I say, shouting from on top of a chair, because
Caitlin Moran told me to.
Evidently, I am not the stereotypical feminist that
everyone will think of if one says the dreaded word ‘Feminism’. I don't burn my
bras. I haven't decided that my blatant heterosexuality is holding me back in
the world thus have gone to the 'other side' (or is it the 'same side'?) to
pursue the pleasures of the flesh that only a woman can satisfy. I don't NOT
wear make-up or dress nice. I don't lecture others on the patriarchy (too often)
and so on. No, I am not any of these things and if you look at me, you probably
wouldn't think that I am a feminist.
One argument, which I agree with, and which Caitlin
Moran discusses in her book How to Be a Woman (which has become my new
bible) is that, whilst only 52% of our population would admit to being a
feminist, probably more than that are feminists without realising it. If you,
as a woman, have a job, then you are a feminist. If you want to be equal to
men, you are a feminist. If you want to have the right to choose who you date,
marry, divorce and so on, you are a feminist. If you want the right to look how
you like, not to impress others, but because it's how YOU want to look, then
you are a feminist. If you want the choice as to if and when you have children,
and use contraceptives like the Pill, you are a feminist. I could go on for
hours. Whilst I should really add 'probably' before 'feminist' each time,
because it may not necessarily entail that one is a feminist, it would take away
the significance of what I meant. Also, I am probably right, more of us than
would like to admit are feminists, simply by being able to do what we want,
when we want (within reason) and have control over our bodies, yet because this
isn't what we tend to associate with feminism, we don't think that it fits.
This is what a feminist looks like |
Feminism seems to have become one of those taboo
subjects that is only discussed by radicals or academics, a subject that isn't
willingly included in day-to-day conversations because it's a touchy subject
and people will assume you're some crazy radical communist man-hater who likes
to throw herself under horses just to make a point (or something to that
effect). It's as though people just think, "You made your point in the 60s
and got what you wanted, so shut up, please, women." But we shouldn't shut
up, please, because we are still fighting an ongoing battle. For instance,
sexism is still very much a part of our society and it goes unnoticed because
it's usually not that extreme (unless you're David 'Calm down, dear' Cameron)
or deliberately trying to insult a woman, it's still just the 'norm' in a way.
In her chapter 'I Encounter some Sexism!', Moran makes the point that a lot of
it comes from the men in charge, who were from the pre-feminist era so are used
to sexist attitudes and those who are post-feminist, well, they are just subtle
about it, but it doesn’t mean it’s not there, for example;
"Very often, a woman can have left a party,
caught the bus home, washed her face, got into bed, read 20 minutes of The Female Eunuch and put the light out before she
puts the light back on again, sits bolt upright and shouts, 'Hang on—I’VE JUST
HAD SOME SEXISM AT ME. THAT WAS SOME SEXISM!'" (From How to Be a
Woman)
Also, the
average pay for women is still at least 30% lower than that of a man in the
same position, but why? Women are most expensive to ‘maintain’; our clothes
cost more, creating our appearance costs more, we are required to buy things
like tampons and other feminine products, and we tend to be the ones paying
most for children. All of this costs more than any ‘normal’ man’s, so as we
earn less and spend more, we are left with even less money than is suitable for
us.
Another problem
for women is the way we dress, particularly as many clothes have become
sexualised. This paves the way for sexism and is often used as a justification
for rape. Just because a woman wears certain clothes, it does not mean she is
interested in attracting men and having sex. She wears those clothes because
she feels comfortable in them, or simply because there really isn’t anything
different available. I try to dress nicely most of the time, I wear short
skirts/shorts, tight clothes, high heels and make-up. But it doesn’t mean that
I am inviting a man to come up and grind his bits all over my bum and try to
get off with me when I am out with my friends, or rape me and say that I was ‘asking
for it’. It doesn’t mean I am in any way ‘easy’ and I don’t like it. This is
one of the main reasons why I hate going clubbing and if I want to drink, I
will do so at home, or in a pub, where dancing is optional. I dress how I do
because I think it looks nice, looks nice on me and makes me feel a bit more
confident. I don’t dress this way to attract men, deal with it!
This is also what feminists look like |
What I like
about Caitlin Moran, is the way in which she addresses all aspects of femininity,
focusing upon our sexuality; totally blunt, to the point and accurate. She
isn't afraid to say what, effectively, we are all thinking. Most of her topics
are supposedly controversial and come at a time where feminism has taken the
back seat, yet everything she says should appeal to the modern woman (or man, for
that matter) and encourage them to start being more honest with themselves
about these aspects of humanity that should not be put aside and tabooed, –
masturbation, abortion and so on – because we all experience these things in
our lives, so why fight them. She wants us to address these issues in a 21st
century stance, and we should. We need to decide how the failed sex education
system in our country effects women, the implications for the perceptions of
sex as a result of pornography, the moral issues surrounding abortion and how
to deal with sexism. What does all this mean to the modern woman, and why doesn’t
she want to talk about it?
