Managing Activist Burnout
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
I recently joined the community over at Persephone Magazine and I am kiiiiiinda geeking out about how awesome it is over there. (Seriously, if you’d like to be a part of an awesome online group of feminist minded people who are kind, thoughtful, and intelligent, head over that way.)
The other day, Elfity over at Persephone posted about being a fatigued feminist. She said:
At times I fear that I’m going down the path of learned helplessness. I feel like no matter how many letters I write, how much money I give, how much time I volunteer, or how many protests I attend, nothing will change.
…I bring up this subject because I believe that others feel the same thing. We put on a strong front, but it does get to us. That’s okay. It’s alright to be weary and battle-worn every now and then, because we know that our victories will keep us fighting. The next time you start feeling the fatigue or the stress or the burnout, remember that while you have to take care of yourself first, we’ll always be here, and we’ll always need you. Keep on fighting, y’all. These victories won’t come easily.
I suspect anyone involved in activism can nod their head reading Elfity’s feelings. How often do we all feel that the things we pour our soul into are hopeless when we interact with someone who makes a rape joke, says “no homo,” or tells us that abortion is murder?
Truth is, it’s hard out there for a feminist. Or any activist, really. There’s no way around it.
I remember when I went to a volunteer training for the Humane Society years ago. It was the first time I heard about “compassion fatigue.” According to The Compassion Fatigue Awareness Project,
Caring too much can hurt. When caregivers focus on others without practicing self-care, destructive behaviors can surface. Apathy, isolation, bottled up emotions and substance abuse head a long list of symptoms associated with the secondary traumatic stress disorder now labeled: Compassion Fatigue.
While compassion fatigue is usually centered on the experience of caregivers, the same things can strike anyone who gives and gives of themselves for a cause without taking time to rejuvenate and focus on themselves.
I admit, I lead a bit of a charmed feminist existence. I have a group of friends who care about the same issues as me, my profession is directly in line w/ my feminist values and and work. I am partnered with a man who not only respects my autonomy and values, but shares them. And still, despite all the support I have both personally and professionally, watching the news or skimming blogs can get me down. It seems like there is a never ending supply of attacks on women–if it’s not a new piece of legislation designed to limit our rights, it’s someone body snarking a female celebrity, a hideously objectifying commercial, or research that shows women are still vastly underpaid.
Because my personal passions and my professional life are so entwined, when this happens it can feel particularly devastating. If unchecked, these moments of stress can become overwhelming so it’s important to have some fail safes to fall back on; things that you can rely on when all else goes shitty. Here are some of mine. If you have others to add to the list, please share them in the comments:
- Journaling–in your journal you can say whatever you want. Sometimes, I can’t or don’t want to put things into coherent sentences. With a journal or just a random sheet of paper, I can get as ranty/vulgar as necessary. Let it be cathartic. Let it make you cry, if you want. Write so hard that you press through the paper. No one is looking.
- An IRL support system–create a list of people in your life who you can call and just unload on when you need it. Keep in mind, sometimes the people closest to you in your daily life aren’t necessarily the best people for this role, as they can be too close to the day-to-day. Identify a few key friends/family members who are really good listeners and who don’t have their own agenda when you need venting time. And in case it needs to be said: you should be willing to do the same thing for them when they need it.
- An online support system–find your little corner of the interwebs where you can associate with like minded people. Of course, diversity of opinion is important in a general way, but sometimes you just need your crew to listen to you and chime in with a “hell yeah!” The trick is to seek out this safe space before you really need it so you can build social capital with them over time. Then, if you need a good rant, everyone will have your back.
- Be clear about what you need–this is an addition to points 2 and 3, for when you are talking to other people. Oftentimes, the people around us don’t know when we just need to rant/a shoulder to cry on or when we would like advice or troubleshooting. I know for me, it can be very annoying to just want to vent but then be offered 13 solutions. Conversely, when I’m seeking advice, and my listener just commiserates with me, I’m left dissatisfied. So when I am fed up with what the world is handing me and I need to connect with someone else, I just tell them from the start: “Can I just vent for a second?” Or “I really need your advice with this situation.”
