AN AMBASSADOR FOR FEMINISM?

Hugo wrote a post  recently about his desire to present the United States in a positive light when traveling overseas.  That got me thinking about my own upbringing in other countries. Even as a young child, I was always very conscious of the fact that, in the eyes of many people I met, I was representing the United States.  My behavior, I thought, could go some way towards chipping away at stereotypes people held of graceless, rude, or ignorant Americans.  My discussions of my own country could help people understand the positive aspects of the U.S. and our culture and political system. 

In light of those memories of being a sort of child ambassador for my country, I began to think about what I am doing here in the blogosphere.  Mrs. B once asked me why I comment so frequently at Biblical Womanhood Online (which is dedicated in part to "confronting the lies of modern feminism").  And that’s an excellent question because, you know, I don’t expect to “convert” anyone to feminism.  I don’t expect to see Christian traditionalists like Zan and Mrs. B or cranky skeptics like Richard marching on Washington wearing t-shirts that say “This is What a Feminist Looks Like.” (I mean "cranky skeptic" affectionately, of course.) But I nonetheless love having conversations with them and with any and all other non-feminist or anti-feminist readers of this site or other sites.

And I think it’s because I relish the “ambassador” role.  I like putting a face on a movement that is so often stereotyped and dismissed.  I like explaining where feminism is coming from and why it’s still important.  I like showing that there is legitimacy to this social movement that has been such a boon to my life and the lives of so many people, and that it is neither dead nor irrelevant.  I would be happy if my blog would simply lead readers to perhaps listen to feminists a little more closely, rather than just dismissing us as crazed, power-hungry ideologues.  You can all certainly make up your own minds.  You can even agree with feminist goals in certain areas and not others. But I just hope that you consider the issues with an open mind and at least think about societal and personal issues from the perspective of furthering women’s dignity, autonomy, equality, and opportunity for full participation in society.      

Now I have to be careful, of course.  I see pitfalls in the blogging role I have adopted for myself.  One pitfall I worry about is the possibility of compromising too much in order to ingratiate myself with my non-feminist cyberfriends.  I certainly want to engage the issues in a thoughtful way that takes into account legitimate or rational concerns some people may have about feminism, but I don’t want to be so measured that the passion I feel about many feminist issues is lost. 

Another pitfall is described quite effectively in a post I just loved a while back at Mind the Gap.  I don’t want this blog to be about the fact that I’m NOT one of those angry, hairy, lesbian feminists.  Because certainly feminists often have good cause to be angry.  And, there is nothing wrong with being either hairy or lesbian.  I am well aware that, as a type, I may have an appeal to a broad spectrum of people who may be more likely to dismiss the opinions of traditionally despised groups.  It’s pretty obvious from how I have presented myself here that I am a white, American, capitalist, college-educated, white-collar, straight, married, make-up wearing, leg-waxing, man-appreciating, girl-next-door type. And because I’ve made those facts about me obvious, I question whether I am playing too much into the role of, “Hey, I’m not one of those hairy, angry, lesbians!” In other words, am I implying in some way that feminism, or social liberalism, is okay up to a point, as long as you lead a fairly conventional lifestyle, as I do?  Because I certainly don’t want to disavow other lifestyle choices or traditionally scorned groups.  On the other hand, I could also be playing into negative stereotypes about feminists because, except in age, I fit the demographic of those old-time, second-wave feminist establishment women who run NOW and other similar groups, and who are often hated for allegedly being elitists completely out of touch with the concerns of ordinary women. 

After turning these ideas over in my mind for a few weeks, I’ve ultimately decided that (in the words of Popeye) “I yam what I yam,” and I may as well let the chips fall where they may while I have a ball conversing with all the different people who find their way to this site.  Jenn at Reappropriate said it best when she  described how the blogosphere taught her that feminism isn’t about being “fervently pro-woman, anti-man.” I look forward to doing exactly what she advised: “And we, as feminists of all shapes, sizes, colours and creeds should take it upon ourselves to spread the understanding that you don’t have to be anyone but yourself to be a feminist: it is not some exclusive club or secret cult, but a simple stand that anyone, regardless of lifestyle or personal choices, CEO or housewife, can take and embody.” 

