Confessions of a (sometimes angry) Feminist

I usually try really, really hard to be a neutral sort of feminist. But the truth is, sometimes I am actually just really, really angry. And you know what's ridiculous about that? I'm afraid to admit it, because of the whole "angry feminist" stereotype.

Except that I don't really see what's so wrong with being angry, as long as it's productive. Here's what is wrong: rape culture, the salary gap, double standards, and unrealistic expectations pushed on women. Those issues are so much worse than a woman being angry because of those perfectly legitimate reasons! But that isn't how our society usually views it. It seems to me that most people prefer feminists who, in spite of everything, embrace the passive feminine role, and realize things are the way they are because that's how they are, and who seek to change it by quiet debate. The only issue I have with that is I can't really care about an issue unless I get angry about it, and I think that's the case with most people.

Yes, I'll say it: I'm angry at men. It's actually more accurate to say that I'm angry at man culture. That's sort of the reasonable feminist's taboo--we're not supposed to say that! The thing is, I'm not necessarily angry at any particular man, or even most men. I'm angry that men, without even realizing it, control so much of what goes on in this world. It's getting better in civilized countries, but nearly everything we see, engage in, and consume is controlled by man culture; this is probably because most of the people who are in the positions to control those things are men.

Here, I realize, it is necessary to add this disclaimer: I'm not a man-hater, and I'm not trying to generalize about men. So many men are wonderful. Many of my good friends are men, and there is one man in particular who is quite literally the center of my world. But men's desires, preferences, and goals are so permeated in culture, that women cannot escape from them. It's actually become even more obvious to me since I started this blog, because the subject of my feminism keeps getting brought up. I actually started this blog much more optimistic than

I am now. Of course, many people have come out in full support of me, and that's wonderful.

What's disturbing, though, is that so many women have spoken up to say that they dislike feminism because of the whole "angry feminist" thing. Or "superior feminist" thing. Or "man-hating feminist" thing. There are so many! I've blogged about this before, but I have to say that now, I really blame man culture for that. I think women who distance themselves from feminism have either somehow interacted with all of the wrong feminists (it's kind of hard for me to believe that every feminist they have encountered has been the "bad kind," but maybe), or else they've been led to believe by deniers that there is no problem, and women are just getting their panties in a bunch (a phrase which infuriates me!) over nothing. Feminists are women who look for problems so they'll have something to bitch about over glasses of wine. I think, however, that even the feminists who give feminism a bad name are justified in their anger. Even the angriest feminist is better than the most sexist man. One is fighting for a legitimate cause--the other is working to preserve an archaic, harmful system.

So many men don't want to face the fact that there is a problem and they, by default of their sex, have contributed to it. What's sad is that they don't have to contribute to women's issues, but by denying both the very real issues that women face because of them, and their privilege as a man, they are contributing to the problem.

For example, in my recent post about SlutWalk and victim-blaming, and in my general browsing about the topic, I realized that many perfectly reasonable people engage in victim-blaming. This infuriating sort of, "I'm not saying it's right but, you know, sluts do get raped" speech. Not just in response to my blog, of course, but all across the internet. But what is the standard of beautiful, both in the United States and in most Western cultures? Thin but shapely, and showing plenty of skin. So women try to live up to that standard, because that's what we've been fed. So the message women get is, "I'd like you to wear that short skirt and low-cut, tight shirt so I can see your legs and cleavage, but don't come crying to me when you get raped." How is that fair?

Of course, women don't have to align themselves with men's desires. I'd like to think that I dress in ways that are comfortable for me, but I have to wonder how much of it is controlled by men's expectations and I've just become comfortable with it.

I hate that I thought today about taking a walk by myself, but I ultimately decided that I just wasn't comfortable going out without my boyfriend, or without anyone. I hate that if I'm waiting in the car while my boyfriend goes into the bank or gas station, he is uneasy enough to insist that I lock the doors. I hate that if I walk by myself through a bar or restaurant, I can't feel confident and beautiful that men are looking at me; instead I feel creeped out and suspicious.

This also means that it sort of sucks for men. There are the disrespectful, misogynistic, and downright dangerous guys that ruin it for everyone. Most of the men I know are perfectly respectful, and dislike the oppression of women as much as I do. It's those men who will acknowledge that oppression, not deny it, who actually have equality in mind. I praise those men--they are willingly giving up power and privilege in order to make room for us, just for the sake of equality. It's the people (and not just men) who refuse to see why women's issues are, in fact, issues that infuriate me, and who spur me on to keep writing, arguing, and protesting for women's rights.

