matter whether you do have babies or not, you will be asked about it and judged on it), life is always, to some degree, a compromise, and a compromise that men will never have to make.   Because even if you model yourself on Rachida Dati and go straight back to work from the maternity unit, you will be making compromises one way or another and, perhaps more importantly for feminists, you will be judged for doing so.  No-one, but no-one will sit back and say "Oh well, it's her choice, I'm sure she knows what she's doing".

Not a chance.  They'll analyze, and criticise.  And comment on how quickly (or otherwise) you've got your figure back while doing so.

And they'd never (they'll never have to) do that to a man.  Especially the figure bit.

So sorry, Caitlin.  I enjoyed your book, I really did.  But it hasn't taught me how to be a woman.  Or a feminist.

I guess I must have been both already.

***********************************************************************

I should mention that the book was, very kindly, sent to me by Emily O.  A million thanks. 

*Caveat, because, as I say, I'm a relativist too: I'm clearly not as fast as Usain Bolt, or as witty as Stephen Fry, or as beautiful as Andrej Pejic.  But that's not just because I'm a woman. Honest.




34 comments:

  1. Well, maybe you'll have to wait till I write my book, and then great illumination will come your way. Could be a long wait, though...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure you could fit it in. You're only trying to sell a house and move a family of five across continents.

      Where's your ambition?

      You're a woman. There's nothing you can't do. Remember?!

      Delete
  2. It's such a tough one, isn't it? You can't get away from the biological fact that it's women who have babies. Therefore, I rather think that the answer is to elevate having babies and caring for children to the same status as paid employment.

    Shouldn't be too hard...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silly old me. Will just pop that one on the to do list.

      It would be lovely wouldn't it? But then it's not just caring for our own children that has lower status is it? All the "caring" professions (and many others) do.

      And then you get on to a really feminist point: do we not respect nurses and carers as much because what they do is less worthy of respect (I would respectfully suggest not) or because their jobs have been traditionally done by women....?

      And how do we change that one too?

      Delete
    2. Twisting everything up a bit, who exactly is it that thinks of motherhood, housewifery, and the other caring professions as of lesser status? When did housewifery become a pitied occupation? When modern feminists set about to equalize men and women, they did it by trashing traditional female roles and holding measurements of success to male standards. Put another way, if you set about to elevate having babies and caring for children to a higher status, you will have to run a gauntlet of feminists. There are pro-motherhood feminists, true, but they are out numbered by those who recognize that there will never be pure equality while there is a biological difference. They, therefore, must do everything to deny or destroy that difference. Thankfully, they have the much harder job. We only have to repair the damage done to domesticity. They have to deny Nature.

      Delete
    3. I've read all your posts together, so it's hard to reply to one without wanting to bring in points you raise in others...

      Which of course means I should probably start by thanking you for all of them.

      I think both you and Muddling Along have articulated something for me that I was striving for, but hadn't quite put into words (or certainly not as well as you both did). The idea that for women to achieve equality they have to be the same as men. That equality is only equality if it is on male terms. And that strikes me as very odd. No-one says of racism or sexism that we all have to be or do the same - rather they say that we should all be judged equally but as what we are.

      Why is that different for women?

      But to take issue with one point - you say that because there will never be pure equality while there is a biological difference, some feminists seek to deny or destroy the difference. Why? Why can't we change the idea of equality? Why can't we accept that we are different but celebrate those differences?

      Delete
    4. Why? Why can't we change the idea of equality? Why can't we accept that we are different but celebrate those differences?
      The million dollar questions. The problems are rooted in the ideas of utopia, perfection--for those striving for the ultimate utopia of pure equality, what isn't worth the sacrifice? What is a little strife now in the face of perfection? Best analogy I have is, sorry, political, if you dig and delve into the motivations of men, the defining difference conservatives and liberals is: conservatives don't believe that perfection is possible; liberals do. For many, to accept differences is to accept failure. If the world is perfectible, then we should do everything in our power to achieve it. What's a little strife now, a death, a battle, a war if we can finally have utopia on earth? What would you pay for true Peace on Earth?
      This is why conservatives are thought such ogres. We compromise. We accept that life is unfair. We are sellouts. We don't seek perfection because it is the unreachable star. We aim for it, but accept that we can never achieve it. This is why Christians tend to conservatism, too. We believe that Man is Fallen and therefore readily accept that life isn't perfectible.
      So some people just don't want to accept differences, because to accept means to fail. Now, why some people are utopian faced with the realities of this world--I've got nothing.