- Get your body moving–sometimes it can help to shake it off. Find a physical routine that works for you. I was into yoga for a while as my stress management routine and I also enjoy kickboxing class. There can be a lot of satisfaction in kicking and kicking and kicking. It’s also really important to listen to your body too. I know for me, my physical signs of stress often show before I am even cognizant of my mental state.
- Occupy your mind–I have a tendency to get very “in my head” agonizing over worries and unnecessarily focusing on them. When I get this way, doing something that distracts my mind is a huge relief. For me, this means reading or watching a movie. Then, when I actually am to a place where I can productively think through my worries, I revisit them. Or, as I often find, after a few hours of mind occupation the stuff from before doesn’t seem so bad.
- Let yourself be frustrated–this is kind of an overall recommendation. It’s important to understand that frustration is natural and expected. No one can be perfectly dedicated to their cause every day of the year. As I mentioned in point 6, sometimes it is good to get out of your head for an hour or two. But more often than not, it’s just as important to understand that your worries, your burnout, your frustrations are valid. Ignoring your feelings and pushing them to the side can result in more unresolved stress. A much better solution is to view your concerns as legitimate and look for a way to manage them rather than ignore them.
I wish I could say that I can imagine a point in my lifetime where all feminist work will be done. However, we all know that isn’t the case. I always err on the side of realism, and as such it’s logical that we should be prepared to face some pretty big emotional obstacles as activists. And after all, managing our burnout is critical as it will allow us to continue to fight the good fight.
“Every” Shape? Looking at Sizesploitation
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
This morning, I saw this ad floating around which claims to depict what Levi jeans look like on “different” women’s body types, with the headline “Hotness comes in all shapes and sizes.” (Clearly the subtitle should be: if you wear a size 4 or less.) Seriously, not to snark on these women, because this is not about their bodies…but they’re all fairly the same. With the exception of marginally different bust size and butt positioning, they look almost indistinguishable.
How is this remotely a depiction of “all shapes and sizes?” It reminded me of this Old Navy commercial I saw this weekend:
Here the bodies are a least a little less similar, but still, realistically, they are within the same size range with the larger person appearing to wear no larger than a size 6.
Look, I’m glad that companies are responding to the simple fact that every body is very, very different. I think it’s pretty obvious that your average consumer is sick of the figurative and literal narrow definition of beauty. In fact, there has recently been an outcry for larger mannequins. It just smart business for retailers to appeal to a wider range of bodies. Those bodies need clothes. They buy at places that provide options for them. (It’s for this very reason that 5.7.9., which serves a niche market and capitalizes on a sick pride achieved from small size status, doesn’t command a bigger market share.)
However, both of these ads are hardly representative of the real range of female bodies out there. I can’t help but feel that we’ve begun to step into a realm that I will call “sizesploitation.” It’s pandering to bigger women in a way which exploits them for profit without providing any real size acceptance measures. It’s saying things like “hotness comes in all shapes and sizes” but then providing an image which affirms the already present thin beauty ideal. It’s telling large women that their shops are a safe place for them, in order to hit them in their wallets, but not really backing that up with clothing that accommodates fit preferences of larger people. It’s using size acceptance language for the purpose of making your audience feel like you must purchase your product in order to be sexy.
If sizesploitation was summarized by a phrase, it would be “real women have curves.” This attitude has size acceptance all wrong and plays into the “skinny bitch” problem which I’ve written about before.
I can admit, as a consumer, I don’t really purchase Levi’s so their messaging means nothing to me personally. However, I do buy a lot of things at Old Navy, so I know that their clothing does accommodate a full range of people. I wish their spot had contained a woman who was significantly larger than the standard model, because the Kim Kardashian type of curves is really just another variation on the same old thing. As Tina Fey famously wrote in Bossypants:
But I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful.
Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.
Fey is right. Sizesploitative advertising and attitudes which say, “Beyonce isn’t ‘skinny’ and she’s hot!” just continue to add to the continuously growing list of what women “must” look like in order to be attractive, and complicate the picture of the “perfect” woman even further. (Plus, when people say that Beyonce, Kim, or JLo aren’t thin–I can’t help but face palm.)
