17 Nov If I’m Going to Be Labeled a “Feminist”: I Get to Define It
***I didn’t post a blog last week because I couldn’t bring myself to post this in the aftermath of the enormous natural disaster in the Philippines. As someone with a platform, I feel it is my duty to hold space for their stories, not my own. <Steps off self-righteous soap box.>***
***This post was written largely in response to this other post from a couple of weeks ago which inspired a thoughtful debate in the comments by some intelligent women attorneys. Thank you ladies for the responses. I appreciate your engaging in the discussion.***
Oh shit, there’s a feminist in the family.
Aaaaaaannnnddd we’re back to Feminism… Or not.
I hate labels. Hate. Hate. Hate. And yet. There is no way around them.
As hard as I try, I still can’t read minds. Without this super power, like everyone else, I must resort to words in order to communicate. It’s a tree, a Monday, an accident, a Jew, a lesbian, a liberal, a middle-aged, single mom.
All labels.
I hate labels because the moment something gets labeled it ceases to be something else. It now has an outer edge, a definition, a clearly outlined “box” that it must now fit inside to be understood.
The older I get the more I realize that life is much more complex than I’ll ever grasp. There is too much mystery, too much unknown, too many overlapping stories that I’ll never be able to untangle into a single Truth. The Truth is too grande an idea to grasp completely with my wee little brain and I am a dedicated Truth Seeker.
This is why I am not eager to label myself. When I attach myself to a label, some part of the Truth gets lost.
I don’t like to tie my horse to a political cart, cause, or religious affiliation because the moment I do, I know some people will cease to see me as a whole human being. In fact, it is only recently that I have called myself a Christian because it is the religious ideology of which I most identify. But even then, it somehow feels limiting to say it out loud. I am so much more than just a traditional “Christian” when it comes to my spiritual life. I am large, I contain multitudes (to quote The Great Walt Whitman).
It is with this same idea that I hesitate calling myself a feminist in spite of all that I have written on the subject. I know the moment I announce I AM A FEMINIST HEAR ME RAWR! there will be some people who dismiss what I have to say based on whatever “box” they have placed “feminists” in. And that is unfortunate.
Some people (myself included in the pre-sexual-discrimination-lawsuit-plaintiff-days) might assume that if you are a self-proclaimed and vocal “feminists” it is entirely possible that: A. You’re a woman, B. You probably have an abundance of body hair, C. You always utter “oppressive” and “Barbie” in the same sentence, and D. Are likely to give a stranger a verbal thrashing if they look twice at your naked breastfeeding breast in public. Not that any of that is accurate, but you’d have to live under a rock not to know those stereotypes exist.
So I feel it necessary to clearly define what I mean when I invoke the word “feminist.” To draw my own boundaries around this provocative label.
1) I believe that men and women are different and are supposed to be. My 2-year-old son loves his big sister. One day, when he was not yet two, I put him in one of his sister’s frilly, pink dresses. When he looked in the mirror he acted like I had just zipped him up in a suit full of yellow jackets. He whined and pulled at the collar. He wanted that thing off NOW. He has also been instantly attracted to anything with wheels since before he could speak, and even though he idolizes everything his sister he does, she does not share his love of bulldozers. Simply, we were made different. And I think that is a good thing. Yet, I also believe that at the end of the day, we are mostly all the same.
2) I do not secretly believe women are the stronger sex, or that our inherent traits are better than a man’s although I prefer being a woman.
3) I believe these inherent gender differences are part of a divine balance of strengths and weaknesses in the world; one that is essential to maintain a healthy equilibrium. I believe that equilibrium, at least worldly, has been tipped in the favor of men for far too long as evidenced by the fact that there is not a single culture on this planet that oppresses men. Not one. And I need not state the obvious that it is not true for women.
4) I believe that gender inequity is played out in our country in our leadership roles. I think this is evidenced by the paltry percentage of women executives and in Congress; 16% and 19% respectively. I believe our entire culture suffers when this equilibrium is not balanced precisely because men and women are different. We have different world views and those views need adequate representation in the highest levels of leadership. The same levels that create the media messages, policies, and laws the rest of us live by.
5) I believe that women are as equally qualified as men for positions of leadership and should be able to attain them, and they should NOT have to choose to forgo motherhood to do so. I believe that being a parent makes a person a better leader and vice versa. Male or female.
