"I don't want to be the feminist cat lady": teaching women's studies and confronting the fear of being alone

As regular readers know, one text I've relied on a lot in recent semesters in my women's studies classes is Lynn Phillips, Flirting with Danger.   A sociology/psychology text, it's a masterful study of young women's profoundly conflicted feelings about sexuality, gender roles, and power.  Like many social scientists, she talks too much about "discourses", but that's forgiveable.

In any event, it was in the process of teaching Phillips that I realized something about a great many of my students. One key reason why many of the young women whom I teach remain reluctant to embrace feminism is simple, sad, and profound: they are convinced that living a feminist life will leave them lonely.   As tempted as they are by a vision of themselves as empowered, active, assertive agents, far too many of my students are genuinely convinced that to live as feminists will make it nearly impossible for them to find and sustain a loving relationship with a man.

When I first started teaching women's history, I figured my main obstacle to getting my students to embrace the feminist label was the set of negative stereotypes about feminists as "angry, hairy, and man-hating."  This doesn't mean that I refuted all of these stereotypes directly; after all, teaching young women to get in touch with their righteous anger is an important feminist task.  And questioning the cultural norm about women and body hair is also important, even as we acknowledge (as we've been doing in the blogosphere this week) that feminists can have different views on personal grooming!  But for the most part, I figured that students were anxious not to associate themselves with what they saw as these unattractive, unpleasant stereotypes.

But I've come to see -- more and more in recent years -- that for so many of my community college students, the real fear is not of the feminist label.  The real fear is that embracing feminism will make it impossible for them to find and sustain a lasting relationship with a man.  What they are hungry for -- and what a male professor can't offer them, regardless of his marital status -- is female feminist role models who blend successful heterosexual relationships with their activism.  Obviously, this is heterosexist.  But while a certain small percentage of my students are sexually and romantically drawn to other women, the clear majority are "straight."  And even among the most ambitious, it is not patronizing to point out that for a great many of my female students, a major life goal is an enduring, fulfilling, satisfying relationship with a man.   (I often have students admit this apologetically, as if they are "letting down the side" by expressing romantic longings.)

The dilemma for feminist professors is obvious.  On the one hand, if we spend a great deal of time reassuring our female students that a commitment to feminism is easily compatible with heterosexual romance, we end up reinforcing the questionable notion that sexual relationships are the ultimate source of human happiness.  On the other hand, in a fiercely anti-feminist world, we may be tempted to down play the very real consequences of embracing a feminist life.  The fact is that some men, maybe even a great many men, will be put off by a woman who is an authentic feminist.  To pretend otherwise, and promise an endless supply of thoughtful, egalitarian, hot men just looking for a true feminist woman would be, well, a colossal misrepresentation of reality.

Yet if we try to dissuade our students from focusing on relationships and romance, we end up invalidating their very real fears and desires.  Too many women I've taught have heard the line "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", and said to themselves "Damn, there must be something wrong with me for wanting a bicycle so badly!"  Yes, we feminists ought to question the centrality of the heterosexual discourse in young women's lives.  Yes, we ought to challenge many of their preconceptions about romance, sex, love, and marriage.  But we must do so without dismissing or shaming the very real desires that so many of these young women have for these very basic things.

In recent semesters, addressing the fear of loneliness has become a chief priority in my women's studies classes.  It's vital work because it meets the concerns of many of my students -- who frequently come to the course with a great deal of ambivalence (and ignorance) about feminism and women's liberation.   One  articulate student wrote in her journal this semester:

I am not sure I want to be a feminist.  I believe in feminist ideals, but I'm terrified that claiming the name of feminist will doom me to ending up as an old lonely "cat lady"!  I want to be an independent, strong woman.  I want a career and I want to be a mom.  I'm scared that if I'm too feminist, I will end up alienating a potential husband.  What I want to know is, can feminists really have it all?  Or is it about choosing between either a great relationship with a man or having this amazing single feminist life?  Because honestly I know I'd rather have the first one, even though that is hard to admit. But I really want both.

Bold emphasis mine. One thing we can all do better as "public feminists": blog more about how we mesh our politics with our marriages and romances and partnerships.  Gay or straight, monogamous or polyamorous, we need to set examples for how we reconcile our beliefs and our private lives.   With all respect to my lesbian sisters and gay brothers, this is a particularly important task for those who are heterosexually partnered.  It is not that single men and women can't be good feminist role models!  And it's not that singleness and loneliness always go together.  But when so many of our aspiring feminists admit that the fear of loneliness is a chief factor in their reluctance to embrace the feminist label, we've got to meet that problem proactively and publicly.

