Let’s please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don’t depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.
If the movement had been serious about being serious then the idea could not have caught on that equal is how you feel. Or that how anyone feels about anything matters at all. Men know better. They look at numbers, and here is how the statistics are running years after women first started screaming and yelling and burning bras: We still earn 81 percent of what men do, and an act to make things more fair was blocked in Congress by Republicans. For anyone who doesn’t care to count, but understands traffic signals mixed with policy speculation, I think it’s safe to say that the day is near when a teenage girl will be forced to get a vaginal probe before she is issued a learner’s permit in the state of Virginia. And this is all because feminism has misread its mission of equality as something open to interpretation, as expressive and impressive, not absolute.
Don’t agree? Try this: smart is how you feel, pretty is how you feel, talented is how you feel — we are all beautiful geniuses. Feminism should not be inclusive, and like most terms that are meaningful, it should mean something. It should mean equality.
And there really is only one kind of equality — it precedes all the emotional hullabaloo — and it’s economic. If you can’t pay your own rent, you are not an adult. You are a dependent. But because feminism has always been about men — our relationships with them, our differences from them — as much or more than about money, it’s had few consistent tenets. Hemlines up, hemlines down, choice this, want that — once we get away from the scientific need for sustenance, it’s all gobbledygook.
Criticisms of the 1% and how they are sorting parenting and working and then using those as sweeping generalisations about all mothers? They’re not called the 1% for nothing, you know.
Any blanket statement you make about dependency removing your adulthood status says a lot about how you see the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the ill and even children, because they’re clearly these insignificant, not fully human members of our group that you can be reduced to if you are not a part of the market place. And this is a type of feminism, but it is one that absolutely serves the interests of the 1%.
There are some who will embrace Wurtzel’s explanation for the failures of feminism, but blaming mothers strikes me as suspiciously convenient for a misogynist society. And given Wurtzel is critical of ‘choice feminism’ you would think she might also be a little more sceptical of the myth of choice for mothers in American workplaces, because America is pretty much the last significant economy without paid maternity leave and it also has some of the least family-friendly work options.
I’m on board with the idea that the very rich have not much clue about how the rest of us do it all but I’m telling you that exploitation of people’s disadvantage does not stop even when very rich mothers work outside the home. A much longer game is being played here than current manifestations of the War on Women.
(The link to the article came via Tedra).