6) I don’t think the choice to stay home with your family is a wrong one. I don’t think the choice to work full-time is either. I have stayed home full-time. I have worked full-time. I have stayed home part-time and worked from home part-time. It’s all hard. I believe that people should know what they’re getting into when they make these choices, but above all, people should make choices based on passions and responsibilities… not someone else’s expectations.
7) I believe we need to find a better way to support families; whole families, not just mothers, but fathers too. Currently mothers need more support based on long-held stereotypes and ideologies, but these things are s l o w l y changing. Father’s are taking a larger role in child-rearing these days. To sustain this momentum we need to continue to promote messages that emphasize a balanced work/life approach. Many of these messages tend to be about women, and the choices and sacrifices they are making to manage career and family, but the larger conversation is about the whole family. There are too many families in this country who are barely getting by because they are faced with impossible choices. And when your choice is between being able to stay home with your kid when they are too sick for school, or getting fired… is that really a choice? And what about having to choose between reaching the pinnacle of a career that fulfills you, or raise a family? A less drastic choice, but no less unfair.
8) I don’t think we need large legislative measures to change our priorities. There are areas where legislation can alleviate some important issues like maternity and paternity leaves, but this fight is not going to be won on the floor of congress, but rather in the hearts and minds of our country. We need to demonstrate through our choices and voices that families are important; more important than profits, or power, or winning, or the next call to Wall Street.
The only label we have for people who want to actively support women in leadership is “feminist.” But I don’t think that’s a wholly accurate label anymore. It is too small for this fight. Because it’s not strictly about women these days; (“feminine” being the root word of feminist). This is about our society as a whole. We need balance in our leadership, and not just between red and blue.
I think I need a new label to describe what I believe when it comes to gender roles in our country. I still think women are the ones who need more support because they are the ones behind in equal pay and equal leadership, but what needs the MOST support… are families. Whole families no matter what they look like. So I guess I’m in support of families.
I’m a Familiest.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 23:37h, 18 NovemberIt’s sad to me that you feel the need for any label at all. But! With that said. . . A feminist, as you are well aware, is nothing more than a person (male or female) who believes that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. Any small minded, ignorant person who would put you in the “whatever box” (in this day and age) simply because you advocate for equal rights, isn’t IMHO worth even a minute of your time. I’d dismiss them outright before I’d give them the time of day. In fact, I think I’d have to put them in the “whatever box” because their sexist, racist and other small-minded discriminatory beliefs are unacceptable. It is after all 2013! Not 1953!!! As a “familiest” are you an advocate for families only? How do you define “whole” family? If I am married, am I a “whole” family or does a “whole” family require children? If I am a single mom or dad, am I “whole”? Are you advocating for EQUAL rights and opportunities for folks with children or are you in favor of something more for those folks?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 00:17h, 19 NovemberAnd on labels… yes, I’ve heard every derogatory phrase and insult uttered about a women who speak up for women’s rights.. from family and friends alike.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 23:38h, 18 NovemberJust thought of something else. . . if I am a single person caring for her frail elderly father, am I a “whole” family?
Shannon Lell
Posted at 00:06h, 19 NovemberWhat I meant by “whole” families is that what is best for moms, dads and children. From my perspective, raising small kids is one of the MOST demanding experiences one can have.
It takes so much more time and effort and physical energy that coupled with a similarly demanding job (as highly influential jobs tend to be) can be overwhelming to the point of utter exhaustion.
People who are married w/o children are surely families, but they do not appear to need a similar advocacy because there are no uphill battles to climb.
If a woman takes 2.4 years off to have a baby she forfeits 18% of her total lifetime earning power. Sure, she could NOT take time off, but most women don’t want to do that. Many women want to stay home with their children while they are young and to do this, they are not making the same amount of money and are not reaching leadership positions. Is that fair?
Should only childless people be able to reach the pinnacle of their careers? These are the facts for women, but I don’t think it just pertains to women. I think it pertains to our entire corporate culture and what they value.