Comments

[glendenb]

I know this is only anecdotal, but among the straight women I know, those who have the most fulfilling personal relationships are the feminist women.

I don't believe that is accidental - the feminist women I know ask that their needs be met, negotiate with their partners to make the relationship healthy and fulfillng for both of them. These women are able to openly discuss gender roles and expectations with their partners in ways that are empowering for both.

[The Happy Feminist]

It's funny. In my list of the five things feminism has done for me, one of the biggies was:

Feminism has given me the opportunity to be happy as a married woman and to enjoy all my relationships with male friends and colleagues, knowing that I interact with them from a position of equality.

One point that a lot of feminist bloggers note is that non-feminist women are often more likely to resent men than feminists are. Non-feminist women are more likely than feminists to be in unequal marriages. Inequality breeds resentment. Resentment is divisive and is bound to make a marriage unhappy.

One way to think of it I suppose is in terms of cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth it to you to stifle your ideals and your desires for autonomy and equality in order to be with a man who doesn't value those things?

[elizabeth]

I seriously doubt that an arguement that feminist heterosexual coupling is MORE important in society is showing "all respect to my lesbian sisters and gay brothers." But I do believe it is more important to you.

How about we go back and reposition these assumption to say that a lot of women want a lifelong partner, one who respects thier feminist views, regardless of thier orientation. Is the nature of "partner" one who not only compliments but challenges us? As for models, hasn't there been married feminists; activists; suffragists for the last 200 years. Do we not stand on the shoulders of our mother and grandmothers?

This is a different age than 40 or 20 years ago, and I think men know that, as much as you feel that male-kind is not up to the challenge of having a life partner with a functioning brain. Men know when dating that telling a woman she will be "cared for" and "homemaking will be her life" isn't going to make a big impression on either his date OR his date's parents. True, couples may not always agree, but, hey, I'm assuming they are both human. People in love learn to repect each other's positions, and often, particularly for those students who are at university, dating those at university, they degrees of seperation just aren't that extreme.

Have a little faith in the potential of people to grow, individually and collectively, and while you're there, realize that having a prominant feminist gay couple may be equally inspiring to the idea of love, commitment and growth in companionship as a heterosexual couple.

[The Gonzman]

I can't say those fears aren't real. Even among men who I would describe as liberals that I know, the term feminist, when applied to women, is a real romantic turn off - it's really hard to sustain the devotion to someone whose philosophy in life is dedicated to their independence from you.

[The Happy Feminist]

I would say a feminist heterosexual marriage is not so much about the woman wanting to be totally independent from the man. It is about rejecting the old model of female dependence in favor of a new model of mutual interdependence. Also, in a feminist marriage, the form that mutual interdependence takes is not dictated by gender roles but by the individual qualities (strengths, weaknesses, needs, and predilections) of the parties.

[Random Lurker]

Here's my uninformed $0.02.

Feminism, to me, is not about independence from men, hatred of men, rejection of men, repulsion by men, or 'ew ew men are icky!' It's about me. Or rather, being treated as an actual human being rather then, say, a cow, a bauble, a blow up doll, a punching bag, or an extremely slow child.

This simplifies the issue greatly (again, perhaps only for me.) I don't want to be with *anyone*- man, woman, hermaphrodite- who does not treat me like a human being. *If* it is true that the VAST majority of men refuse to treat women like human beings, then I won't lose much sleep over not having one of them clutched to my breast. Who the hell needs someone who's just going to treat you like garbage? What am I missing in that case by not having one? Aggrevation? Stress? Abuse? Woo, big loss.

But *is* it true that most men are hostile to treating women with genuine respect? I don't know.

I would also say that any reasonably intelligent person, while they may have a negative kneejerk to an incendiary term (she's a SWINGER! She's a DRUGGIE! OMG she's a PAGAN! AAAAH! She's a FEMINIST!) can still usually begin to see past that when they get to know the other person on an individual level.

I don't know if that would comfort your students, but that's my take on it.

[Hugo]

What would comfort my students most (and I've asked them about this) is concrete examples of succesful feminist marriages, particularly among folks from their ethnic backgrounds. (My students are overwhelmingly first-generation college students and non-white.) I think feminist bloggers who are in romantic relationships need to blog about how their feminism is lived out.

Then there's the other perception, that most feminist men are white and middle or upper-middle class. That complicates things for those of my students who want to embrace radical egalitarianism in their personal relationships while marrying someone from within their own ethnic group.

I can't stress enough how powerful and real this fear of loneliness is for so many of my students, and we mustn't ignore or dismiss it.

