Maybe nobody cares if Katy "Cupcakes" Perry is a feminist. But if Marissa Mayer, by all accounts a brilliant, successful woman and CEO of a globally recognized brand, doesn't really wanna hang her hat where feminism lives, and neither do younger women, is the problem us? Or them? Or does this continued resistance to embrace the term make it worth considering that the movement, or the word, or both, as they're inextricably linked, be laid to rest? Or at least pulled apart, reconfigured, rebranded, and renamed? Let's take a gander.
Rosin makes a lot of interesting points. If modern, successful, interesting women, and ass-kicking young girls, are cool with equal rights but not feminism, is it worth considering refocusing of the movement or its terminology? What is lost if we don't? What is gained if we do?
Why do we even care anymore if women call themselves feminists or not? Is that really so essential to our goals? Are we trying to win equality, or a popularity contest for our "ism"? Is the idea to get all women to be feminists, because then everything will be righted? Can't some of them still be ass-kickers without the title?
Feminism is absolutely a globally recognized way to effect change, but there's another way: By doing the same stuff at your intersection of the world, with or without calling yourself a feminist. And the argument over who is or who isn't a real feminist can get pretty tired. Is Sarah Palin is allowed to be a feminist? Can you shoot whip cream out of your vag and still advance the cause? Is Taylor Swift a traitor? Is Sheryl Sandberg the right kind of feminist?
Looked at that way, it starts to feel like a special club, with feminist as the secret knock meant to ease our distrust of other women whose agendas we are not sure of. Is Mayer just getting hers and then pulling up the ladder behind her? Does Sandberg care about other women who aren't corporate climbers? Are these women or Smurfettes, happy to be the only women in the boys club and kinda liking it?
The whole argument starts to feel like only the sort of luxury well-educated, upper-middle-class women can afford. It is the breastfeeding of sociopolitical issues: Only a small set of the population has the time, office space, flexibility or maternity leave to actually worry about it this much. And they typically aren't the people who need feminism the most, anyway. (And the working class women who really do don't often identify as feminists either.)
Isn't it possible to make the progress of working class women a goal whether they are feminists or not, and also applaud the Marissa Mayers and Sheryl Sandbergs, as well as high school girls killing it on the daily — whether they wear the T-shirt, or whether it's a perfect fit?
Especially when by their actions, they are showing the world the precise aims of equality, anyway: To provide for themselves and their families, to show that we are hard-working and smart, that we are equals, CEOs, smarty pantses, and the sort of people who can cream the boys at virtually anything. Especially when they are visible symbols of success, I'm inclined to say that goes a long way toward earning your feminist merit badge.
Because in this sense, feminism has achieved many of its goals. Yes, there's always more work to be done. But it's the work that matters. The word is, well, it is freighted. That is part of what makes it so great, but it may be part of what undoes it in the end. On the one hand, the fact that it is offputting to some gives it the power of the uncomfortable, and it means we're onto something.
But some women prefer to win their bees with honey, and I don't think we should discount that so easily. What matters is if they walk the walk. We are often uncomfortable with women who achieve in male-dominated fields because they tend to minimize or maximize gender in such a way that can feel contradictory to the aims of feminism, and they often distance themselves from the term. But to succeed among men you must play the game they devised. Women who prove they can win this way are advancing feminist goals. The kind that change men's perceptions of what women are actually capable of. This is what got women into combat. But the win, in my view, isn't remotely diluted if those women aren't self-identifying feminists. And perhaps not requiring such a rigid view of what it means to be "one of us" — and I do identify as a feminist — would invite more people to this party.
Take this personal example: My husband and I are raising a daughter together. He shares the housework, childrearing, bath-giving, bed-putting and the everything of this job. And I don't mean he does the lowered-expectations version of great just to avoid a fight. He really does an equal share. This was critical to me in a mate.
You could call that feminism. I do. But he doesn't. He calls it "his part." We both understand the feminist gains that led to this. But it makes no difference to me. I want the food cooked, and the groceries bought, and the diapers changed. It's the action that matters. And as long as we make the issue about the word, we're going to ignore too much of the whole of what makes us all more equal, which are the actions of men and women together hashing this out in ways that advance everybody. Call it whatever you like.