In one activity I’ve done with young women in my work, we brainstorm what a “perfect woman” looks like–and make no mistake, girls as young as nine have told me that this mythical perfect woman has a small waist but a curvy butt and big boobs. While I’m sure there are women who have this look naturally, to carry some fat in the breasts and rump but not your mid section at all is an extremely unusual physical characteristic. Telling girls that this is the “perfect” look is no different than a thin ideal. It continues to set them up for feelings of physical inferiority (as it is just not a reality for the vast majority of people.) It contributes to body image issues. There’s just no way around acknowledging that fact.
What I am getting at is this: real size acceptance (and not sizesploitation) would mean a media which contained images of actually diverse bodies. Those people would not be shamed, mocked, or only depicted engaging in weight loss competitions. They would be shown as beautiful, valuable, whole, and not at the expense of other body types. They would be the main subject of movies and TV shows where the focus is not their weight, but rather their full lives and experiences. Larger people wouldn’t be relegated to “before” pictures in advertising. Basically, all bodies would be normalized because all bodies are normal.
Oh, Last Names
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
Birth control access controversies this week have given me enough fodder to write feminist blogs for years. Well that and Chris Brown. I’ve decided to rise above that bull and focus on something else right now so that I don’t blow a gasket. That something else is the topic of last name changes.
I feel like this topic is pretty well worn territory and can sometimes be a big can of worms but regardless, I thought I’d throw in my two cents on the whole thing. For some background, almost three years ago, I got married and kept my last name. The subsequent three years have proven to me that while feminism has made significant strides in this area, it’s still a highly contested subject. (Here I’d like to put the disclaimer that this entire discussion is super heterosexist, as my objection to name changes rests on the patriarchy of the tradition of male-female pairings. Plus, same sex couples are still denied their right to marry in most places.)
I guess before I go on, I might as well detail why I made the choice I did. For me, it was a process. I married Mr. Nerdy Feminist after being together for 6 years. Those 6 years were a critical time of learning for me and I went from a teen who was marginally interested in justice issues to a full blow feminist. My feelings about my last name corresponded with this transition into my full political identity; I started out as someone who didn’t necessarily want to change my last name but figured I someday would, to someone who thought I’d hyphenate, to fully against the concept.
For me, if I would have changed my last name, there would be no way to remain critical of mindlessly patriarchal traditions if my own actions did not support this. It would be flat out hypocrisy. And I couldn’t see any good reason to change my last name.
Here are some of the things that actual people have said to me on the issue in an attempt to get me to step in line with what is “normal” and my response (roughly paraphrased) to each suggestion:
- Why would you do that? CAN you even do that? –Yes, that’s right. People don’t even believe that this is a possibility and I have educated them about this fact as the very first person who ever brought it to their attention. The truth is that to keep your last name you -wait for it- do nothing! It’s truly that easy. You get married and then you don’t jump through all the hoops to update your name including social security, credit card companies, your license, etc. It’s rather nice, actually.
- It’s disrespectful to your new family!–Um, what? Is it disrespectful to my family that he didn’t change his last name? NO? Well then I’m fine too. You know what’s really disrespectful? Expecting me to follow something that goes against my values.
- Don’t you want your last name to match your kids? If every family has just random different last names it gets so confusing for teachers. WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE TEACHERS?! –First, calm down. Let’s think about each thing you’ve laid out here. It’s just great how you’ve assumed that my kids will have my husband’s last name. You’ve stumbled onto another patriarchal tradition and as we’ve already established, I don’t like those. Funny though, because YES! I do want my last name to match my kids’, and that’s why these hypothetical future kids will have both of our last names. That’s right, I plan on putting some hyphenates out there in the world. And they will be “Firstname Mylastname-Hislastname.” And as for the teachers, I can speak as someone who ran summer programming at a youth center for a few years…even when over 60% of our kids have different last names from their parents, we pretty quickly learn who belongs to who. It’s not that hard.
