Today I read an editorial online in the Minnesota Women’s Press that I thought could be such a provocative start to a much-needed commentary on the state of feminism today. In the editorial, titled “Princess/Feminist”, St. Martin discusses how raising her young daughter has awakened her to the ways in which one can be both *feminist* and *girly*, two things that St. Martin (and many others) might have previously thought an impossibility:
”I am one of the parents who likes to tell people how much I am learning from my kids. Unfortunately, I seem to be a slower learner. They are much better at debunking stereotypes than I am. Neither one of them sees any reason you can’t wear a tiara while you are climbing a tree.” (St. Martin)
I have to say that I appreciated St. Martin’s candor so much. I often find myself constantly wondering if certain instincts that I have are “anti-feminist” because they might be considered “girlish” (aka. weak and stereotypical). Yet it is this kind of essentialist thinking that leads us right back to another stereotype – that of the FEMINIST. Recently in an interview, Geri Halliwell (Spice Girl) vehemently denied all associations with feminism, which was mainly based on the (ignorant) stereotypical connotation associated with the word:
“OK, concedes Halliwell, maybe she is a feminist: but she has a few distinct caveats. One objection seems to be that she fears feminism will emasculate and demoralise men: but her bigger problem is its image. “It’s about labelling. For me feminism is bra-burning lesbianism. It’s very unglamorous. I’d like to see it rebranded. We need to see a celebration of our femininity and softness.” (Guardian Unlimited)
Now, I’m not going to pretend that I don’t HATE her flippant and irresponsible useof such an outdated stereotype, especially when Halliwell used to be (and might still be?) a role model for an adolescent type of “girl power” that could be considered feminist-ish. But my real issue is with WHY such an archaic stereotype is still floating around out there, and why can’t one be both feminist AND feminine - without the need to separate feminism out of desire to be feminine. Isn’t it possible to be both?
St. Martin seems to think it is – I think it is too. It’s difficult to embrace a plural sort of feminism, one that doesn’t necessarily fit into a tidy box that rejects all things girly and embraces all things strong. I don’t want that binary anymore. When did girly start to automatically mean anti-feminist? I want girls to be able to climb trees wearing tiaras, if that if what they want. I also want them to climb the tree in anything else they want, including a football helmet or a feather boa. Or both at the same time.