      Delete
    5. Why? Why can't we change the idea of equality? Why can't we accept that we are different but celebrate those differences?
      The million dollar questions. The problems are rooted in the ideas of utopia, perfection--for those striving for the ultimate utopia of pure equality, what isn't worth the sacrifice? What is a little strife now in the face of perfection? Best analogy I have is, sorry, political, if you dig and delve into the motivations of men, the defining difference conservatives and liberals is: conservatives don't believe that perfection is possible; liberals do. For many, to accept differences is to accept failure. If the world is perfectible, then we should do everything in our power to achieve it. What's a little strife now, a death, a battle, a war if we can finally have utopia on earth? What would you pay for true Peace on Earth?
      This is why conservatives are thought such ogres. We compromise. We accept that life is unfair. We are sellouts. We don't seek perfection because it is the unreachable star. We aim for it, but accept that we can never achieve it. This is why Christians tend to conservatism, too. We believe that Man is Fallen and therefore readily accept that life isn't perfectible.
      So some people just don't want to accept differences, because to accept means to fail. Now, why some people are utopian faced with the realities of this world--I've got nothing.

      Delete
    6. Interesting political take on it. Because that's not at all how I'd describe conservatism and liberalism. Maybe I'm wrong again and in their purest most philosophical form that is what they are. I'm afraid though that that's not what they are, or at least how they appear, to me. And I'm certain that a little strife, a death or a battle never stopped many conservative governments either.

      And I'm not sure either, I'm afraid, that all Christians are as ready to accept the imperfections of man as you are.

      We may have to disagree on this one.

      Delete
    7. I came to grab this link and realized that I never replied to this one.
      "And I'm certain that a little strife, a death or a battle never stopped many conservative governments either." True. Just the motivations are different. And how many of those wars were fought for some misguided notion of perfection, specifically that a man could be forced into a "true" faith? That is, religious wars are often fought under a mistaken notion of a perfectible world.
      Which gets to your point about Christians. I do not contend that all Christians practice their faith well. (There is a reason that Pride is the worst of all sins. It is the notion that you are right and good that you don't need God's assistance. You think you are all that.) I mean that Christians are more likely than secular men to recognize that the world is not perfect. Genesis, apples, thrown out of the Garden, etc. The foundation of our faith is that Man is Fallen. True some of us don't fully understand that, but as a whole we are seeped in it the way a secular person is in the inherent goodness of man. A secular person more likely thinks that Man is good but easily corruptible. A Christian more likely thinks that Man is corrupt but strives to be good.

      Delete
  3. I've just bought the paperback of this book based on the praise of so many people, so I'll read it with interest.

    I've always considered myself a feminist, never occurred to me that I was anything else to be honest. I'm a woman (check), I want to be treated the same as men for the same talents, efforts, etc. (check) and I'm keen to pass on my beliefs to my own teenage daughters (check). I was brought up in a family with a very old-fashioned father and four brothers, and it was my battles to be heard that shaped my views on life. I realised that even though my brothers were no better than me they were awarded privileges that I wasn't.

    And so it goes on, life is like that in general. Legislation has made some things better, and woman have made great advances in careers and education, but the general belief that men are somehow 'better' than woman starts in childhood and, as a teacher, I see this belief played out regularly. The other day a boy (aged 10) said of a task he was given 'Even a woman could do that.' Needless to say we had a chat about that, but it's so entrenched, so deeply rooted in society that we are a long way off from being treated anywhere like equals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come back and let me know what you think. I'd really like to know. As Emily says below lots of people have raved about it, yet the (few, admittedly) comments on here seem to be more mixed.

      But you make a very good point on children - and it's one I meant to touch on and forgot. I spend so much of my time already, with three girls still all under five, saying "That's not a "boy" thing. It's a thing". And "You can do anything you want to".

      It's up there with the crucial messages I want them to learn (there's a post in that). Be kind. Think of others. Don't drop litter. There's nothing you can't do (whether you're a girl or a boy).

      How did your pupil take it?

      Delete
    2. He was quite bemused to be honest, I don't think anyone had ever taken him to task on that sort of thing. We ended up having a whole class debate for a few minutes, but I don't think it will have changed his belief that he is somehow better than his female counterparts purely because of gender.

      Delete
    3. How very difficult and how very depressing. And how very not guilty I suddenly feel about how much I bang on to my daughters that they can do anything.