- You’re going to have hyphenates!? That will be so hard for your kids when they’re little. Besides, what will they do when they get married? Have four last names? –Hmm it seems all you can do is get a bit panicked about small things, like my hypothetical future kids learning their last names, which I can say won’t be that hard for them. (Our last names are short anyway.) In fact, I’m seeing the trend here of you being overly concerned about my personal life, but because you asked…my kids’ future marriages and their own name choices are really none of my business. I’ll support them in whatever they’d like to do, be it keeping their own last names, changing them to their partners’, or coming up with a whole new hybrid last name.
- Your hippie notion of what makes a “family” scares me. If it’s not last sharing names, what is it?–No one has ever said this, but I do feel that it is heavily implied in these situations. I have no detailed answer to this, because…come on. We all know that last names aren’t that important in the wide scope of what makes a family.
I guess I could summarize my feelings on this topic in one word: choice. For me, it really comes down everyone being free to choose what is best for themselves and their relationships. And in my case, it was a no-brainer. I could never choose to take my husband’s name. Other feminists feel differently and while I will defend my position to the bitter end, I resecpt their choices too. At Feminists for Choice, Lindsay Marie McAllister wrote about her own decision.
The route I took may seem like the traditional option, but for a feminist it seems many people feel that I should have kept my maiden name. In my case, the change was not about living up to expectations, primarily from people who do not identify as feminists, of what a feminist SHOULD do. I changed my name to more accurately reflect how I feel about the new family I have joined. My in-laws are amazing people and I am thrilled to be joining their family, they have welcomed me with open arms, accepting me for who I am. They have treated my mother and my sister’s family with the utmost respect, welcoming them during the holidays and always treating them as equals.
While I do respect McAllister’s choice, I do so because she has actually made a choice and did not mindlessly follow tradition. You see, at the center of any legitimate choice is (1) being fully informed and (2) having free will. If those two criteria are not met, you haven’t actually exercised choice. If you change your last name because you’ve never considered anything else–it’s not a choice. And if you change your last name because of pressure from your partner, your family, or society, again, you haven’t actually made a choice.
My fear is that our culture is continuing to pressure women into last name changes, and sadly, research supports my concerns. According to MSNBC,
…researchers found that more than two-thirds of Americans in the study said that it’s best if a woman takes her husband’s name upon marriage. The researchers expected that a majority of Americans would feel this way…but they were more surprised to find that 50 percent supported a law requiring women to take their husband’s name.
What could be less an exercise of free will than to have a law mandating name change? This is just nonsensical to me. Why would we ever need legislation to force this tradition? What is the public good to be gained by forcing women, like me, to take our husband’s last names? I ask that in earnest: I can think of literally no benefits to doing so, and the result would certainly be a intrusion of the government on my life.
What it really comes down to for me is the ability to say that my identity matters. Everything I’ve done prior to marriage under my birth name is important to me. My marriage didn’t change me as a person, it simply signified my commitment to my partner. Therefore, I had no reason to change my name. My simple hope is that every other woman (and couple) introspect about this decision and come to a solution that works for everyone, regardless of what you are “supposed to” do.
Moneyball, The Help, and the Oscars
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, I am a cinephile. As such, I see a lot of movies and the Oscars are one of my favorite times of the year. For the past few Oscar seasons, going into the big night, I have made it a goal to see all of the best picture nominees. Because I do spend so much time at the movies, and the Oscars highlight the best of the best, this goal is usually not difficult for me. For example, last year I only had not seen one movie at the point of the nomination announcements. So this year, I was stunned when many of the nominated movies where films that I had passed on seeing, chiefly beucase I had no interest.
Two of these movies were Moneyball and The Help, which I passed on for different reasons. However, this weekend in order to reach my goal by Oscar night, my partner and I rented both. The more that I mull them over, the more that I can’ t help but feel that these two movies are emblematic of bigger issues in Hollywood.
