New Definition of Feminism

Previously, my definition of feminism was, “Believing that men and women have the same economic, political, and social rights and also acknowledging that women are and have been oppressed throughout history. However, not every woman is oppressed in the same way and society should understand how each woman is oppressed at her own intersection.”

I do not think I would change much of my previous definition. However, I would add that legal steps should be taken to make economic, political, and social equality the norm. As Thomson says, “Both the female and the disabled body are cast as deviant and inferior; both are excluded from full participation in public as well as economic life; both are defined in opposition to norm that is assumed to possess natural physical superiority.” (19). Since there are no legal barriers for employers to pay a woman less for the same job as a man, women will still be cast as deviant and inferior. Therefore, I believe steps are taken to make women the equals, legally, and then the social acceptance of women in the public sphere will follow. For instance, if a law were put into place today that granted women equal pay for equal jobs, then most of the children who are born today will grow up thinking it is normal because that is how it has always been.

Thankfully, some legal steps have been taken to ensure rights for marginalized groups; Washington State recently legalized gay marriage. Maryland and Illinois are on track to legalize it as well. These small victories give me hope for all marginalized groups in America. Since homophobia is deeply rooted in our Christian culture, “Much of the discrimination against homosexual persons is justified by a common misreading of the Bible.” (Pharr 24) I have hope for other women’s rights that are not (that I know of) shot down by Biblical passages.

My new definition of feminism is, “Believing that men and women have the same economic, political, and social rights and also acknowledging that women are and have been oppressed throughout history. However, not every woman is oppressed in the same way and society should understand how each woman is oppressed at her own intersection. To remedy this problem, legal action should be fought for and granted to the marginalized groups of America.”   

Bechdel & the Intersection of Coming Out

Since reading Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, I have started thinking more the intersection of sexuality, gender, and privilege. For instance, Bechdel’s father used decorations and landscapes as a way to show the world how “normal” they were. Bechdel did not like for people do see her as rich, because that would imply that her family was unusual or different. She says, however, “In fact, we were unusual, though I wouldn’t appreciate exactly how unusual until much later. But we were not rich.” (5)

Bechdel’s father was trying to show the world he was privileged, although he was not. Bechdel’s father also had relationships with men, including the babysitter. Did his theory of covering up lies with the norm also apply to his love life? Did he only marry Bechdel’s mother because he could not be openly homosexual? Or did he want to show the world he was “normal” outwardly but still be “unusual” on the inside?

Pharr says, “In my life I have experienced the effects of homophobia, through rejections by friends, threats upon loss of employment, and threats upon my life.” (24). Bechdel’s father attempted to cover his world with the accepted norm. That way, no one could see how different he was. Do you think Bechdel was more comfortable coming out because she was a woman with white privilege and some monetary privilege? Perhaps the timing of her coming out were more convenient, too (she wasn’t serving in a war with macho men.) All in all, I have just been pondering the intersections of gender, privilege, and sexuality. Do some people have an easier time coming out to the world because of their intersection?