[Bianca]

I'm lucky enough to be in a heterosexual relationship with a young man who was raised by a radical feminist, just as I was. However, I always get the subtle message from friends and family that he's "special" and "different" -- this is often chalked up to his being European -- and that it's far-fetched to assume that any other male, especially one raised in the U.S., would be attracted to me based on the way I look.

I've done a lot of work on my own confidence, and I reject most traditional "feminine" grooming, perfuming, etc... yet every time I am attracted to a male, I do find myself wondering if, just this once, I should try to make myself look "better" in order to attract him. Yikes.

[thechief]

Sounds like some of the more radical, non-grooming, non-perfuming types need to ask the age old question, "would your rather be right or would you rather be happy?"

[Hugo]

Thechief, that's too simple and it's a cheap shot. I'm not talking about giving into culturally mandated expectations for appearance. Really, this post isn't about grooming or perfume. It's about selling out your most basic sense of yourself in order to make a relationship work -- and too many women fear that's what they will have to do.

[thechief]

Which is why I started my post with "some of the more radical" etc, etc. Personally speaking, I don't have much of a problem dating a woman with convictions different from mine as long as she's amiable about it. Not meaning to take the thread some place you didn't mean for it to go, but women who reject "traditional feminine grooming--as Bianca put it in the post above me--yeah, I think many are going to have a choice to make.

[prefer not to say]

Most faith-based discourse on marriage begins by insisting that partners in truly authentic and fulfilling marriages have to begin by letting go of some of their more exaggerated expectations of romance -- like the expectation that a heterosexual union will be enough to ward off all feelings of loneliness all the time.

Please don't mistake what I'm saying as being dismissive of your students' fear of being lonely. That fear ABSOLUTELY has to be heard.

What I *am* saying, is that very conservative discourses that are very pro-marriage address that fear by pointing out that marriage alone will not actually keep you from being lonely, and that once you grasp that fact, marriage itself becomes more workable. Why is it wrong for feminism to say the same thing?

[Emily H.]

I am concerned not so much with the idea that guys won't want a feminist girlfriend, as with the idea that I won't be able to put up with a non-feminist guy--does feminism raise my standards to unrealistically high levels? Is my generation going to spend our youth waiting for guys to catch up with more enlightened views of women (as seems to be happening in Japan--see the recent book "Shutting Out the Sun")? On the other hand, I'm sufficiently homely and ornery that I'm glad feminism has given me the notion that I will be okay if I'm single forever.

[The Happy Feminist]

As for, the chief's question: would you rather be right or would you rather be happy?

Personally, I care far more about my dignity than I do about my happiness (although as one of the feminine feminists, I am not talking about personal grooming in particular). But I don't think it is at all an either/or dichotomy. One of the points I was trying to make above is that a person can't be happy if she is compromising her ideals or her sense of self-worth. So, in my view, stifling one's feminism in order to be with a man will likely lead to no good. But there are plenty of men who are more attracted to the confidence and independence that feminism inspires in women.

As for the grooming issue, I can't quite speak to that as my grooming habits are conventional. But most non-feminine women I have known (including those who forego shaving) have done quite nicely in the romance department either with men or with women. Perhaps the pool of interested men may be smaller, but it is there.

[The Happy Feminist]

Great comment, Emily H. I remember feeling so disillusioned when I broke up with my college boyfriend. When I first met him, he seemed so fun and with it. But over the course of our relationship, it became increasingly obvious that he had deeply misgoynist and sexist views that led directly to a fundamental lack of respect for me.

My concern as a feminist was not "How can I get men to like me?" My concern was: "Oh my god, what if all men are like that?" Thank goodness, they're not all like that.

[Starfoxy]

Being single (whether you're happy about it or not) is *always* better than being unhappily married.

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

I agree with both Happy and prefer not to say. I am happily married to a man who knew I was a feminist long before we even started dating (we were friends for 8 years). And marriage doesn't solve loneliness--that's going to happen off and on all our lives. I had decided that I'd rather be single than in a bad marriage, and I was single for 36 years. For the most part I loved being single just as for the most part I love being married. Just as there were times I wished for the intimacy and companionship of marriage, there are now times I wish for sole control of the checkbook and the remote. ;) I think if you know what you want in a man (or partner) and are realistic about what marriage is and is not, then you'll be fine. I knew I wanted a man who was intelligent and supported me in my calling as a writer and pastor and respect me. He also had to like cats. When he told me I was "intellectually sexy" I knew I'd spend the rest of my life with him. :)

[Hugo]

Oh, yes. An old friend of mine always says "It's better to be lonely than to wish you were", which seems silly until you've actually been in the latter position.