Brad Pitt in Moneyball from the Oscar.go.com
Before I jump into my bigger thoughts, I’d like to give some background as to why I didn’t see these films in the first place. The reasons for Moneyball are simple. I’m not a sports person. I don’t really dig sports stories. I can get into a sports movie, if it is one that develops its characters and has a story line which is broad enough to appeal to a lay audience. (In other words, it can’t assume that I know or care about the sport. We’re talking The Sandlot or A League of Their Own.) From the looks of Moneyball, this wasn’t the case. So I passed.
The Help was entirely a different situation. I first because aware of the story in 2009 when the book shot to popularity. I was at first intrigued, as all of the feedback I received was that it was so good. However, a counter voice emerged which proclaimed that the story was another case of the “great white savior.” My interest waned, but before long the book was picked up for a movie deal. The movie gained even more steam than the book, with various critics simultaneously proclaiming it as both “…entertaining, touching and perhaps even a bit healing…an old-fashioned grand yarn of a film, the sort we rarely get these days” and ” glib and insufficient, a Barbie Band-Aid on the still-raw wound of race relations in America.”
The more I read about The Help in feminist circles, the less I wanted to see it. As Reninaj said at the Crunk Feminist Collective,
By centering White women as actors in the civil rights movement, we mask, hide and erase the work of Black men and women, and we negate the ways in which WOMEN were treated in many instances like “The Help” in Black and White organizing circles.
The reasons to not see it outweighed the reasons to see it. But then came the nominations, and I knew I’d be biting the bullet soon. A few days before I actually saw the film myself, I was passed along a piece by Toure at TIME in which he said,
I don’t see any of The Help’s journey as pleasurable for anyone: black women are oppressed and fight back in a passive-aggressive way. (Black men are all but invisible in this world.) Whites are mostly evil, or else sheep: soulless and brainless. It’s a Lifetime-y simplistic movie, a Disneyfication of segregation, with a gross and unintentionally comical stereotype parade marching through it.
That’s some brilliant wordsmithing there: “The Disneyfication of segregation.” And having seen the film myself now, I couldn’t have said it better.
But let’s back up to my central point. I watched Moneyball and The Help this past weekend quite literally back-to-back. Doing so made one thing abundantly clear to me (as if I didn’t already know) it’s way easier to be a white dude in Hollywood than a black gal. This isn’t groundbreaking stuff, but Moneyball and The Helpjust so perfectly illustrate it.
Parody "The Help" Poster: "White People Solve Racism"
When I was watching Moneyball, I was bored. I think that Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are good actors, but to me, their roles in this film were not challenging or anything special. I was literally baffled how they were nominated and really, the only conclusion I could come to was that they’re famous white dudes telling a male focused story.
In The Help, on the other hand, Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis’ performances were amazing. They were compelling and moving in a movie that otherwise did not appeal to me. While their acting nominations feel deserved, the film itself, with its “Disneyfication of segregation” seems to affirm that the Academy likes a story with a “great white savior.” It was, after all, only two years ago that Sandra Bullock won best actress for The Blindside, a film in which the real life Michael Oher has said downplayed the personal knowledge her brought into it, in order to tell a story.
But here’s where the intersection of sexism and racism really hits a fever pitch: think about the role options available to Pitt and Hill this past year. Pitt was in another best picture nominated film, Tree of Life, and Hill had a leading role in the comedy, The Sitter. Spencer and Davis, on the other hand only minor supporting roles or small independent projects outside of The Help in 2011 and 2010.
It can be easy to say that these women shouldn’t have participated in a film which centers the civil rights movement on a white female experience. But the problem isn’t Davis or Spencer individually. The problem is a system which pushes forward only a few high profile roles for African American women and then, of those sparse roles, the theme is the perpetuation of stereotypes. The problem is a system which makes women of color work much harder than their white counterparts to be recognized. The problem is an Academy which displays a predilection for implicitly reinforcing the status quo. The problem is the knee jerk reaction to say that the real racists are those who analyze race messages in the media. The problem is a vast general public which mindlessly consumes at a “heart warming” tale, doesn’t analyze the deeper messages, and financially supports the exclusion of diverse voices.
Basically, the problem is racism.
