Tweed For Simone: SFE is a feminist

Simone de Beauvoir favored blouses and tweed pants for young feminists.  I've modified de Beauvoir's tweed and am happy to say that my general preference for skirts and dresses is only that:  preference.

new teal cardi - GAP (gift-carded)

skirt - Express, ages ago (remixed)

tights - Assets/Target (remixed)

gold floret earrings - gift from in-laws (remixed)

green beaded necklace - target (remixed)

pumps - Faryl Robin (remixed)

Feminism is a dynamic emancipatory movement that has historically been dedicated to freeing women from social, cultural, economic, and legal oppression.  I am grateful for the hard work and sacrifice of first and second wave feminists (including ye olde punching bag, Catharine MacKinnon) and I am also grateful to come of age during the third wave. The feminism I identify with is defined in broader terms: It seeks to eradicate and destroy what Adrienne Rich, Monique Wittig, and Judith Butler have identified as a matrix of "compulsory heterosexuality."

Compulsory heterosexuality effects all of us, men and women, queer or straight.  It describes the workings of a patriarchal system in which men have a "natural" and "normal" dominant sexual relationship to and only with women.  This asymmetrical and hierarchical relationship has a prescribed set of gendered roles, behaviors, and performances that also must be followed, although the particulars of them might change over time. Expressions, behaviors, or relationships that deviate from that structure are punished in order to reinforce and maintain norms.  This system requires that, at all times, men and women fit (or contort or distort) their selves into a prefabricated template of gender-appropriate behaviors, wants, desires, and expectations.

Compulsory heterosexuality makes heterosexual couples question how it will be received if a mother goes to work and her husband stays home with the children instead of asking, What is best for our family? Compulsory heterosexuality requires that men act in the role of provider; it denigrates the man who undertakes a caretaker role. Yes, even if he coaches Little League on the weekends. 

Compulsory heterosexuality says that there's something wrong with women like LHdM who freely expresses that she doesn't think she wants to have children; compulsory heterosexuality colors my desire for children as "natural" rather than the conclusions of a reflective woman. 

We see compulsory heterosexuality expressed in everyday linguistic use:  "There are two doctors and a lady doctor eating lunch over there" or "Last week I had lunch with my gay friend, Matthew." Not a doctor, a lady doctor; not a friend, a gay friend.  A marker of difference and deviance: a tomboy, a career woman.

Of course, those are fairly benign examples, but they are examples, nonetheless, of how the matrix is maintained. If you would like to see the more powerful force of socio-cultural regulation then perhaps you'd like to catch up on a short list of acts of violence against LGBT people? Of course, that list doesn't include the everyday verbal abuse, harassment, bullying, sham legal proceedings, and continued denial of rights to homosexuals.  It doesn't include the shameful utterance, "Don't be a homo." Or the frumpy woman who called a friend of mine "Fag!" on the street of a "progressive" metropolis last week.

 

SFE is greeted by the dark shadow of the Abominable Patriarchy

I am a feminist, but not because it is a marker of consumer-driven identity like granola-girl (no meat; tofu; organic peanut butter; organic cotton);  I am a feminist because it is an ethical stance. Due to natural inclinations of my own temperament I tend towards the philosophical: What is it to live a good life? What is necessary for the Other to live a good life? What is the Common Good?  It is difficult to live a good life when it is an oppressed life, but is it impossible to live a good life if you involve yourself in the systematic oppression of others.  Upholding the aforementioned system of oppression does that. There is no Great Patriarchy Abominable Snowman out there who's out to get us all. Individual social actors either choose to uphold or resist/topple this structure through our everyday interpersonal, political, and extraordinary acts.

That said, a few particulars about me: My parents expected me to excel academically in all areas, to stand on my own two feet, and not be socially or economically dependent on anyone.  But they both have deeply rooted gender-normative ideas.  Had I wanted to change my surname when I married, it would have been difficult for me because it's not a positive association. Women who grew up in more feminist households seem more apt to consider name-changing in terms of preference, desire, and choice--in other words, how I consider wearing pants v. skirts.

I'm wearier of the assumptions of liberal feminism (also see here) than most women my age.  I have a libertarian streak and worry that when government funding is involved then so is politically motivated government regulation, which can infringe on certain freedoms.

I admire those who make bold judgments and actually make statements about gender and sexuality, even if I disagree with them on some major points. This includes Camille Paglia, Caitlin Flanagan, and Neil LaBute.  Worse than seeming "judgie" is never making judgments.

Words matter and so does representation; visibility and circulation can do wonders to change and challenge perceived norms.  Learning to say "fuck off" is an underrated virtue.

Post-feminism pisses me off.