I never really got taught about sex as a child. Sex education involved stories about STI's and how to say no. When you suddenly start realising that you're becoming a woman, it is scary. You don't know what your body is doing, what you are doing or what you want to do. You fall into obsessive love easily, you have imaginary relationships, you get your heart broken, you think about sex, you have sex, you drink, you smoke, you take drugs and so on (obviously I haven't done all of these things). But it's not taught, you have to discover it yourself, and it's not ok to talk about it with people, so how can you understand what is happening? The teenage years are erratic and hard for anyone and it's not helped by society decided to tell you it's not ok to talk about it. We need to teach young girls and boys about this stuff before they become messed up in the head and do something stupid, be it dangerously stupid or just silly stupid. They need to know it's ok to explore and develop sexuality, to take control of their bodies and emotions. That's what our previous feminists fought for, and that's what we need to adhere to. It's not extreme or anything, it's just what needs to be done.
I never really got taught about sex as a child. Sex education involved stories about STI's and how to say no. When you suddenly start realising that you're becoming a woman, it is scary. You don't know what your body is doing, what you are doing or what you want to do. You fall into obsessive love easily, you have imaginary relationships, you get your heart broken, you think about sex, you have sex, you drink, you smoke, you take drugs and so on (obviously I haven't done all of these things). But it's not taught, you have to discover it yourself, and it's not ok to talk about it with people, so how can you understand what is happening? The teenage years are erratic and hard for anyone and it's not helped by society decided to tell you it's not ok to talk about it. We need to teach young girls and boys about this stuff before they become messed up in the head and do something stupid, be it dangerously stupid or just silly stupid. They need to know it's ok to explore and develop sexuality, to take control of their bodies and emotions. That's what our previous feminists fought for, and that's what we need to adhere to. It's not extreme or anything, it's just what needs to be done.
As Simone Du
Beauvoir once said, it’s easier for women to just conform and accept the
patriarchy than fight for liberation, and whilst I am not suggesting that women
start another revolution against it in the same way the suffragettes or
new-wave 1960s feminists did, I do think that it should be socially acceptable
for people to talk about this kind of stuff. For women AND men to come out and
say, “Yes, I AM a feminist!” and not be looked upon like some crazy extremist. We are always talking about the fact that women in third world countries have few rights and are trying to help them. But we need to help ourselves and address our issues before we start thinking about other societies!
I'd like to add a point that doesn't get made nearly enough: men can also be feminists. One doesn't have to be feminine to be feminist, and while you spend time challenging the stereotypes of feminism, you don't once indicate that actually some, even many, men are self-identified feminists. By ignoring this, a more cynical observer could opine that you are implying that no men are feminists: they're indeed anti-feminist.
ReplyDeleteThis is of course not true, and I think detracts from what should be the main message of feminism: one of equality, and not simply "men are bad and women are good". There are massive social inequalities regarding sex, but these cannot be solved by complaining about the other sex, no?
This is my one criticism of the more institutionalised feminism; I feel it should be more inclusive sometimes, rather than aggressive, which does nothing for its image.
To summarise, I agree whole-heartedly with your overall sentiments, but would REALLY like to assure readers that feminism does not have to be an "us and them" scenario. I am a man and a feminist, and proud of being both: this is not necessarily a contradiction in terms. Good blog though :)
lol mate, fair point, but I do mention men a few times in this, about how MEN can be feminists, for example: For women AND men to come out and say, “Yes, I AM a feminist!” So whilst you make a fair point, I am not ignoring it and stuff and you clearly did not read it. Whilst I focus on female sexuality etc, I don't deny that men are feminists. That just wasn't my main point. I am in no way aggressive or anything, and I do not come off that way in this
Deletebut, you are right, some people ignore male feminists and stuff. I'm obviously not extreme like those feminists, but yeah people think feminism is for women. Caitlin moran says it isn't, and so do I
DeleteNo, I didn't say you were aggressive: I was making a more general point about the "more institutionalised feminism". And as you say, it wasn't your point - I just felt the need to add it. And I'm sorry, but that is literally the only point in the blog where you mention men in the same breath as women in a non-pejorative sense (actually there is a bit where you say that Caitlin Moran's opinions should appeal to both men and women - though why anybody should be surprised that masturbation or abortion, for instance, should appeal to both sexes, I'm not quite sure). Further, I did read your blog, I honestly did. Why would I take the time to comment on a blog I didn't read? That's an odd criticism to make of me.
