Lies they would have you believe
1) Feminism is bad/feminists hate men.
False. I'm a feminist and I bet you are, too. At least I hope you are. Here's the thing about feminism: we believe that women and men are equal. Not, as Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, that women are better and men are horrible and stupid and lazy. Just equal. We believe that women who work outside the home are just as valuable as women who work inside the home. We believe that it is our right to decide what to do with our bodies. That means that rape is bad and it means that it's my right not to have any children and that it is my best friend Jen's right to have as many children as she wants.
To further illustrate this, Jen and I are the same age (27). We have careers, not jobs. We have college degrees. We are, as they said in To Wong Foo, Career Girls. I may or may not get married, but I don't want children. I want to be a senior web producer in New York by the time I'm 30 or work for a network (as opposed to a local station) by the time I'm 35. (This may or may not happen.) Jen wants to get married and have kids. Once she does, she wants to stay home and raise them.
Feminism isn't about which of us is making a better or more valid choice--it's about the fact that we both have the right to make those choices, to do what makes us happy.
2) Gay marriage is bad.
I can understand the religious arguments against this, but marriage is not just a religious institution anymore; it's a civil, secular one. I would never demand that a minister who didn't agree with gay marriage marry us in his church. But people don't just get married in a church--they get married outside and in courthouses and in all manner of places.
Here's the thing. If you substitute any other minority in this, you'll see how horrible it is. Do you think black people should get married? Hispanics? Fat people? Left-handed people?
The fact that I fall in love with women and not men doesn't make my love any less valid or any less deserving of recognition in the eyes of my family and friends.
Ten percent of the population is gay. That means that there's a decent chance that it could be your kid or your best friend or, really, anyone you love. Would you seriously want to deny them the chance to get married? Would you look them in the eye and say, "You are not good enough to get married." Because that's what this is saying, and don't kid yourself about that.
If we're really all equal in this country, that means it's really only a matter of time before people catch up with ethics. It took a long time, but women got the right to vote, slaves were freed, schools were desegregated. This will happen. It's just a question of when.
3) If Hillary Clinton/Mike Huckabee/John McCain/Barack Obama gets elected, the country will be destroyed.
False. No one person has the power to destroy the country. George Bush didn't do it with his wars and, while our economy is bad and our gas prices are too high and the rest of the world hates us, we're still moving forward. Or, if you vote Republican, Bill Clinton didn't do it, with his infidelity that was splashed all over papers and the news for what felt like forever. We survived Whitewater and allegations and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
One person won't destroy the country. It's only four years (or eight, if the rest of the country feels the president's doing a good job). I survived George Bush and, if he's elected, I will survive John McCain. Republicans will survive Obama or Clinton.
Probably none of us will end up moving to Canada or Europe if our candidate of choice isn't elected. We, as a country, will just suck it up and keep moving forward.
Comments
Seriously, [this is awesome and totally dead on]
*And don't we already have enough problems as left-handers?
You do rock!
At least I hope you are. Yep! Frankly, that a woman wouldn't identify herself as a feminist boggles my mind. Actually, I do know why. I was raised to think that "feminist" was a dirty word and feminists are immature man-haters. Fortunately, I grew up.
Right on about gay marriage. Last week I did a presentation on arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage in my Poli. Sci. class. I know this already, but through putting together my presentation I became more convinced than ever that it will happen, and soon. The sooner the better!
You're also right that a president or political party can't "ruin" a country.
Probably none of us will end up moving to Canada or Europe if our candidate of choice isn't elected.
Well, I might :) I know a lot of Americans say this, but the reality is, of course, that it isn't a viable option for most. However, I have my English passport ready to go... ;)
Which feminism?
The one in a certain set of books? Or the other set of books?
The one found at universities, or the one found in churches?
The one you experience as an individual? Or the feminisim of many others?
Should I listen to what you say? Or what many others say?
Which feminism?
Well, unfortunately, many people calling themselves feminists do, in fact, get pretty judgmental about women who choose to stay home with their kids (Linda Hirshman, of course, being the shining example). And the sad fact is that once your friend Jen decides to stay home with her kids, the various wings of the feminist movement will have very little to say to her or offer her. There will be lip service about her being equal to men and to working women, sure, but there are not a lot of serious feminist efforts to improve the lives and lots of women who stay home to be mothers.
Also, while I essentially agree with you about gay marriage, comparing it to fat people getting married or Hispanic people getting married doesn't quite stand up, as the objections raised to gay marriage (and not the others) have to do with what people see as the purpose of marriage. If you think that marriage is primarily about love, then gay marriage isn't much different from any other kind. But it is only recently that people started thinking that is what marriage was for, and a lot of people still don't think that.
Also, it is almost certainly not the case that 10% of the population is gay. It is probably closer to 2-3% with a somewhat larger--possibly close to 10--percentage having had homosexual experiences but not being primarily gay.
Ginbaby has hit the nail on the head, though we'd obviously disagree on the issue. "Marriage" is a sacramental union full of metaphysical goings-on that are wrapped up in the ability to produce new life. Sex must both unify the couple and allow for the continuation of life, to share in the work of Creation. Sex which does only one or the other falls short of its God-given purpose. That is the religious understanding.
Politically, the issue is the devaluation of marriage (in which our government has a vested interest [more taxpayers -- too cynical?]) and the prospect of endless government involvement in our personal lives. While homosexuals should not be strung up for their proclivities, neither should our government be in the business of affording rights for a sexual choice. Race is not chosen. Religion can be chosen, but is often inherited. Ethnicity is not chosen. Having sex is always a choice. How can the government begin to determine that a homosexual union is valid?
As for feminism, I think the distinction between equality of personhood and equality of ability has been blurred, if not altogether lost. Allow me to "riff" here, with the understanding that I am merely speculating. Women must be firefighters, and so we lower the standard for their test. Women must serve in the military, and so we require they do fewer push-ups. Women must be represented in the workforce, and so our government requires it. All things being equal, if women are talented and driven to compete then they will succeed. To claim otherwise, to say that there is a need for affirmative action for women, is to deny the very equality feminists espouse. Perhaps that strays too far afield for this thread, and would be better discussed elsewhere.
I would say only that feminism which turns up its nose at motherhood, religious life and the absolutely crucial role of men in our society as fathers (as well as other typically masculine, positively archaic gender stereotypes) is inauthentic.
Finally, I agree with your last point. The country won't be destroyed by whoever is in office. It will be destroyed only when its citizenry can not be bothered to defend its own liberties. Look to Europe to see the lingering death of nations, stricken with a relativistic cancer.
I would say only that feminism which turns up its nose at motherhood, religious life and the absolutely crucial role of men in our society as fathers (as well as other typically masculine, positively archaic gender stereotypes) is inauthentic
I'd have to agree.