The personal vs the political

...feminism should be focused on real change and helping women. I've seen so much written this year about the dilemma of being a feminist who wants to get married that I don't think I can take it any more From We Mixed Our Drinks

Reading this blog post over at We Mixed Our Drinks really hit a nerve with me. Primarily because I have written about such a dilemma in recent times in Subtext magazine and online. Secondly, because it does seem that some feminist thought is moving away from the personal being political. Of course I agree that feminism should be focused on real change and on helping women but it's not always conceivable to be involved in such grand gestures which may promote this. Yes, as feminists we should be involved in addressing what some may be stressing are the more 'serious' issues to hand but I believe that such 'smaller' issues are also of importance.

The fact I have discussed the implications of being a feminist wanting to get married was because of it traditionally being at odds with equality. I think entering discourse as to why and how we can label a marriage as feminist is an example of tackling a small piece of the bigger picture. Deciding to be part of an equal marriage, or keeping 'Ms' rather than 'Mrs' may not be deemed radical or indeed important steps in the big scheme of things, but I believe that it's not always about these grand gestures. What would be the point of my attending rallies, signing petitions or squashing gender stereotypes in my lessons, for instance, if I then didn't examine the things closer to heart and address the potentially gendered mechanisms at work there? I do perhaps agree with those that groan at feminists who are arguing the point that wearing make-up because it isn't deemed feminist. I applaud those like Jessica Valenti who delves deeper in saying that 'yes I wear make-up' but acknowledges the connotations and issues around doing so (see Full Frontal Feminism) because there is the element of critical engagement in her thought.

My basic point here is that I don't see why the stress needs to be consistently on such visible, bigger feminist actions. Why can't we do both? I write about being a feminist and getting married but at the same time I am completing research on gender in mentoring relationships. I believe that the personal can still be political. If there are those who say it cannot then I will merely continue to address both.

Heather Mills' Settlement

Taken from the BBC website:

Ms Mills made reference to the £35,000 a year their daughter would receive.

"Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year - so obviously she's meant to travel B class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that."



Let's just go over Heather Mills' choice of words here...Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year does she? Does she think perhaps her attitude towards the settlement might be deemed insulting by the countless of single mothers in the UK who are working their fucking asses off to make sure their children are clothed, bathed and feed?!

I'm sorry Heather Mills but you are just a money grabbing, heartless cow. Don't use your child as justification for your own greed.

Tory Tax Breaks

In the Daily Mail yesterday there was a piece on pg2 regarding David Cameron's pledge to reintroduce tax breaks for married couples and on reading through the piece there were a two things on my mind...

David Cameron last night pledged to reintroduce tax breaks for married couples as he gave his backing to mothers who choose to stay at home to look after their children.

At first I liked the sounds of a tax break but when it spoke about Cameron's backing of stay at home mums it really just sounded like a reinforcement of the male breadwinner ideology with the mother at home looking after the children and the housework and the father out earning a living.

Aides said the move, which will be examined by one of Mr Cameron's policy groups, would also apply to gay couples with young children who have entered into civil partnerships, but not to unmarried couples.

I thought it was excellent that gay couples were also being recognised by this policy but yet what actually constitutes here as 'gay'? What about those couples whose sexualitys don't fall into this neat little box? And, why the hell are unmarried couples exempt? I think it's terrible sometimes how unmarried couples are treated. Why, for example, should a cohabiting unmarried couple with two children who had been together for, say, fifteen years not be entitled to the same rights as a married couple? I myself am very wary of the institute that is marriage and deep down I don't really believe in getting married because it is predominantly a christian concept and I largely oppose christianity as a religion.