Women's Issues in the News

It seems like there have been a lot of news stories concerning women and women's rights lately. For example, how Republican representative Pete DeGraaf compared being prepared for pregnancy due to rape to being ready for a flat tire. And, of course, the Strauss-Kahn case. Also, if you're in the Chicagoland area, you might be familiar with the Chicago police officers who have been charged with sexual assault and misconduct. Obviously, we can't forget the Planned Parenthood fiasco.

It's absolutely infuriating that women are still being put in these situations, and that politicians are dragging women's rights issues into the political arena as something to be debated and negotiated. It's as if they don't realize that women are real people who will be affected by the decisions they make.

I have to say, though, I'm inspired that stories like this are so prevalent in the news. Not because women are suffering, of course. It's because treating women as objects, and women's rights as banter material is in no way new. It is new, however, that people are paying attention when it happens, and fighting against it. Planned Parenthood's federal funding was not cut (it's a different on a state level in some cases, but that's a blog for a different day), and even men in power are being punished for committing sexual assault. So we need to keep speaking up about these issues. We need to vote for politicians that have women's issues in mind, and will fight for us. We need to keep doing what we're doing, and we need to do more of it.

SlutWalk: Rape is Never the Victim's Fault

I'm sure at this point, most of you have heard about SlutWalk. For those of you who haven't, it was started in Toronto because a police officer, when speaking to a group of university students said that women should not dress like sluts in order to avoid being raped. We've all heard this kind of thing before. Sexual assault is all too prevalent in our society which claims to be civilized, and it is not uncommon to blame the victim for dressing provocatively, getting drunk and generally just wanting to party. SlutWalk speaks out to say that when rape happens, it is never the victim's fault, no matter how she is dressed. And calling a woman a slut is never justification for rape.

There is some fair criticism that using the word "slut" may be more harmful than helpful. Slut has been around too long as a terribly negative label, and we can't get rid of all that with a couple of marches. I don't necessarily agree with that. Maybe SlutWalk won't single-handedly make slut a term for a confident, sex-positive woman, but it's a start. However, that is the only criticism of SlutWalk that I think has any weight. There are the deniers, who say that victim-blaming never happens, the maintainers, who insists that yes, women who dress like sluts are going to (deserve to!) get raped. To take a charming quote from the blog I just linked to, "I don't shed any more tears over a slut getting raped than I do over a gambler winding up broke." There are also those who claim that SlutWalk is a white supremacist movement.

My intent with this post isn't really to counter the criticism being leveled at SlutWalk; there are much more capable people who are taking that on. I want to explain why I whole-heartedly support SlutWalk, and why I think you should, too. For one, I am ecstatic to see women come together for women's issues, especially in a generation in which people can be kind of funny about being feminists. I'm also happy to see the issue of not just rape, but the social implications of rape blame-shifting discussed openly. This is a conversation that has needed to happen for a long time now.

I could post news stories that illustrate the point that women get blamed for rape, but you can pull dozens of them up with a simple Google search. The base question here is, why does our society have so much trouble defining rape? Rape is a non-consensual sex act. If a person is clear that he or she does not want to engage in any sexual activity, but it is forced upon him or her, then it is rape. Rape need not include violence. There are all sorts of situations in which rape happens, but rape is rape and it is always wrong. No matter what. If someone gets drunk and steals an unlocked and unattended car with the keys in the ignition, that person is still a car thief the next morning when the alcohol wears off. If a drunk person forces sex upon a drunk girl in a short skirt, that person is a still rapist the next morning. So why is this issue constantly being revisited, redefined, and debated?

The answer, I think, is as simple as the definition of rape. This is one of the most atrocious and disgusting ways in which women suffer because of our sex. The majority of sexual assault victims are women, and up until very recently, it was common to turn a blind eye when a woman was raped. This "she was asking for it" justification has been around for centuries. In the Middle Ages, if a knight raped a peasant woman, action was almost never taken. She shouldn't have been so enticing, and she probably wanted it anyway. Even now, we are making slow progress. It often takes women years to come forward after she has been raped, because she is made to feel guilty about it. This is what SlutWalk is about.

SlutWalk is more aggressive than the kind of thing I normally get involved with, but victim-blaming is an issue that makes me furious. It's an issue that should make everyone furious. Saying that women shouldn't dress likes sluts in order to avoid being raped is not terribly that different from saying that women must wear burqas so as not to excite the passions of men who may see you. In places where women are required to wear burqas, rape still happens. Often. I'm not trying to make a slippery-slope argument and say that soon western women will have to wear burqas. I'm saying that victim-blaming puts us in the same category of people who make women wear burqas. Slut-shaming completely ignores the fact that most rape is committed by someone the victim knows. Why is more blame not being put on rapists? It is they who commit the crimes. Instead, we insist upon continuing in the archaic, misogynistic vein that makes women feel guilty for being assaulted.

