Would a feminist be able to support the current push for gay marriage (here in Tassie) while remaining consistent to his/her own feminism?
I think the answer is a categorical, 'No'.
Now, that sounds rather naughty. After all, we're talking about two world views that are generally considered 'progressive' (feminism and the mainline of GLBT in public discourse). So let me outline my thinking, and I'd appreciate it if you could (politely!) point out to me if/where I'm mistaken.
Let's start with a cornerstone in the narrative of feminism (by 'narrative' I just mean a description of how the world does/could/should fit together):
(a) Feminism holds that a woman brings something truly special/wonderful/significant to the world by virtue of her being a woman, which is not equivalent to what a man brings to the world.And we could, of course, replace 'world' with 'marriage', since marriage is just one sphere within a woman's life that she enriches (partly) by virtue of her femininity. Let's be generous and do blokes the same courtesy in the interests of equal-treatment (but it isn't essential to my argument):
(b) A man brings something truly special/wonderful/significant to the world by virtue of his being a man, which is not equivalent to what a woman brings to the world.So, they're different, the feminist narrative holds, and those differences should be highlighted and celebrated. To minimise or down-play the distinctives of women as women is to take a backward step, indeed.
True, it may be very difficult to neatly define what a woman (or indeed mother) brings to a marriage (or family), likewise a man (or a father). Nevertheless, the feminist narrative holds dear that je ne sais quoi.
Let us turn our attention to one significant part of the GLBT narrative (as I encounter it, anyway):
(c) The GLBT narrative holds that Gay/Lesbian unions should be described by the term 'marriage' because your lover's gender has no bearing on the union you share with them, there are no significant distinctives dividing men and women in this arena.If, (a) and (b) and (c) are correct, then I think it's fair to say…
(d) a feminist could not support a redefinition of marriage to encompass gay unions while remaining consistent with his/her own feminism, for it would necessarily involve marginalising the uniqueness of women.Finally, let me spin this back the other way. If same-sex unions do become known as 'marriages', then would not a consistent feminist want to find some other way to positively signal the specialness of heterosexual unions? But that sure looks like a path of infinite regress to me.
Point (A) is pretty wobbly and not what I understand feminism to be about.
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia: First paragraph definition of feminism.
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".
Ergo, a dictionary defined feminist is foremost concerned about equality, and it follows would more than likely support same sex marriage. I'm aware that there are many different schools of thought within the feminist movement so while I'm sure there may be a strand which fits your description, it's not what I find when I look online into the subject.
Dictionaries and wiki's aside, I would expect (anecdotally at least) that the vast majority of feminists would be in support of same-sex marriage as a basic issue of equality.
Thanks Funnel. Great thoughts. Your observation on the breadth of the feminist movement is a helpful cautionary note on any conclusions here!
ReplyDeleteRegarding 'equality' within a feminist narrative: the trick, I reckon, is figuring out the referent. i.e. equality with respect to [what?]. Personal worth, social position, legal standing, pay, mobility, etc. all feature in the discussion. But it seems to me that a *part* of the story is a celebration of a fully-orbed femininity that is not equivalent to a fully-orbed masculinity.
Maybe it's more about how I've encountered it, rather than the wiki definition :)
I think you are correct however, perhaps where you have gone wrong is trying to define feminism.
DeletePurely to add to conversation and as a point of interest:
Feminism covers a very broad range of views which often strongly contradict each other. I think the feminism you are describing is essentialist feminism - which *current* schools of thought find problematic due to gender being constructed not something that is inherent. So I would say the current or at least the feminism I encounter at university and through my peer group (people who think a lot about gender issues) is not at odds with the same-sex marriage issue, unless it is through their being anti-marriage.
Hmmm... fascinating. Thanks Gill. That's super helpful.
DeleteFwiw, the position I was trying to describe would see gender as inherent (as I understand the use of those terms).
Whatever the case, I can see I'll have to look into it some more :) Could you recommend any go-to books/articles/links?
Thanks Bernard!
ReplyDeleteI'm only speaking in general terms as I don't believe I'm well informed enough to represent feminism in anything but the broadest of terms... that said, I think there's an awareness and celebration of the positive aspects of gender which I agree, is at least *part* of what is widely understood to be mainstream feminism.
I'm pretty sure that even if we took that and for arguments sake, installed it as a central tenant of feminism (which I don't believe it is as it runs counter to the core concept of equality) it still wouldn't support your next logical step that either "you are special and unique" or "everyone is the same".
The reason for this is simple, I don't think that two women (or men) in a loving committed relationship loose any of that gender identity because recognising (and even celebrating) the differences between the sexes has nothing to do with the capacity and rights of us as individual people to love or to be loved.
By allowing same-sex marriage we're not ceding the uniqueness of marriage at all, I think that we're sharing and reinforcing the value that being in a committed relationship is something to be celebrated.
The "specialness" about marriage is about the law recognising that you and your partner (no matter what gender) are equal can share in a cultural (not just religious) institution that is an enormous part of our society. After a little bit of thought, I don't think that it diminishes gender identity in any way, shape and form.
Thanks again for your thoughts here, Funnel.
DeleteAs per Gill's comments, I can see I'll need to chase down the subtleties within 'feminism' to hone my point :)
I suspect we could talk more about what constitutes the specialness of marriage and its place in society (both pretty vast topics!!). But perhaps that's for another post/chat/time :)