         

Comments

[Matt Stoller]

Nice post.

[will]

I am curious about one thing. You link a number of Mormon feminists. My best friend is Mormon. Mormons (LDS) seem the polar opposite from feminism. Comment?

Doesnt their religion essentially tell them to serve and obey their husbands?

[The Happy Feminist]

I have to admit that I'm not much of an expert on Mormonism or Mormon feminism. I am guessing that a lot of Mormon feminism has to do with trying to change certain Mormon practices and beliefs, and trying to reconcile their feminism with their religious and cultural heritage. I imagine this is an issue for a lot of people, not just Mormons. How does one, for example, reconcile being a feminist with, say, being a life-long Catholic. On the one hand, a Catholic (like my husband) may have a deeply ingrained affection for the church in which he was raised, a church that represents his familial and cultural heritage. On the other hand, many of the church's principles and practices (such as not permitting women into the priesthood) are diametrically opposed to feminism.

[Sara]

I have to agree that this is a great post. I'm another college-educated, white, makeup-wearing (etc) feminist who sometimes trades on the fact that she is palatable to many who are turned off by hairy angry feminists. I do get angry, and actually I do get hairy, too, but I don't think these are things people would say are major characteristics of mine. I should also point out that I'm not very familiar with feminism in a formal sense - never taken a women's study class or anything - so I think I have a unique perspective to offer others who aren't willing to accept feminism when it's presented as dogma rather than something that arises organically. I think it's easier for people to reject the hairy angry feminist when they don't have any idea what connects their reality to the hairy angry one.

Also, I do think it's often acceptable to make incremental difference rather than none at all. I would like it if I could be absolutely loyal to all of my principles, but I think doing that would be paralyzing. I will compromise if someone else is willing to do some yielding of their own, because I have no idea how to make things perfect. I have ideas on how to make things better, and that's what I pursue. I do make it a point to try and stick up for everyone I can, but I am willing to accept better on many issues instead of perfect.

[Mrs. B.]

This was a good post....very interesting because I have been thinking, lately, about why I read your blog, almost daily, even though if you and I were to sit down and talk we would most likely be polar opposites in our views on just about everything.(except dogs:)

I don't know.....I guess I've always found people to be interesting and fascinating and I like to try and understand where they're coming from, even if they're different than me....I think that's why I LOVE reading people's blogs, especially people who have an interesting writing style.

I guess another reason why I read and comment, here, is because even though we're different, I don't feel 'hated' by you and you seem to appreciate ALL viewpoints even if you don't agree with them.

[Ron O.]

I feel similarly as a man who identifies as feminist. Though some have a legitimate issue with my use of the label, I think it is justified to show that men can & do care about gender issues.

Oh, and I agree with you on many things, but not the dogs ;)

[Ally]

Very well said.

[Liberal Girl]

I really enjoyed your post and your blog in general. Today is the first time I'm reading it being directed here from another blog.

I am angry. Not all the time but sometimes. And I am hairy, although I do shave my legs which some of friends think is weird. I'm not a lesbian though. Married with child. But I do think that I am an ordinary woman who simply wants what she and other women deserve, a choice. We should have the choice to be successful professionally and make equal pay for equal work and experience or to be a stay-at-home mom and raise our children without guilt. We should be able to decide whether we want to use birth control or not, have abortions or not. We should have the choice to be sexual if we want and virginal if we choose and not to fear sexual violence if we choose any path. And I do believe that men can be feminists.

I do not think that your opinions are more or less valid because you have lived a "conventional" life and that your posts are respectful and intelligent and that worrying that you are limiting the feminist cause because of who you are is unwarranted. You are a woman who thinks that the world should be less gender biased and that makes you a feminist.

[Mrs. B.]

"....and that your posts are respectful and intelligent...."

This sentence sums up, well, what I was trying to say.

[The Happy Feminist]

Thank you!

xoxoxo HF