DeleteI think maybe you're taking offence at something that was not intended to offend? I only meant to embellish the otherwise great blog by emphasising something that I felt had not been emphasised enough. Seriously, we're on the same side here!
Sorry, didn't see your second comment by the time I'd written mine...
Deletehaha sorry, yeah tbh i think i skimmed over half of what you said, because my brain doesn't read properly anymore after months of hardcore revision. Also I'm very defensive. So sorry haha. I get your point now, I would have mentioned it but I am lazy and witter on too long and felt it was an awkward post anyway! ha
DeleteNice article. In a similar vein, I'd like to know your thoughts on Samantha Brick's article in the Daily Mail last month, advocating the status of 'Trophy Wife'. I mean, do you think this stance is inherently anti-feminist? Or is her radically different opinion more independent and Feminist that it would originally seem?
ReplyDeleteHere's a link, by the way:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2147212/Samantha-Brick-Independence-A-career-Who-needs-A-husband-prizes-looks-key.html
Do not get me started on Samantha Brick. She is clearly not feminist. Further to that article, and as you can see from my last post, that woman feels that she has the authority to judge what is deemed attractive enough for tv. She is not a feminist, and if she is, she is the most backward feminist I have ever seen. Whilst I am all for sharing your opinion, not only has this been included in the Daily Mail, a newspaper I dislike very much, but she believes that she is clearly so attractive that she can judge others, thus displaying what is inherently wrong in our society. If she wants to be a trophy wife, then she can go ahead, because I know the hate she gets from the internet, so if she wants to be that way, she has the right to, but I do not believe that any one, woman or man, should be a 'trophy' anything. It's like everything feminists fought for is undone. Relationships should be about equality, not one person paying all the bills and the other reaping the benefits.
DeleteClearly, my dislike of her is evident, and everyone I know agrees with me, but people are entitled to their opinions, and if the odd person believes she's right, then so be it, but they are someone I would never associate with and they would be like no one I have met or am aware of, except those deemed 'gold diggers', who marry old men for money.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to sympathise with her. Her motives opinions are as incomprehensible as they are insulting, but I just thought perhaps she deserved some ... consideration. Not in a reverential kind of way, you understand, seeing as she seems to be the flavour of the month when it comes to exemplifying the antithesis of the forward and liberal thinkers of society. I was just commenting on the fact that she seems SO incredibly contrary, it's almost reactionary, as if she's doing it on purpose. I suppose I was trying to be a little post-modern. Perhaps it's that I really cannot understand her, to the extent that I am utterly convinced she is royally and unashamedly taking the piss.
DeleteYeah, I get you. But, it was the same with Katie Price/Jordan. Everyone portrayed her as some new wave feminist when she was/is all about selling herself, making everything about her, and caring about only her appearance. Whilst some may see this as backward feminism, especially as she is all 'in control' of her career and stuff, and in some ways she is more feminist that Brick, she still isn't like, say, Lady Gaga, who is arguably the most feminist of popular figures, with her campaigning for equal/sexual rights and such like. She isn't about attracting men, or being sexy, necessarily, but her music is about power? I don't know, but Samantha Brick is so disgraceful to womankind. It's like she stepped back to the 1940s, but also got hit on the head and now thinks she's really sexy and everyone hates her cos of it. No, love, everyone hates you because you're a stuck up bitch! haha. I don't know, if people want her to be a backward feminist icon, they can, but I think she's so far from the idea of feminism it's just wrong! haha If it is a joke, it's fucked up and she needs help! But she insulted the true feminist Mary Beard on her APPEARANCE, saying she was too ugly for tv, which is exactly what's wrong with sexism. If a man said it, that's one thing, but for a woman to say that just makes it worse?
DeleteActually, I remember another news article concerning Mary Beard where another tv or newspaper reporter casually made a rather snide comment about her not being attractive enough for television. I remember watching that show. I think it was 'Meet the Romans'. I REALLY liked it and thought it was incredibly well made AND informative. It really confuses me how the remark seemed to gloss over the fact that, being a classics professor at Cambridge, she is probably one of the country's leading authorities on the subject, simply by stating that she is 'not attractive enough for tv'. What does that even MEAN?! Not to mention the fact that in the article I read, the insult came from an apparent misogynist who was trying to belittle her more than anything else, it seemed. (I just looked it up. It was a guy named A.A. Gill. He's a critic, so that explains why he's able to say such things without being sacked or whatever, because it's 'scandalously hilarious' or whatever rubbish.) I really don't understand where this is all coming from, I think it's just my effort to try and rationalise Samantha Brick and her weird opinions. A losing battle, perhaps... It makes me a little upset, to be honest.
ReplyDelete