Want to be a Feminist? Act More Like A Man.
Maybe it’s having a wedding or being married and entering into a realm typically deemed for women, but I’m noticing a disturbing trend in feminists lately, especially those who are so outspoken against weddings, name changes, being a stay-at-home mom, being a housewife, etc. They say feminist women should not have weddings, should not change their names, should not stay at home to support a family.
Their message, in essence, is that if you want to be a feminist, you need to act more like a man.
Men don’t care about weddings, right? And they don’t change their names or give birth or stay home to support a family. (I’m bleeding sarcasm here to make a point.)
I see two problems with this mentality. First, there are a lot of misconceptions about feminism out there. I know, for example, The Undomestic Goddess (among many, many others) and I spent a lot of time at the beginning of our feminist blogging careers debunking the notion that all feminists are man-hating lesbians who don’t wear bras or shave. That view of feminism is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which because it chases people away from feminism. Many young women today don’t want anything to do with feminism (“I’m not a feminist but…” anyone?) because they don’t want to declare they are a feminist and be seen this way. Now, I’m not out to convert people to feminism by any means, but I think the sooner people open their eyes to the idea that feminism isn’t going to hurt you, the closer we will be to equality because more people will actively be fighting for it.
Similarly, the sooner people realize that feminism is (or should be, in my humble opinion) about women having the ability to make the same choices as men – a very subtle difference than women actually beingmore like men, but a difference nonetheless – the sooner the negative stigma about feminism will be dropped and the sooner people of all genders will jump on the feminist bandwagon.
But even more problematic to this thinking is the idea that a specific binary between men and women exists. The idea that anything “girly” is bad – as voiced by people telling boys they ‘throw like a girl” or are a “wuss” or “pansy” (among other, more colorful terms) as insults and reinforced by various feminists who believe that women falling into a sphere that was historically for women is a move against equal rights – is only hurting feminist efforts. We all need to realize – and reinforce in our daily lives – that just because women like it or do it doesn’t make something inherently bad or stupid or wimpy. This should go for if boys andgirls take interest. The more feminists tell other feminists they need to act more like men by not changing their names or becoming housewives or what have you, the more the idea that anything girly is bad is reinforced. It is the same thing as telling boys “they throw like a girl” as an insult. The exact same thing.
Which is why I am such a huge proponent of choice. Which is why I’ve spoken out so often about choices and how we really need to respect them, even if they’re not the choices we may make ourselves.
So, I say: If you want to be a feminist, act more like a person. And not just any person. Act more like the person you want to be. Others will see that in you and be inspired to follow suit.
Hey! I really appreciate your continued efforts to process all manner of theory around feminism. The thought that I have on this post is that it’s a leap to make the critique of patriarchal institutions (marriage, et al) into a desire to be more like men. The job of feminism is to critique the undertones of patriarchy which are normalized to create a space where women have the increased opportunity to make choices which authentically reflect their desires.
While feminism has given rise to the number of choices available to women, this doesn’t make all choices feminist (even those choices made by feminists). We all make our way and try to survive in a world that is still misogynist and are bound to make choices that work for us but uphold patriarchal norms and assumptions. While we are obligated to support and celebrate women, this does not mean that the critique of the institution isn’t valid.
I hear you on the down with personal attacks front – but I think we need to be more open to hearing the hard things and confront where our personal doesn’t meet our political goals.
I’m curious about the feminists you know who are against marriage, SAHMs, & such? I say this as a straight married housewife and at-home caregiver to two young kids. What you interpret as a rejection may just be a request for an honest re-evaluation of cultural traditions. When feminists question the cultural practice of marriage and/or name changing, it’s not the same as demanding that the practice stop. It’s a fact that in the past, women’s names were changed because they were considered property of their menfolk. It’s also a fact that white dresses connoted virginity. This things don’t carry the same meaning today, of course, but their original messages may remain unsettling to some (for the record, I did not change my name and I wore blue to my wedding–but I still got married).
There’s some truth to the second wave stereotype that to be powerful one needs to be more masculine. The unfinished business of the movement is to demand not only that women achieve representation in business and politics, but that men take jobs in the home, caring for children and elders.
Shannon and Kate –
Thank you both for your comments. I do agree with you that a critique of society is absolutely necessary and that maybe not all choices are “feminist choices” (although that label in and of itself bothers me, as well). However, posts like this one and the comments below it: http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2010/08/can-i-be-appendage-to-man-but-still.html are absolutely a rejection of – in this example – a woman who chose to change her name. We may all agree that not changing your name is the “right” “feminist” choice for us, but this sort of attack and subsequent commentary is really just an attack and a rejection of choice.
I’d like to chime in and say that I’m with Shannon on this one, too. While I understand that you’re referring to something that does happen, the behaviours that you are critiquing aren’t generally found in the mainstream of feminism. This post comes across as if it’s criticizing feminists for holding these attitudes when it’s a small minority who actually do so, and the problem is more the common misconception that feminists at large feel this way. I think that feminism would be more welcoming to people if it wasn’t misrepresented this way by so many outside (and, in this case, inside) parties. I agree with the sentiment at large, but I’m a little disappointed to see a feminist identifying this as a larger problem within the movement when I haven’t seen any mainstream feminist espouse anything remotely like this. This is what conservatives think the body of feminism is, not what feminism actually is to the majority of its adherents.
That being said, one thing I do think is that men do need to get more feedback on how they would benefit from feminism. This isn’t just about giving women choices; it is about giving choices to men as well, because they are equally wounded by a patriarchy that judges them by a set of criteria that are just as arbitrary as those by which women are judged. The problem isn’t to make “masculine” actions more available to women and “feminine” actions more available to men. It’s to de-gender emotions and activities that are human rather than male or female.
Does that make sense? I’m not coming on to attack, but to point out that I think you’re preaching at the wrong crowd here.
there’s a general problem of framing in feminism where a core of powerful, well heeled, established feminist intelligentsia dictate the scope of arguments, the scope of feminism, what the issues are and who the subjects are. so to clear things up, there are a small minority of feminsits who may hold such a view, they also speak the loudest and determine who gets to speak.
i think we as feminists tend to forget that even though we represent a contingent of oppressed, that somehow our ranks are absolved of hierarchy, well hell “matriarchy” and a pecking order of who’s issues are important- the issues that white fems face are not the issues that asian fems face, try to conflate the two and don’t count on me to ever take you out for sushi.
feminism is interesting to me because of all the wonderfully diverse views that lend itself to constant reinterpretations of its scope, in it is a language of resistance that defies the very patriarchal process of framing, categorizing, capturing and dissection that make men believe they control the world; in feminism, are the complete tools to interrogate sexuality, economics, politics and racism.
so honestly where debates about marriage and gender binaries come to the fore, i think its important to understand our priorities as feminist soldiers in the attack against our het-male superstructure, that of weaponizing our sexualities and gender binaries, creating dialouge and action so frightening it threatens the placid sanity of those that sleep at night because patriarchy keeps its boot on the neck of the poorest and most voiceless. i don’t ask for equity, just the feeling that anything is possible.
WOW. That blog post you link to is REALLY out there…. WOW is about all I can say!
I know, right? I hope you got a chance to peruse some of
the comments there as well. I think they speak volumes to the mindset
of the writer. Of course, also, the post on name changes she writes
about is a post that appeared as a guest post on my site a few
months ago. So, while all feminists don’t feel this way, I do
encounter it quite a bit; that was just one example.