Susan G. Komen Foundation: Extremism over Mammograms
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
My mom is a breast cancer survivor.
When she was diagnosed in early December of 2009, I was just 20 days short of the biggest transition of my young life. I was moving 1,100 miles away from everyone I knew. Of course, the idea of leaving my family at a time when my mom would need more support than ever was terrifying. That Christmas, 3 days before my departure, I gave her a Susan G. Komen shirt. I had a matching one. I wanted her to wear it and know that I was thinking about her no matter where I was.
It was a comfort–as were the many other Komen gifts that she received from family. She felt connected to other women who had also fought the battle. And she loved their “Fight like a Girl” themed items which took a positive spin on an otherwise sexist expression. For all these reasons, I’ve had a nice warm, fuzzy association with Komen.
So it really enraged me when I heard the news that Komen has ceased their funding of Planned Parenthood. According to the Huffington Post, “Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.”
Certainly, that explanation is a bit unclear and it’s hard to believe that any decision an organization makes to distance itself from Planned Parenthood isn’t politically motivated right now. As Caperton at Feministe points out, ”It’s also worth noting, of course, that Komen’s new aggressively anti-choice vice president, Karen Handel, ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a platform of defunding Planned Parenthood.”
No matter what the reason for the defunding, the fact of the matter is that this is a huge problem which will have ramifications mostly for low income women. As Tracy Clark-Flory reported at Salon:
Regardless of whether the Komen Foundation pulled grants “because they caved to anti-choice pressure or because of the political leanings of their VP,” says activist Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, “the result is the same — women’s health and lives are going to suffer as a result.” That’s especially true for low-income women who are most dependent on Planned Parenthood’s services.
If all of this is news to you, you’re not alone. I can admit, that I have been woefully under informed about what Komen’s actual programs were. I knew that when I bought those shirts the proceeds went to “breast cancer research” but I didn’t really know what they had been funding, or at least, I’d never thought about it specifically. However, this announcement has brought to light just how many mammograms Komen has funded through Planned Parenthood’s clinics–clinics which provide services to people who oftentimes would have no other access point. In fact, according to Planned Parenthood,
Over the past five years, Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation funds have enabled Planned Parenthood health centers to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. These cancer detection and prevention programs saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.
Reading that information and knowing that Planned Parenthood will now be taking a big hit quite literally makes me want to cry. I’ve written before about how my own run in with a breast issue was impacted by low cost, reliable care at Planned Parenthood. As I said, when I was in my late teens through mid 20s, I regularly accessed Planned Parenthoods in Indiana (another story of disappointment!) At 22 I discovered a lump in my breast. I was petrified of the possibilities and I didn’t seek medical treatment for quite some time. Finally, at my annual exam with the nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood, I felt comfortable enough to ask her about it. She checked me out and calmed me saying that it seemed to be a hormonal cyst, with the kindest words and soothing care. She referred me to the Indiana Breast Center where they confirmed with an ultrasound that it was nothing serious. It was because of accessing affordable, compassionate care that I finally confronted my biggest fears and was examined.
Thinking about other people who will face a similar situation and not be able to get the help I received breaks my heart and enrages me. And of course, when we are talking about this issue, we must be honest. It will be poor, women of color who will be most affected by this decision.
The real problem here is that Komen is pandering to right wing anti-abortion extremists who refuse to believe the undeniable fact that Planned Parenthood does much, much more than abortions. The result, without intervening funds, is that thousands of individuals will be denied breast exam services.
It is because of this that I officially turn my back on the Susan G. Komen Foundation. They are not an organization which represents my values and I will no longer support them. I will take my money and my admiration elsewhere. If you’d like to join me, please give to Planned Parenthood’s emergency fund to make up this loss today.
No Chivalry, Thanks!
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
Those of us who openly identify as feminist must be prepared to encounter misconceptions and stereotypes. The “f-word” has been unfortunately dragged through the mud in an attempt to break the strength our message has. In this spirit, I’d like to take a moment to focus on a specific realm of anti-feminism: chivalry. The two biggest criticisms I see thrown at feminists regarding chivalry fall into two camps:
- The “cake and eat it too” complaint: This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it’s convenient for them, but they don’t want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men. Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, on in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too.
