100 Issues for 100 Days: #23

#23: You Must Know ...

Amelia Earhart has always been an uninspiring figure for me. She's never really rated on any scale for me as an icon or a feminist, but today on Jezebel there was an interesting article about her in which they quoted a letter she gave to her husband on their wedding day:

You must know again my reluctance to marry, my feeling that I shatter thereby chances in work which means so much to me. . . . In our life together I shall not hold you to any medieval code of faithfulness to me, nor shall I consider myself bound to you similarly. . . . I may have to keep some place where I can go to be myself now and then, for I cannot guarantee to endure at all the confinements of even an attractive cage. I must extract a cruel promise, and that is you will let me go in a year if we find no happiness together.*

(*emphasis mine)

In the past few days, I've had two friends get engaged, and even more in the past few months. It made me wonder, what parts of myself am I willing (or unwilling) to give up in a marriage? What would my letter look like? I think it would be something like this:

You must know again my reluctance to marry. I've seen this end in spite and sorrow. And I've seen it tear down the self-esteem of everyone involved. In our life together, I hope that you can be honest, because I value that above all other virtues. I consider myself bound to you but if breaking bonds helps us both to live than do not hesitate to cut the cord. I am not your cage and you are not mine. I may have to keep some things for myself to be myself but everything else I wish to share. I must extract a promise and that is that you will let me go when holding on becomes too much. If we end, I hope to end in love.

Although I don't count Earhart as one of my personal heroes, I have a lot of respect for her entering a marriage with a clear vision and a clear intention of what she wanted and didn't want. Too often women are caught up in the dream rather than the reality beyond the wedding. I hope when I get married, I'm not planning for a day but instead for a lifetime.

When You Least Expect It

When I come to update my blog, I'm always unsure what to write about. There's some personal stuff on the backburner I've held off on writing about because I want to digest it myself. And then there's television, something I could go on and on about but I don't want this to become all about my entertainment obsessions. But one issue I really felt I had to address was the choice of Sarah Palin for vice presidential candidate.

I have to admit, when I first heard about Palin's candidacy, soon followed by the breaking story about her daughter's pregnancy and then capped off with her hockey-mom/pit bull quote, I was just outraged. I was caught up in the debate. Is this woman a feminist? Is she a hypocrite? Is she a victim of sexism? Et cetera, et cetera. But now that things have calmed down a bit, what I'm seeing as the biggest issue is her qualifications. Most politicians (and an extrememly high number of Republicans) are hypocrites. Whether she is or is not a feminist is a moot point. (Although I personally feel that while Palin has benefited from feminism, her policies are clearly anti-women) What is the point is that while we are being mired in these questions, no one is asking can this person (female or male) do the job? Is she qualified to hold the second highest position in this NATION? That is not something to be taken lightly.

Palin attended numerous schools throughout her college education, moving with seemingly no reasoning. She was supposedly a journalism major but no one remembers her working with any campus publications. She's had little experience at the state level, being governor for only a year and half and no international experience whatsoever. These are all issues that the Republican Party took Barack Obama to task for. She's currently in the middle of an ethics investigation for abusing her position to get a local officer fired for "mistreating" her family. And I'm not saying that her experience as a mother is irrelevant but I don't see how it's supposed to make up for obvious shortcomings. If that's the case than Hillary Clinton must have been overly qualified for president being a successful mother, with a strong educational and political background.

And many people are questioning if McCain's choice shows how much of a "maverick" he is or whether his campaign did not properly vet his choice for VP. I personally think the choice of Palin was a shrewd and calculated move. While we get caught up in the pregnancy scandal and Obama has to sidestep issues of sexism, McCain has created a situation where he gets to sit back and watch the drama unfold and the onus has moved away from proving himself a worthy candidate.

Part of it is the media's attempt to make politics "sexy" and "entertaining". That's why we're watching this year's election unfold the same way we watched Britney Spears' breakdown or followed the Brangelina baby news. We all want our politics served to us in soundbites. Hell Vogue is even doing a story on Palin (which I find ironic since the Republican Party is largely responsible for the economic downturn that is hitting the fashion industry but I guess Anna Wintour would rather Palin than the ever stylish Michelle Obama. Maybe Italian Vogue will give her the cover). So while we're caught up in the USWeekly style coverage, John McCain may sidle right into the White House ... when we least expect it.

It's Different for Girls

Recently, there was an outrage over at Jezebel due to two of its editors. Tracie and Moe, appearing on a local show called Thinking & Drinking and, taking the latter part to heart, the former took a backseat to some questionable comments. The interview then caused a lot of lamentation about the editors letting down girls & women who saw them as their new "feminist heroes" and others wondering why anyone would see these women as such in the first place.

Moe has since moved from Jezebel to Gawker.com, although I believe she will still continue to do some of her regular Jezebel features. Tracie on her personal blog eventually posted this statement where she questioned the idea of whether there can be a "good" or "bad" feminist. Although I found her final post on the topic to be the most well-thought out and honest viewpoint of the situation, her blog was littered with comments such as:

You are putting women, not even feminists, to shame with your attitude, outlook, and disregard. You words are trash and shouldn't be taken with any more validity than a cheap add in a porno mag.

and:

You're not a "bad feminist"...you're just an immature, cold, insensitive, self-centered bitch

Now while I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinions, I find that when addressing the issue of feminism, many women seem to believe that they have the definitive or the authentic feminism locked up somewhere. And throwing around the words "bitch", "whore" and "slut" don't help anyone.

Am I not a feminist (or a "bad" feminist) because I haven't read the literature? Is my feminism less authentic because I believe that being a good mother is the best job a woman can do? (On an aside: I also believe that being a good father is the best job a man can do. When you work with children, you realize how important good parenting is.)

I'm just wondering because it seems as though feminism, the way it has been set up, is still largely about middle-upper class white women who have time to contemplate these issues and denounce other women who don't because they are trying to survive economically or a stay-at-home mom or a sex worker or something else that doesn't jibe with the idea of a woman throwing down her apron and entering the workforce.

As I see it, the truth is that it's different for girls. There's always going to be a barrier to breakdown, an image to overcome, a double standard to navigate. But lately it seems like women are throwing extra barriers at each other to further judge your authenticity. I believe that a women should be able to have responsible sex with as many people as she wants, but I don't think anyone should be running around putting their sexuality in people's faces (male or female). I think a woman can do any job a man can do if she puts her mind to it. I also think there is a certain grace and beauty that women have and that should never be lost in the attempt to "equal" men. I don't know what kind of feminist that makes me but I also believe that this whole thing is a process. And it's still happening everyday.

Full interview of Thinking & Drinking (I really suggest watching the entire thing as the clips are a bit taken out of context): Shoot the Messenger