Who
Are You?
Choose
one of the three types of feminism—liberal, social, or radical—and explain how
you fit into one of those definitions or explain how none of the definitions
fit you. How would you define yourself in regard to gender and feminism?
I choose “D”—none of the
above. Wait, maybe I choose “E”—all of
the above. Ok, let me explain…
First of all, there are
so many overlapping sub-categories of feminism, it seems inane to pick
one. Secondly, I absolutely despise
labelling myself. Call it the
post-modernist in me, but I don’t like to be put in a box. But couldn’t you say that makes me a postmodernist
feminist? Well…not exactly. The bottom line is, there are aspects of
various forms of feminism that I agree with and aspects that I can’t quite
swallow.
When it comes to social feminism, I appreciate their
push for equal representation and social activism (Cott 810). I think we need social reform, and we need to
change the system. However, I am
resistant to social feminism’s failure to deconstruct stereotypical views of
what is considered to be “feminine.” Cott
points out in “What’s in a Name?” that critics such as O’Neill claim social
feminism often sustained and even embraced what were traditionally considered
“womanly, maternal, or domestic characteristics such as compassion, nurturance,
and child-centeredness” (811). I see
myself a very nurturing and compassionate person, but I don’t think those
traits are exclusive to my gender. Men
can be nurturing and compassionate, too. Wouldn’t it actually be a better world if
everyone was compassionate and empathetic and also strong and courageous. On the other hand, I am a single, never
married, not dating, never had kids, career focused, driven 36 year old. Domestic roles don’t appeal to me in the
slightest. Thus, social feminism holds to essentialism more than I do.
With regard to radical feminism, I share “a disdain
for, if not rejection of [patriarchal] hierarchy” and “a commitment to cultural
as well as political transformation” (Rogers 619). I am concerned with radical feminist issues
such as “oppression, exploitation, patriarchy, domination, and resistance”
(Rogers 619). I see discrimination and
injustice in our system and our culture, and I want to do something to change
it. I grew up going to Catholic school
where patriarchy is the way and where
women are still considered too inferior to be leaders such as priests or
bishops. I have been told by math
teachers that I am not as good at math because I am a girl even though I always
got high A’s in my math classes.
Compared to what a lot of women endured through history and around the
world, I had it easy, too. I look at the
Salem Witch trials in our own national history, and I feel confident that I
would have been burned at the stake back then. (I even have a black cat!) I love to read, I love to express my opinion,
and I get very defensive if anyone tries to take that away from me. I also agree with radical feminism that “the
personal is political” (Rogers 619). The
best example of this in our society is the constant debate over a woman’s right
to her own body. Birth control is a really
touchy subject for me because I need to be on birth control pills for health
reasons…and I’m not even sexually active.
Birth control is not about sex or promiscuity—it is a woman’s personal
health choice. Being sexually active is
a woman’s choice…and it doesn’t make her a whore if she is, nor does it make
her a prude if she isn’t. I support Angela Davis’s ideas that “femininity is above
all an ideology of inferiority,” but I don’t hold industrialization fully
accountable (Rogers 619). Gender discrimination
came along a lot earlier than that. Just
think how “earth mother” worshipping Pagans were crushed by patriarchal
Christian indoctrination. I can’t stand the discrimination that women still
face; however, I am not radical in the sense that I want to use “transgressive
or subversive tactics to overhaul structure” (Rogers 60). Yes, I think that the system is very flawed
and even broken, but I do still think that we have one of the best systems in
the world. I think we should work with
that instead of trying to tear it down completely as a radical feminist would
endorse. The principles of equality are
there, we just have to make sure that they are applied equitably to everyone.
This brings me to liberal feminism. Here, I agree with the “focus on achieving
equal between men and women” (Rogers 446).
Fighting for women to have “equal opportunities and outcomes” in similar
situations as their male counterparts is very important to me (Rogers 446). As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I
agree that the system has “flaws that must be fixed to promote gender equality
and justice” (Rogers 447). However, I
would edit that definition by taking out gender because I think the issues of
inequality spread much farther than gender.
We must include inequalities that result from all forms of
discrimination—race, ethnicity, age, sexual preference, geography,
socio-economic status, class, religion, and so on. This would be where I digress from the
liberal feminists. As Rogers posits,
liberal feminists “largely accept the status quo” (447). To me, gender equality is a part of a larger
struggle for human equality. To me, this
involves questioning all aspects of the status quo including gender but also
including the norms and stereotypes that come along with race, class, religion,
ethnicity, and so on.