I admit. I don't like the way some women dress. I think in some cases it is disrespectful, and that some manner of dress is inappropriate in certain instances. But I would never tell her that she can't dress that way for any reason, least of all because if she got raped, it would be her fault. No one tells a man who wears pants several sizes too big that if he gets assaulted, it's his fault because he looked like a gangster. Even if it were true that how a woman dresses affects her likelihood to get raped, it's irrelevant. We should be teaching men not to rape, not criticizing women for expressing themselves.

Slut-shaming is just a convenient excuse for peoples' insistence upon blaming women for rape, rather than putting the blame on the rapists, where it belongs. This is why I will walk in SlutWalk Chicago on June 4, 2011.

The Great Mom Debate: Working Moms vs. Stay-Home Moms

One of the most important issues facing women today, I think, is the stay-home mom vs. career woman issue. Historically, even when women in America gained the opportunity to work, many gave up their jobs and/or careers when they got married or pregnant. Even many highly educated women did this.

I'd like to first state my frame of reference on this issue. I am a young, childless woman, and therefore I have not faced this issue firsthand, and can only speak to what I speculate, ponder, and have read about. However, I fully plan to have and/or adopt children of my own someday. Additionally, I'm in pursuit of a serious career. So I struggle with this issue a great deal, especially having grown up with a stay-at-home mom. Until very recently, I felt that children should have a parent around at all times. I fell prey to social and media pressure, and thought I might be a terrible mother if I sometimes work late, or bring work home with me. But is that really the case? Should mothers actually sacrifice everything for their children?

I now firmly believe that they should not. I think that this issue shows poignantly one of the most powerful double-standards imposed on modern women. Sure, men are expected to be good fathers. But the criticism laid on fathers who work long hours is nothing compared to the guilt that is often pushed on women who have careers that take them away from their children.

However, people have a right to pursue their goals. For many people, their goals involve having a successful career. Why should a woman, just because she has given birth to a child, have to give up that career to care for a child? I am in no way saying that a mother who has a career should neglect her child. As centuries of fathers have shown, a working parent is not necessarily a neglectful parent.

One of the most interesting things about this issue is the nature of the debate. The word "catty" has (of course) been used to describe it, because often stay-home moms strongly believe that good mothers stay home, and working moms hotly counter that by saying that they have a right to pursue their career. They also point out that they help (or solely) provide for their family; how is that being a bad mother? It's becoming increasingly more difficult in the United States for a family to survive on one income. It's understandable. No one really wants to be told they are bad at anything, let along caring for a human (or humans) that they have brought into the world. Parenting is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, responsibility that many people will take on.

Another issue is that the media and entertainment bombard us with the image of the parent who is at work, rather than at their child's important event (they even do this to men; think Hook). Commercials for digital cameras, computers, cell phones, etc. take advantage of this guilt to sell us gadgets that will allow us to be at work and see our kids' baseball games, dance recitals, whatever.

I'm not saying parents shouldn't feel bad about missing their children's events. I'm sure it's unavoidable. But the expectation put on moms to excel at both being a mother and being a working woman, or to simply give up everything for their children, is unrealistic, and unnecessary. I used to think, "What if I miss my baby's first step? Or first word? Or first home run?" This thought haunted me for years (Really. That's not an exaggeration). Then, after many conversations with working parents, and with adult children of working parents, I realized something. Who does it really matter to most? Is my kid really going to care if I miss the first step? Probably not. I care, because I want to see it. While that is still important, I realized that my child is probably not going to be psychologically damaged by it. Sure, they'll probably get upset when I miss things that are important to them, and I'm not saying that I'm not going to try my very hardest to not miss things, but it's probably not going to send them to a therapist.

Here is what I think is really important: being a strong role model. I believe very strongly that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and not conform to expectations or roles imposed upon them. Whether I have boy(s) or girl(s), I want them to see that a woman can be successful in a career, and happy in her own decisions. In that way, my daughter may never doubt that it is possible, and my son will know to respect women, and to understand that they can produce valuable work.

I'd like to end with saying that I don't think stay-home mothers are bad parents, or bad people. I respect them--I could never have the patience to do it. I just don't think that women should be pressured into that role, or judged because they choose to go to work.