- The “feminists hate manners!” complaint: Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary is actually an affront to good manners. (At this point I was going to link to a “men’s rights” group–which was actually an anti-woman group–and quote them. However, they way they offhandedly referred to women bitches made me realize, I have no interest in contributing anything to their page views, even if it would substantiate my claims.)
I’d like to dismantle these complaints. I, of course, cannot speak for all of “feminism” as a monolith, because no such truly unified theory exists. However, I can speak to my perspective on these issues.
The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it’s rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with. Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the “cake and eat it too” complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of my gender, even if that treatment is favorable. The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts–just because something is “nice” (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn’t make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it’s “friendly,” doesn’t’ make it any less sexist.
The second complaint (feminists hate manners!) is equally nonsensical to me. There is a big difference between behaving in a generally polite and respectful manner to your fellow human being and chivalry, which is rooted in that gendered premise. I’d like to use the opening-a-door-for-someone example to illustrate the differences as I see them.
Scenario 1, opening a door for someone to be polite: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The person who gets to the door first opens it for both of them. They both enter. Versus, scenario 2, opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. Despite the woman being closer to the door, the man reaches out in front of her to open it for her. She enters, he follows. And scenario 3, again opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The woman is closer to the door so she opens it for both of them. The man will not enter, but instead grabs the door and says “No. After you,” waiting for the woman to enter.
In these cases, I’m saying that scenario 1 is fine. Scenario one is polite and displays manners and supports a kind, respectful society. Scenario one has no gender charge. However, scenarios 2 and 3 are sexist (and sometimes annoying.) I have scenario 3 happen to me regularly and it is just weird. I mean, I try to do something polite for another person and we end up having to go through some production of him eventually taking control of the door. I think that’s one thing that really gets me about chivalry; it’s manifested in a way which reinforces male control of the situation. He’s driving the actions and the woman is passive–receiving his gestures and being coddled or protected.
I know that talking about door holding at length seems nitpicky and meaningless, but these small examples are tied to bigger issues. As Jill said at Feministe several years ago in a very detailed account of chivalry,
There’s a difference between being chivalrous and being nice or polite. Opening a door for someone because you got to the door first is both nice and polite; making a huge production of opening a door for a woman in the hopes that she’ll see what a chivalrous dude you are and fuck you (and then getting all pissy when she doesn’t respond how you want her to) is not polite or nice. And that’s the thing with chivalry: It always demands something in return. If you’re being nice to me because you like me and you’re the kind of person who is nice to people you like, then that’s great. If you’re being nice to me because you’re hoping to get something out of it, or if you think you’re entitled to sex or a relationship with me because you were nice and “chivalrous,” you can go fuck yourself. See how that works?
She’s brought up a great point. Often chivalry is founded on a quid pro quo/entitlement mentality, which carries expectations that were not welcomed by the woman involved. That’s a huge problem which further illustrates both the gendered nature and differentiates it from pure politeness (which doesn’t demand something in return.)
One last thing I would like to make clear is that asking for the end of chivalry is not the same thing as ending romance. In my view, healthy romantic relationships are reciprocal and equal in nature. Both parties should make loving gestures for the other, and that’s great! Most of us want to be treated romantically by a significant other, but why should the favorable treatment only flow in in one direction? There is great happiness that can be achieved by giving. A traditionally chivalrous situation would result in a female partner who would be robbed of the joy of making gestures for her male partner. (It would also rest on the premise that the woman is lesser and deserving of protection, which puts things at an unequal balance from the start.) I advocate for relationships which don’t rest on predetermined roles and allow each person to express their feelings naturally and individualistically. Besides–there are clearly many relationships which do not contain one man and one woman, and they are equally valid and romantic.
All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That’s an oxymoron. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.
But seriously friends, if I impart nothing else, let it be this: just hold a door for someone when you can. And when it makes sense to have the door held for you, walk through it.
About the Author
Recent Comments