      Delete
  4. I'm glad you have similar opinions of the book to me, because all the reviews I saw before I read it were rave ones. You make such a good point about people like us wanting to be someone like her when we were fifteen - she wrote her first book at that age! I don't think it was about 'being a woman' at that age at all. One glaring contradiction I found in her book was the slating of women's magazines for the damage they do to women's body confidence (agreed) and yet she writes for them at the same time? Very odd. Maybe being feminist when it's convenient and not when it comes to paying the bills? I'm glad you found it an interesting read : )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women's magazines!!! You've got me on to the other point I wanted to make but couldn't find space for.

      I think, I'm afraid, that a lot of the criticism directed at women comes from other women. I'd love to say we're all about feminist sisterly solidarity but we all know we're not. I'm as guilty of grabbing a copy of Heat in the Doctors surgery as anyone else.

      And it's not just the body beautiful - although that's the most obvious example. Let's face it, most men don't really care what you wear, they'd rather you weren't wearing anything. She says that, but then she doesn't get to the reason why we then stress endlessly about not having the "right" thing. That's other women - other women making us feel inadequate, or like we don't fit in, or as though we haven't done something that we didn't know was required.

      And what about women bosses who exclusively promote men? Because they happen too...

      But yes, I did find it interesting, and I did enjoy it. So thanks! Genuinely! Do you want it back by the way?

      Delete
  5. Her writing style irritates me so much I was annoyed with the bits of the book that I agreed with, never mind the bits I didn't. I found her account of birth(s) particularly irritating, though I read it last August so can't remember what it was specifically that was so annoying. And the whole 'shoes' thing made me want to smack her. Ah well. She cherry picks the bits she likes out of 'feminism' as she sees it and ignores the bits that sell less well/resolve less easily. Or maybe I'm being hypercritical...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the thing with her writing style is it works very well in Celebrity Watch type snippets and less well in a whole book when it all starts to feel a bit samey.

      I certainly enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second and I wonder if that's because of the style as much as the substance.

      But yes, definitely some cherry picking going on...

      Delete
    2. She did the 'shoes' thing? That increasingly common bit about how we are power women and we like shoes thing? That was one of my first rants at my place, and I even have a category for it now.
      Modern day women think that anything in the life administration strata is hack work that is beneath a power woman. Leaving fashion in that category weakened women in their eyes.
      Since feminists couldn't get us to give up fashion (they certainly tried), they had to elevate it to Something Important. Some are rehabilitating the love of fashion as just one of those woman things--good because it is female. (Yes, this begs a question about feminist view of motherhood.) Hence shoe obsessions and ‘don’t mess with the dress’ meme becoming par for the course in the modern tales of power women.

      Delete
    3. So why elevate fashion but not motherhood? If it is that easy to assimilate something to levels of "Importance", why not go for the biggie?

      I don't think it's that (and clearly this is from a position of no knowledge of the theory at all, so bear with me). I think it's more that shoes or fashion don't interfere with that idea of being equal on men's terms. You're still fighting on the same playing field, rather than, as above, challenging the field altogether and saying we are just as good as men, but we don't need to compete to prove it.

      Delete
    4. Because fashion is inconsequential. You hit on it, that fashion doesn't interfere with the idea of being equal. Let women have their shoe obsessions. It is a safe compromise.

      Delete
  6. Great post - totally agree, equality shouldn't have to be based on being judged against a bunch of male standards (as in not being penalised for being pregnant, breastfeeding and so on) but on having our female positives being recognised

    Like you I really wanted to like her book but some parts of it just left me feeling that she didn't get the reality of my life and the issues I've faced because I'm female in a male world

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right there with you. The horrible truth about the modern feminist movement it that it concedes that the measurements of success are the male standards. Because of Nature, we will never be able to successfully compete on male standards--just as they could never compete on ours, something that we see in the decades long feminization of men.

      Delete
    2. I think Muddling puts it fabulously. Wish I could have done the same.

      Delete
  7. I have put off reading this book, as in my experience it isn't the men that bash women, it is other women.

    I have thought long and hard about having it all and you know what I have come to the sad conclusion that I can not be the best mother I want to be and have the career I want to have, something would have to give. Does that make me something other than a feminist?

    I would hope not, I am not and was never the "little woman", nor was I the bra burning type, but I lived as an equal to Drew.

    In his eyes, I actually have the harder job than him, does that make him the feminist?

    Oh this posts leave me more questions than answers, perhaps I will get the book on kindle.