Lastly, just because I’m advocating FOR families raising small children, doesn’t mean I’m AGAINST any other type of arrangment as families go. Everyone should have equal rights, but some segments of the population need more advocacy than others. Parents trying to raise small children and work high-level jobs, is one of them.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 00:50h, 19 NovemberThis all reminds me of whose needs are greater? The law school graduate coming out of law school with $100,000 in student loan debt. . . vs. . . .the 59 year old attorney facing retirement and not having enough money in her 401K to meet her needs in retirement (her golden years – when she is no longer physically or mentally capable of working). The law school graduate would certainly argue that her needs are greater. After all, she owes $100,000 in student loans that she cannot afford to pay if her employer doesn’t give her extra. The attorney approaching retirement, would argue that she has the greater financial need. After all, she will retire soon and have not enough money to live on. I think you are right. It all comes down to “perspective”.
Speaking of perspective, a person that is taking care of an aging parent – whose behavior and needs are much like that of a 2 year old’s (pooping their pants, roaming off when unattended, transportation needs to the doctor’s office when ill, adult daycare being closed due to inclement weather, etc.) – would likely argue that caring for an elderly parent is the “most demanding experience one can have.” While younger folks, like yourself, would argue that a parent of a small child has the most demanding experience. We all see things from where we are in life. I think it’s human nature to do that. Certainly, when I was younger, my needs were much different then they are now. And I’m sure that as I age (assuming I age), my needs will change yet again. As will yours.
I guess I’m just a skeptic. Don’t get me wrong. . . I’m a fan of advocacy. I am! It’s what I do for a living. But! These issues that we are talking about? I just don’t see corporate America every willingly making these their issues. Maybe government jobs, non-profit companies, universities, etc. But corporations that really do care about the all mighty buck? Profit being their bottom lines? Yeah, I just don’t think they care “that” much about their employees to ever care about things like childcare issues, sick parents, student loan obligations, senior employees having insufficient funds with which to retire, etc. If you can find a way to prove to corporate America that they can be as profitable OR more profitable by adopting flexible programs and policies. . . then maybe change will happen. If there is one thing I’m fairly confident about, it is this: if corporate America ever does implement pro-employee policies and programs, they surely will not limit it to “whole families”. If they do that, lawsuits will abound. It’s the American way – and sometimes the only way to stop discrimination. . . especially in the work place.
Good luck in your pursuit.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 03:05h, 19 NovemberPerhaps if we had a fair representation of women in leadership roles and government, then some of these policies would change.
But women aren’t making it to these roles and it’s not because they’re caring for elderly parents who have Medicaid and Social Security because the government thought of that… they’re not making it to C-level positions and Congress because they are raising their families. And raising families isn’t compatiable with high-level positions.
So perhaps we fix THIS problem, and some of the others you speak of might get a little help too.
And I DO see this changing. Why? Because of the employee that you spoke of who “thought outside the box” and created flexibility in your schedule. Because the next generation will do things differently and if companies want them, they’ll have to conform.
karenkarnesquinn
Posted at 12:23h, 19 November“But women aren’t making it to these roles and it’s not because they’re caring for elderly parents who have Medicaid and Social Security because the government thought of that… they’re not making it to C-level positions and Congress because they are raising their families. And raising families isn’t compatiable with high-level positions.”
I have to ask where you get your facts? Medicaid and Social Security are my specialty areas at work. I’ve done appeals in this these arenas for 27 years. Medicaid is a poverty program, which means that most Americans do not qualify. Perhaps you meant Medicare? And even that wouldn’t solve the problem of aging parents . . . because Medicare does NOT pay for nursing home care on a regular, ongoing basis. There’s a limit – 20 days or so. As for Social Security? Yeah, right, good ol’ Social Security. Are you old enough yet to have received a Social Security notice advising you of the payment you will be eligible for when you retire? I am – and it’s a joke! Certainly not enough to cover the cost of nursing home care. Social Security – somewhere between $1200 and $1700 per month, depending on the age I retire vs. the $4000+ per month it cost (in today’s dollars I might add) for nursing home care. So, no, the government has not “thought of that” as you allege. Anymore than the government thought of working parents in need of day care. I handle Day Care Assistance at work as well – so I familiar with those program requirements too. If you believe that the government in all its wisdom (NOT) has created laws that better serve seniors versus that of children and families, you are sadly mistaken. They haven’t.
So when you say that women aren’t making it to C-level positions because they are raising their families and NOT because they are taking care of aging parents, I say – where’s the proof of that? Again, I think this is your perspective based on your own experience. If I’m wrong. . . if you have some factual evidence to support your claim, I’d love to take a look. Maybe you could share your research here?