So now you’re probably
starting to think, “Wow, she sounds like a post-modern
feminist!” I wish it were that
simple. Just like the other varieties of
feminism, there are some points upon which I agree with post-modern feminists,
yet there are others that still don’t sit right with me. I agree with post-modern feminists in their
belief that gender identity is constructed and can thus be deconstructed and
reconstructed. I fully support Butler’s
claim that identity is “a performative phenomenon” that is “heavily regulated
within institutional regimes” (Rogers 584).
Today, at the college where I work, I just gave a lecture about
deconstructing white privilege and institutional racism. Institutional gender discrimination is no
different to me. I actually used the
example in my presentation of Ellmann’s stereotypes of femininity. I talked about how women are categorized as
archetypes such as the domestic goddess or the evil witch (Moi 33). I asked the group how we can be both polar
opposites at the same time, and I explained how the stereotypes start to
contradict and deconstruct themselves.
Like a post-modernist, I don’t believe gender is a dichotomy. I tend to think of it as more of a
spectrum…where well balanced individuals are somewhere in the middle. I view gender as more of a Taoist might…where
there is some masculine in the feminine and some feminine in the masculine…the
ideal is balance. At least in Taoism,
the duality is not in opposition.
I think this is where I
start to diverge from a strictly post-modernist perspective. I might be brainwashed by Enlightenment
thinking, but I do think that there is some truth to universality and human
nature. I think we are both our “nature”
and how we were “nurtured.” For example,
I believe that everyone everywhere can experience things like gratitude, hope,
fear, loss, and so on. We don’t all feel
it the same way or experience it the same way, but we are all human, and these
things are a part of the human condition, in my opinion. For example, most religions across the world
express gratitude as a part of their belief system. So for me, gratitude is a positive part of the
universal experience of “being” human. Also,
as a former environmental engineering major, I cannot ignore science. I see mother lions nurture and protecting
their cubs while the males go off and hunt…it is instinct that drives them. Likewise, only female mammals can produce milk
to feed their young. We have consciousness and opposable thumbs, but we are
still animals and still have instincts and intuition when push comes to
shove. I can’t ignore that in nature
there exists femininity and masculinity that correspond to biological sex. However, unlike many creatures in the animal
kingdom, we have an exceptional ability to learn and to self-identify
ourselves. Men can learn to be
nurturing; women can learn to hunt.
Thus, I haven’t completely and entirely ruled out some notion of
essentialism. However, I do believe that
human beings can self-actualize more than other animals, and this not only
leads us to construct gender categories and stereotypes, it allows us to
overcome them.
So maybe you should call
me an “on the fence” feminist! Or,
maybe, I’m a Hricovian feminist! All I
know, is that I want change, I hate hate, I loathe discrimination, I CAN’T
STAND being told I can’t do something because I’m a girl. I want a world where all human beings are
granted equal access to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I want to live in a world where differences
are embraced and celebrated not feared and shunned. To me “same” does not mean
“equal.” I believe strongly in the power
of education and the power of the pen, but I think activism also needs to happen. I think we need to start with Gandhi’s advice
to “BE the change we wish to see in the world,” and I do my best to live my
life that way. I identify as a woman, I
was born female, but I defy feminine stereotypes at every turn. Often, lacking better vocabulary, I refer to
myself as being a “tom boy” or not being a “girly girl.” Yet, the post-modernist in me cries out to
deconstruct those very stereotypes.
Ultimately, I think each and every one of us unique and our own balance
of “masculine” and “feminine.” We all
sit in different positions in the gender spectrum, but no one position is
greater than another.
Works
Cited
Cott, Nancy F. "What's in a Name? The Limits of
'Social Feminism;' Or, Expanding the
Vocabulary of Women's
History." The Journal of American
History 76.3 (1989): 809-32.
Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual
Politics. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.
Rogers, Mary F. “Liberal Feminism.” Encyclopedia
of Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc,
2005. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 18 Oct.
2015.
Rogers, Mary F. “Postmodernist Feminism.” Encyclopedia
of Social Theory. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc, 2005. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 18
Oct. 2015.
Rogers, Mary F. “Radical Feminism.” Encyclopedia
of Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc,
2005. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 18 Oct.
2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment