Can you be a feminist and...shave your pits? It seems that ever sinceCaitlin Moran published How to be a Woman feminist sympathising editors have been sitting in their Carrie Bradshaw style apartments, chain-smoking at their Mac and getting to wondering 'can you be a feminist and..?' Can you be a feminist and [insert absolutely anything here] is a new regular feature that various departments in magazines and newspapers take turns on because it can be applied to anything. Fashion (can you be a feminist and wear heels?), lifestyle (can you be a feminist and a stay at home mum?), home (can you be a feminist and decoupage?), politics (can you be a feminist and anti-choice?). You can even use it if you have a regular column (can you be a feminist and reject the label of cis?).
There are a couple of fairly valid reasons for these articles. If you are a feminist and trying to preach to the unconverted you find a lot of people believe feminism to be restricting. You are regularly asked if you can be a feminist and... by these people. This is fine, you perhaps wish people to adopt your feminist stance, or look forward to equal pay or something. So you want to answer these people.
The problem with these articles is that my feminism is perhaps not the same as your feminism. Some prominent feminist's feminism is not what I identify as feminist. My concern with some of these articles that I presume are supposed to frame feminism as approachable and good is that they tend to only answer the question from the view of a cis hetero woman to a cis hetero woman. Which makes feminist exclusive rather than inclusive.
The main feminist question regards feminism and typical boy girl relationships. I was once asked if I didn't have a boyfriend because I was a feminist. I don't know if the asker had confused lesbianism with feminism or not. The honest truth was that actually my feminism probably did inform my single state. I wasn't prepared to go out with just anyone because I didn't want to fall for the idea that a boyfriend validated me.
The problem with these articles is that my feminism is perhaps not the same as your feminism. Some prominent feminist's feminism is not what I identify as feminist. My concern with some of these articles that I presume are supposed to frame feminism as approachable and good is that they tend to only answer the question from the view of a cis hetero woman to a cis hetero woman. Which makes feminist exclusive rather than inclusive.
The main feminist question regards feminism and typical boy girl relationships. I was once asked if I didn't have a boyfriend because I was a feminist. I don't know if the asker had confused lesbianism with feminism or not. The honest truth was that actually my feminism probably did inform my single state. I wasn't prepared to go out with just anyone because I didn't want to fall for the idea that a boyfriend validated me.
| Can you be a hetero woman feminist with a boyfriend? Yes. Can you be a feminist and in an unhealthy or abusive relationship? Yes. Can you like a friend's ex boyfriend? NO, that's just, like, the rules of feminism. | your desire to celebrate your love while making sure the entire ceremony passes some kind of weird Bechdel test is too much. |
Laura Bates, founder of the excellent Everyday Feminism wrote about the possibility of being a feminist and getting married: "Can a woman who's fought for equality and respect, against sexism and misogyny, become a bride? And will she really throw her bouquet?"
Of course the simple answer is yes, if that's what she wants. But here we come to the other issue with the 'Can you be a feminist and...reconcile your actions with yourself and other feminists?' Bates notes that "in the months after our engagement, I had to deal with a stream of expectations that were difficult to reconcile with my feminism. Loving someone, and saying that in front of family and friends, shouldn't be controversial. Yet the whole ritual is riddled with patriarchal symbolism."
However as Laura notes most of the symbolism has been forgotten - a father 'giving away' the bride is more a way of involving him rather than the bride been regarded as on the same level as cattle. Or it isn't taken with quite the same sincerity, for instance the virgin white dress, I doubt many brides in white think they're kidding anyone. The bigger issue is, as ever, the feminist issue of fat. "The assistants in most bridal shops assumed I hated my own body."
To have to negotiate family wishes, with your own desire to celebrate your love while making sure the entire ceremony passes some kind of weird Bechdel test is too much. The question should not be whether or not a wedding ceremony can be feminist, if the bride and groom/bride and bride/groom and groom/person and person etc are willing participants then I don't understand why one of the many 'can you be a feminist and...' has to include questions over marriage. As Laura says "If we pull it off, I'm hoping it won't be a case of "Woman Takes Day Off Being Feminist In Order To Marry".
Perhaps we feminists should be asking ourselves 'Can you be a feminist and be welcoming?'
Squeamish Kate
Of course the simple answer is yes, if that's what she wants. But here we come to the other issue with the 'Can you be a feminist and...reconcile your actions with yourself and other feminists?' Bates notes that "in the months after our engagement, I had to deal with a stream of expectations that were difficult to reconcile with my feminism. Loving someone, and saying that in front of family and friends, shouldn't be controversial. Yet the whole ritual is riddled with patriarchal symbolism."
However as Laura notes most of the symbolism has been forgotten - a father 'giving away' the bride is more a way of involving him rather than the bride been regarded as on the same level as cattle. Or it isn't taken with quite the same sincerity, for instance the virgin white dress, I doubt many brides in white think they're kidding anyone. The bigger issue is, as ever, the feminist issue of fat. "The assistants in most bridal shops assumed I hated my own body."
To have to negotiate family wishes, with your own desire to celebrate your love while making sure the entire ceremony passes some kind of weird Bechdel test is too much. The question should not be whether or not a wedding ceremony can be feminist, if the bride and groom/bride and bride/groom and groom/person and person etc are willing participants then I don't understand why one of the many 'can you be a feminist and...' has to include questions over marriage. As Laura says "If we pull it off, I'm hoping it won't be a case of "Woman Takes Day Off Being Feminist In Order To Marry".
Perhaps we feminists should be asking ourselves 'Can you be a feminist and be welcoming?'
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed