Feminism, Revisited.

“He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”  - Samuel Johnson, the epigraph of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

“If the feminine issue is so absurd, is because the male's arrogance made it "a discussion” ― Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

Yes, Misters Johnson and Thompson both wrestle with the underlying plague of mankind- the burden of existence as a sentient being. Learning to navigate the existence of consciousness and metacognition on top of simply existence itself is something many great thinkers have come to such varied conclusions over. We can accept one of myriad solutions, or not, and negate the problem through suicide or excessive drug use.

I’ve beat the fuck out of this dead horse for decades. So now I turn to the question of what relieves us of the burdens of womanhood; the burden of being defined by a culture that does not see your kind as an equal participant (no, not really, especially when sexual dimorphism dictates that there is an exploitable inequality). As many women would acknowledge grudgingly, there’s an unspeakable level of domination that we pretend to equalize through other means, such as equal opportunity under the law. Let this be clear: equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes.

We need not be defined as woman. To do so is to mark us as abnormal, different, non-man. We need to re-embrace female-ness. What it means to live as females, whether you come to that realization through actually being born with a vagina or not (and yes, that’s a dig leveled against TERFS. That sort of categorical thinking is bullshit and quite possibly the least feminine thing possible, hypocrites). My suggestion is to start with accepting our submission as part of accepting our great, untapped power to do just that – accept.

Sitting in general isolation from the rest of society thanks to a pandemic, I am transported back to November 2012, when Hurricane Sandy ripped through Monmouth County, leaving homes leveled, power lines destroyed, roads blocked and communication intermittent. Society was at an absolute standstill for over two weeks and, for many, disrupted for much longer than that. Many railed against the uncertain times by hiding out, hating every minute. For others, acceptance was the only way to move forward. It was either get over not having washed hair and lend a hand raking out someone’s house of debris, or sit miserably until some degree of normalcy was restored. But, what if “normal” was forever different? Acceptance of a limitation - frailty, mortality and uncertainty – is a negative power. Like negative rights, negative power marks the importance of not letting an externality affect your inner self.

To embrace femaleness is to embrace negative power. No one is affected by your female nature and they cannot take it away from you. It asks for nothing from anyone. Being a woman, in a sense, does because to embrace being a woman is to embrace the trappings of what others conceive of as defining a woman. There is not an inherent good to being a woman over being female, as someone who is defining this as inclusively as possible, female can be adopted by anyone, regardless of biological sex or adopted gender (or lack thereof).

For all people, regardless of sex/gender, start small – you don’t have to go right to accepting your own mortality – work up to it. Accept not racing through a yellow light and having to sit for two minutes at a yellow light. Accept that creamer is all gone and you have to use milk. Have your day not ruined by expectations that are sky-high. Feminism is for all the Lebowskis out there. Accept and feel no shame.

“Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with absolute truth.”

― Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

Stop "Leaning In" and Fight for Real Change

Did you ever stop and think about the amount of time, energy and personal freedoms women give up to rear children? While I know there are men who do the same or play more egalitarian roles in their households, the trend still overwhelmingly leans toward women to bear the overall burden of this task (this is also not to say that some women don't choose to pursue this life path, and very happily at that). This essay is dedicated to unpacking the myth that there could be any true sort of egalitarian division of labor based on gender, in particular when it comes to the invisible work of what goes on in the home (shopping, cooking, cleaning, scheduling, childcare, et al) in a patriarchal society. As a feminist, my end goal would not be to replace patriarchy with matriarchy and any false dichotomies raised by opponents of feminist theory can go educate themselves further before they object. No, this is an entreaty to effect change that is much more inter-sectional in nature.

As a millennial (*vom*), I find the argument of "leaning in" (thanks, Sheryl Sandberg!), to be weak. Maybe it represents a type of feminism I am not in touch with, or maybe I am too socialistic to see it as doing anything but encouraging women to act like men, rather than respecting them for representing something unique. If, in fact, women will ever be truly equal to men in our society, and I mean, not simply legally having the right to pursue the same path as men, unfettered, we need a radically different socioeconomic structure in place. To support and encourage and, most importantly, empower, an entire class of people who have chosen to dedicate themselves to the domestic sphere, a basic universal income would be necessary. Caregivers, in their own right, would be paid and would not be dependent on a partner for subsistence. In addition to a basic universal income, which would ensure that everyone, inclusive of those who perform the "invisible work" of domesticity, is compensated, a truly egalitarian society would also include: paid maternity and paternity leave, universal health care, childcare and well-funded, "free" public schools (through college). Statistically, children of single mothers, first-generation college students and students of color are at a great disadvantage when it comes to student debt. To equalize playing fields based on family structure, race, and class, making public colleges more affordable or even - *gasp* - free.

It is no wonder that the United States lags begin other developed nations in measurements as diverse as infant mortality rates and student test scores in math and reading. In our mixed economic system, we've falsely equated cost with value. If a government or even a coalition of governments shared services to provide health care, educational opportunities and childcare services, there would be an increase in the average quality of life in addition to cost-savings for the providers of said services. For women who chose not to bear children, and/or take time out of their educations or careers to rear them, the benefits of a more egalitarian society would translate to less harassment and discrimination in the workplace and wider society. How? In a culture in which a successful life style is heavily tied to earning a sizable income, length of service as well as dedication to said service is the name of the game. Men are set up to be better at the length of service at least by not having to make the decision to take time off to care for young dependents. This dedication is "perceived" to be inherent to men, which means women, by the mere fact of being one, will be perceived differently regardless of their desire to be mothers. This represents an implicit bias against women in the workplace. It also robs men of the ability to be "ok" with taking time off of work for paternity leave and sharing parenting duties more equally with the mothers of their children.

If we, as a society, truly value the next generation, anti-abortion laws are the least effective method of achieving great results. The fact that women can choose to have an abortion is not providing much in the way of ensuring the success of failure of children already in existence. To allow for a thriving youth culture that can effectively participate in the next generation of democratic engagement, in a meaningful and educated way, we need bssic social safety nets that teach people how to be resilient and self-sufficient. If the objection to welfare programs is that it breeds reliance on others, then I ask two questions: 1. what is the point of a society if it isn't to band together to help others )might as well promote an anarchist state if you disagree)? 2. Instead of scrapping the idea of helping others through various programs entirely, why not encourage measures that foster real growth and understanding in their participants?

The tired phrase, "Women can't have it all," needs to go. We as a society can have more, at least, for everyone.