As for women not making it to congress because they are raising their families? Again I have to ask where the data is on that? Running for any elected official position takes money and alot of it. I don’t personally know many 20 or 30 somethings that have that kind of money to spend – especially on something where the outcome is so uncertain. Women who do have the money to run for congress are typically older. And those women? Their families are pretty much raised at that point. And I have to get good and honest here. Personally, I would NEVER vote for ANY candidate – male or female – who promised in their election campaign that Home and Family came 1st for them and the country came 2nd. I just wouldn’t. And I don’t think most Americans would. Think of the role of president. I’m glad the president wasn’t home with a sick child the day the twin towers were hit or the day the Oklahoma City bombing occurred or the day Pearl Harbor was under attack or . . . well, you get the idea.
How about your OBGYN? What if she had had a family crisis in the middle of your labor/delivery? Ok for her to scoot on out the door and just leave you to fend for yourself?
There are just some roles – leadership and others – where work can’t be left for later because family calls. And I’m fairly confident that if you polled most CEO’s, they would conclude that the work in their company was ever bit as important as that of a doctor or police officer or fire fighter or EMT or president.
The more I think through this, the more I am of the opinion that I first held. To have or not have a family, is the choice of the individual. Just like someone choosing to take care of an aging parent is his or her choice. Climb the corporate ladder if you so choose – even become the president if that is what you want, just don’t expect special concessions ‘because’ you have a family to care for.
Be an advocate for change. I think that’s awesome! But I also think you’ll be more successful at creating the change you desire if you are more inclusive, have hard facts with which to back up your claims and are prepared for the brick walls you will undoubtedly encounter. If the change you are proposing is in the fact the “right” thing, how can you convince the masses. . . which include men, women, senior citizens, people of color, hard core CEO’s, politicians, etc.? How can you convince the masses that making special concessions in the work place “for families” at the exclusion of others is “good” policy? How can you convince me? I’m not here just to be a pain in the ass. I’m not! What I am suggesting is that I AM – I represent – all those folks you’ll have to convince if change is ever to happen. I wish you the best.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:05h, 19 NovemberI know a thing or two about Medicare and Medicaid myself (and yes, I meant Medicare) and my point is a greater one. The government has provided (or attempted to provide) assistance to the elderly through social programs.
And this shouldn’t be WHAT people rely on in retirement, because of course people should be saving their money in 401Ks and IRA so they may provide for themselves, and since I’ve been married to a financial advisor for 8 years, I know a thing or two about THAT.
But there isn’t even manditory paid maternity/ paternity leave. No childcare assistance programs. Yes, having a child is a choice, but so is spending all your earnings throughout your lifetime so that you have no money to retire. Choices.
And it doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together when it comes to women having babies and raising families and the effect that has on a career. Child-bearing age is (typically) before 40. Many educated women wait until their 30’s to have children, after they have established themselves in their careers. And just as careers start hitting a stride, you are limited by the demands of raising a family. At this point, your aging parents are in the prime of their retirement, (likely 60s). People who are taking care of elderly parents are usually much older (40s-50s and in my dad’s case 60s) than child-bearing age and when you’re those ages, your careers is pretty much set on the course it’s going to take. THAT IS A GENERALIZATION BASED ON AVERAGES. LET’S NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN A RABBIT-HOLE OF ACCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE.
This is not difficult to surmise w/o having to have a litnany of statistics to back it up, (which I’m sure exist anyway.)
Honestly, I think you DO just want to argue. Either that, or you’re looking to justify your own life decisions in your head to feel better about something causing you guilt.
In either case, let’s just agree to disagree. No one is every going to convince you of anything along these lines. It is clear you’re not coming to this discussion with an open mind or willingness to listen to another perspective.
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:25h, 19 NovemberP.S. Coming from a parent, I would bet that after the towers fell on 9/11, very near to the President’s next thought, was the safety of his family. Because as a parent, the welfare of your child is never far from your thoughts particularly in moments of potential danger.
And if it WASN’T on his mind at some point, (which I highly doubt) that is not someone *I* want running this country.
dltolley
Posted at 16:04h, 19 NovemberAnd I’m a familiest, too! Great post! Sharing . . .
Shannon Lell
Posted at 18:06h, 19 NovemberThank you Diane!