Last week I wrote an article about the BlogHer '07 conference and the very little press coverage it received. One comment on that piece brought to the fore again some uncomfortable thoughts about women and feminism I've wrestled with and considered for years: do we sometimes create inequality where there is none just to have something to bitch about?
In this instance, I believe not. I had no idea BlogHer '07 was happening, but I had certainly heard of YearlyKos, happening around the same time. I appreciate that the two have their differences - one is a strongly political organisation and for that reason might net more publicity - but there were also other reasons why I put it down to men vs women. For one, the vast majority of negative comments I've ever received on my public writing has been from men and has commented either on my looks or on the fact that women shouldn't be doing this sort of thing - I'm talking negative comments, not just normal criticism. But have I taken a personal observation and made a federal case out of nothing?
Like I said, not in this instance. But I think that groups of and individual women are sometimes guilty of it. In much the same way as I get angered by people who claim to have been fired because they were black / white / Muslim / Jewish / Christian / whatever when it turns out that they have merely been incompetent, it annoys me when women cry "inequality" on behalf of other women when it's simply not the case.
A lot of it can come down to what offends and what doesn't. I simply refuse to label someone stupid, brainwashed or similar if they're otherwise a reasonable adult just because I happen to think that their particular stance on something is wrong. But certain women's groups - and some individual women - do it all the time. Let's take an example from one of my favourite TV shows of all time, The West Wing. Rob Lowe's character Sam makes a passing comment that his colleague looks good enough to "make a good dog break its leash" and she accepts the compliment without question. They know each other; she's outspoken and extremely well-educated so if she were offended, she'd have said so. But then another woman in the office berates Sam and the girl in question for their offensiveness. Fair enough to tell Sam that you think what he said sucked, but if the girl he said it to was flattered, then what right does another woman have to tell her she "should" be offended?
Now escalate this. I find Jodie Marsh pretty repellent. I think her quest for a husband is depressingly desperate and some of the time I (patronisingly) feel sorry for her. But she's an adult, and as much as I think some therapy, a top that covers her breasts and a few good, trusting friendships would probably make her happier, I have no right to say she shouldn't be doing what she's doing. As a feminist, it's my obligation to support other adult women, in so far as they can be said to be of sound mind and rational thought, in their endeavours. I believe that there are strippers and prostitutes out there who actually choose that line of work (although I also believe the vast majority are there because they feel like they have no other choice). That's why I'd be keen to legalise and monitor it, which would reduce the demand and place on society the obligation to provide medical and social care to women in that position so that it would truly be a considered choice.
Clearly "more feminist than thou" philosophy (particularly beloved of the second wave conference-goers that Cate observed) is damaging. Because although the Sam Seaborn / Jodie Marsh questions are actually different from whether there's a genuine or imagined inequality, they colour the whole question. While we're busy sticking our noses up at each other (and I imagine every single one of us has done it sometime; I know I have) and creating small problems, are we so desperate to band together on an issue that we create big problems where there are none?
So let's come back to the question. Do we create inequality where there is none? Sometimes. Should we pick up on, talk about and address the small, irritating inequalities? Hell yeah. But should we let them become such a cacophony that we forget big picture thinking and open ourselves up to accusations of being ridiculously PC? No; that's when we need to think hard about what's worth our breath. Research in the form of surveys, investigation into PR strategies and interviews with journalists will tell us whether women's conferences are being ignored, whether men still have a louder voice and, indeed, what responsibility we need to take to be heard. We may need to stop picking and choosing our feminism based on what sits happily with our personal morality and start thinking about what is actually, fundamentally important to all women - equality of opportunity, education, employment and remuneration.
We are all women, after all, but that may be all some of us have in common.
Alex Roumbas is Deputy Editor of Shiny Shiny and she pursed her lips together and placed her finger to them to show she's thoughtful...