    BTW, I adored you little things post and did one myself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you think this is a "sad" conclusion precisely because modern feminist thought led you to believe you could have it all. It isn't a sad conclusion, it is the natural conclusion. And getting to PlanB's musing on whether she is relativist and/or feminist. Feminist is hard to pin down because so much can be packed into the notion of equality that who can say on that. But PlanB, you're probably not a relativist. Relativism isn't just that there are different perspectives (of course there are) or that we should consider different perspectives (of course we should). Relativism posits that since there are different perspectives we can't use objective standards to judge those perspectives. This is commonly followed with the idea that there are, therefore, no objective truths. (Iota, not linking to myself, but I do have a good external link on this point. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/205239/dangerous-ideas/jonah-goldberg Scroll down to "Ideas of Mass Destruction" if you don't want to read the whole thing.) PlanB, I see you struggling with the different perspectives, trying to judge them, but by trying to suss it out you assume that there is a standard and an answer. To your credit, that's not relativist.

      Sorry to post all over here, but it made more sense than a rambling one that would blow the character limit. This is one of my bugaboos, and one which I am addressing again soon. The topic comes up relentlessly for me of late.

      Delete
    2. I came back because I went to read my friend Lara's blog, and she's posting on this stuff as well. http://thesecretlifeofadivorcee.blogspot.com/2012/04/motherhood-why-do-we-undervalue-most.html
      Then I noticed that my opening directness might sound sharp to Jen. I meant to agree and reinforce, not challenge. (My husband has been helping me work to be more casual and chatty in comments. Obviously, I still need to work on that.)

      Delete
    3. Off to read both posts shortly, but thanks (as I've said) for multiple posts, all fascinating.

      And thanks for putting me straight on relativism. I, obviously, used the phrase without looking up the philosophical theory, but to a certain extent I think it holds - in the case of feminism not that there are no objective truths, but that there is no objective "right" answer. Equality sounds very simple, but actually I'm not sure it is. Objectively will we know it when we have it?

      You do me the "credit" of thinking that I assume that there is a standard and an answer, but I'm not sure there is. Not on this one, anyway.

      Delete
    4. You are welcome, for multiple posts. I'm always happy to put up a wall of text.
      As for relativism, you aren't alone, not by a long shot. Relativism is a confusing theory, perhaps a purposefully confusing theory, sprinkled in the water as a chaos agent. It also eats its own tail which is why I made the "credit" comment, which by the way, it is the fact that you are looking for an answer that caught my attention. True, we can never objectively KNOW a truth, but that doesn't preclude a truth. If you want to see lawyers cleverly sparring over the logic issue in Truth and Relativism, then I recommend Memorandum from The Devil, a Stanford Law Review article. A taste here:
      http://pjmedia.com//instapundit-archive/archives2/007348.php

      Delete
  8. So funny, I read it and loved it for making me laugh/think but it also annoyed me in places for avoiding some of the big stuff like the things you point out. Not that I'd tell her, I find her terrifying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh isn't she?! You start out thinking you want her as a friend and end up thinking you're very glad you don't! Amusing, but terrifying!

      Delete
  9. Twitter account? Related article, relevant part:
    There's the central battleground: Do women have a choice? The left has loved the word "choice" when it comes to childbearing. Indeed, in the "war on women" battlefront, they want to say their opponents aim to take away the choice that is birth control and abortion, the choice whether to become pregnant or to go through with a pregnancy. But a different choice comes into play here: Should women choose the traditional marriage structure to protect their economic needs? It's a great option if you can get it, so the left would like to say: You can't get it. That's a choice that is no choice. Only rich people can afford that luxury. Only a 1 percenter can keep a wife at home. The right-wing candidate is very rich, and his rich-bitch wife doesn't know what she's talking about. They'd like to deprive all the other women of the protection they really need, which must come from the government.
    Read the whole thing: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/class-warfare-and-war-on-women-2-wars.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seriously, need to be able to send relevant links somewhere. This topic, feminine choice, is trending all over the place.
    Second item: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577347904225220254.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h
    A slightly different angle. Safe for work, mostly. A topic you might want to read at home.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/15/working-women-s-fantasies.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=in_newsweek&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bin_newsweek&utm_term=Tina%20Brown%20List

    ReplyDelete
  11. Somebody created a blog about how to be feminist: http://radfemway.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete

I know. I'm sorry. I hate these word recognition, are you a robot, guff things too, but having just got rid of a large number of ungrammatical and poorly spelt adverts for all sorts of things I don't want, and especially don't want on my blog, I'm hoping that this will mean that only lovely people, of the actually a person variety, will comment.

So please do. Comments are great...