Inadequacy

from womenshealthmag.com














The only cooking I do is boiling and microwaving. I rarely clean, and I don’t fix things around the house that break. I don’t do a lot of volunteering at my daughter’s school. Truthfully, I do no volunteering at her school; the only thing I do is march in semi-annually with a good-sized check. I have been known to leave until the last minute preparation for school events that most parents (read: moms) have been aware of and on top of for months.

Despite these failings, I think I'm a good mother, partner and friend. I'm active in a couple of public interest organizations. I earn a nice, unfeminine income which hopefully will allow both of us to retire in ten (OK, a dozen, I just checked the market) years. I stay within 15lb of my college weight (which was near-anorexic) and I go to a trainer 3x/week to make sure that weight stays in the right places.

But on an irrational though frequent level, I feel inadequate and as if my contributions – to family, to those less fortunate, to work, to myself – are lazy and shoddy.

I think this has something to do with being female. Now, luckily many women have avoided my level of analness about weight and competitiveness at work and all kinds of other Type A crap. But many of my friends, whether they work at home, in an office, or are homemakers, feel like they’re not doing enough in usually all areas. Even if they rationally know there are 24 hours in a day and they are spending them as intelligently as possible.

How many guys do you know in 2-income households who are doing maybe 10-30% of the household/childcare work and don’t feel concerned in the slightest? Or, how many guys feel like if they are making money and changing the occasional diaper or attending the occasional Little League game, they don’t need to keep themselves in shape? Guys who wear your bra size but look pityingly at your miked Lean Cuisine? OK, you can stop counting now.

Feminists, many times, are women. And feminists’ issues with guilt reflect those of their constituents.

Have you ever looked on one of the big, trendy feminist websites and seen an article with no relevance to women? A well-written, interesting article about a critical issue of interest to us liberals, but with no specific gender angle? Pretty often, right?

But do you ever notice on sites dedicated to other liberal issues, whether it be health care or poverty or energy or race or immigration, articles dealing with gender that do not deal with the main focus of the site? Probably not so often, right?

Does this stem from the tendency of women to feel that maybe we are not enough?

Donna Darko , Dr. Violet Socks and Echidne discuss the phenomenon of feminism’s breadth. Donna applauds intersectionality within feminism but is concerned if the situation becomes one in which “it’s not directly related to women’s issues.” Echidne says: “if feminist activists choose to use their time and resources on issues other than women's rights, who is it who will speak for women? I see a big problem right there, because the usual assumption is that feminists are to take care of all issues having to do with women so that the rest of the society doesn't have to bother with those. But if feminists are busy saving the world in other ways, well, women's special concerns will be mostly ignored.”

And therein lies the rub.

It’s critical that feminism not be a middle/upper class movement for able-bodied American heterosexual white women. It’s critical that popular young authors don’t cut corners with a textbooky chapter on intersectionality, but instead actually discuss all aspects of feminism – reproductive issues, immigration, trafficking, career issues including issues of sex work, domestic and other kinds of violence, etc. – in a way that integrates concerns of women of all varieties of race, orientation, income, (dis)ability, without gratuitously separating out certain issues. It’s critical for feminists to be able to look at all issues – whether it be the policies of candidates for president; the pros and cons of Planned Parenthood or NOW; glass ceilings at the soup kitchen, supermarket or investment bank; the efficacy of microloans – in a way that contemplates the implications for all women, not just women who look like them.

As should be clear, I do think that some feminists have taken a “what’s relevant to ME” approach without looking at how a particular issue affects all women. I’ve gotten some wake-up calls personally in this regard.

But that should not mean that feminism as a movement loses sight of the fact that it’s supposed to be ABOUT women. That the true inclusion of all women does not mean taking the focus off women.

Because as Echidne and Donna say, if we are not for ourselves, then who will be?

Often, as women, we leave ourselves last in our efforts to be about everything. We ignore the depth for the breadth. Just as we handle two or three shifts (often one or two more than our male partners, if our partners are male), we apply the same philosophy to our feminism. We try to be the movement for all groups who are sidelined. We don’t have a problem addressing other concerns, even without including gender in the analysis. And we’d never be so bold or crass to inquire why blogs or print media covering other causes doesn’t address our issues. They’ve got other fish to fry! Important fish! Maybe, more important!

How often do we see a guy in divorce court, having given over his career to the demands of childcare, realizing that his wife and her new young lover will be living a different kind of life from the one that will now be available to him, as her lawyers have cleverly minimized his support payments and he must now reenter a hostile job market? How often do we see male Silda Spitzers, dutifully standing by as we enumerate our failings, because we have the power and leverage to make them feel this is the necessary, the unselfish thing to do? Unselfish, because although we told them that we were equal partners and that their household/support contributions were just as critical, when push comes to shove, when we betray them in the most fundamental ways, we expect them to understand just how equal their contributions really are.

Have you ever been at some event for your kid’s school? Often, the principal will thank the volunteers. Someone sewed the costumes, baked the food, made the invitations, did the fundraising. These folks will get a big round of applause, or even some lovely flowers. They will come out in front of the other parents, together, as they are lauded for their generosity. Do you ever notice a common theme? Sure, there will be the dude who got his company to underwrite something (a phone call), or the guy who built some of the scenery. Yes, the occasional flexing of wallet or biceps. But percentagewise, there will be an XX dynamic going on. Why? Because for us, the claps and the flowers are enough. Even if, ultimately, they don’t pay our bills or feed our children or go on our resumes. That’s OK. We’re women, and we’re here to help.

We have come a long way, baby. But we still have limited safe spaces. The streets, the workplace, the home, all are fraught with compromise. Some of us have managed to whack the weeds and make things work tolerably, but many of us still struggle.

We do have one place that’s our own. Feminism. Amid all the other eminently worthwhile causes out there clamoring for our willing hands, that one’s about us first and foremost.

I hope.