[R. Giskard]

Hugo,

Please remind your students that there are plenty of men out there that desire a positive relationship with an equal. I can’t think of any of my buds that have said to me, “R, I want a woman that will be completely dependent on me.” One that I will have to carry the rest of my life. ”

Honestly, we want women that will be our partners, in raising a family, in business, in life. Someone that has common compatible goals with us. We don’t want helpless or dependent or some weak subservient woman. And there are lots.. yes, lots of us out there like that.

What I believe most men don’t want, is a woman that will filter every thing men do, every action they take through a lens of feminist ideology, which to many men, amounts to distrust. Yes, I realize that not all feminist woman do this, but perception is everything.

[sophonisba]

does feminism raise my standards to unrealistically high levels?

I have always tried to act under the assumption everyone is feminist until proven otherwise - realistically, many men may be sexist, but I don't expect them to be on first meeting, any more than I expect them to be thieves or liars; I expect them to behave like decent human beings. And in terms of dating, this expectation seems to filter out almost all of the ones who don't, long before we approach a serious relationship.

Logically, you shouldn't be able to wish feminist men into existence by assuming they exist, but in practice, it does honestly seem to work that way. The best advice I can ever offer a feminist my age or younger who's worried about het romance is this: don't ever listen to anybody who tells you you're "lucky" to have a feminist boyfriend, or that he's "special" for not being a misogynist. Hopefully, he is special - but not because he's not sexist, or because he doesn't beat you, or because he takes you seriously. That's the bare minumum anyone deserves. The more convinced you are of that fact, the easier it is to find guys like that. Take feminism for granted, and you attract more feminists. It's not exactly fair that it works that way, but in my experience, it does.

(And when you find him, resist the urge to brag about him to other women. Not that I'm not tempted, myself, but really, Hey, my boyfriend is totally feminist! ought to be like, Hey, my boyfriend doesn't cheat on me! Yes, it's nice, but treating it like it's exceptional is not wise. Even if it is - don't reinforce it.)

[mythago]

it's really hard to sustain the devotion to someone whose philosophy in life is dedicated to their independence from you

Wow, that's kind of sad.

Perception is indeed everything--prominent feminist bloggers who have male partners are derided as worthless sluts, public feminist figures have their relationships ignored. Andrea Dworkin had a life partner for over two decades, fercryingoutloud.

[Hugo]

I certainly make it clear that feminism is about learning to be both independent and capable of "interdependence". Interdependence, as any MFT will tell ya, involves the ability to make commitments and experience intimacy without a loss of identity or self. To quote Rilke: A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his solitude.

Not sure if old Rainer was a feminist, but he "got" it.

[Arwen]

Good straight men, who see their partners as equals and understand there's negotiation that must go on, are not in my experience all that rare. They, perhaps, don't choose the label feminist; which for me is sort of irrelevant. I've heard misogynists use the label feminist to insist on their right to sleep with you... (monogomy is so patriarchy, baby).

My husband doesn't call himself "feminist" (frankly is a little confused by what the label means, and even though I've been reading feminist sites for 2 years now, and books forever, I cannot really help him. *g*) Yet if feminism is the radical notion that women are people, he walks the walk to make sure that women are at the table more than any other person I've met, including myself. So, I dunno. What's in a label?

Most of my friends identify as feminist and it's never scared our partners off - we're all in happy long term partnerships, too. (And before that, dated.)

If Gonz were correct that those of us who identify as feminists spend our whole lives trying to create distance between ourselves and the men in our lives, I am very sure we would have more issues with dating. But we don't, and so it's not.

Dunno. I've never noted feminist woman I know go unpartnered for long. The women in my life tend to be pretty clear on their own life goals, and there are fewer games than when we were young and unsure of ourselves and society. I've had guys who wouldn't have called themselves feminists say to me that they're bloody relieved to be spoken to without games; the gender role games also cause a lot of weird shit regarding men. Like "girls" are supposed to check out a man's shoes, or wait for him to call, or not initiate sex, or demand the guy pays for the coffee. With me it's pretty WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get); the mystery part is in the presentation, not the message.

I don't say such gender role classics such as: "You know what you did..." or "If you really loved me you'd..." because I have more *power* than that. My partners have always known that I can in fact take care of myself, and will.

I don't need my parter, I WANT him. To many of men, feminist or not, being WANTED, not needed, is way more awesome. I am not tied with chains of dependence and economy, so every day I'm here, and every night too, I'm here because I love and like and respect my partner. I choose. That's an awesome thing for anyone to have: I wouldn't want a partner to be with me just because they needed ME, either.

All of that being the case, and I imagine no one wants to go on a date where their partner is on a soap-box the whole time; whether that be feminist, economic, sports-related, religious, political, environmental, or whatever. I think I'm hearing the idea that feminists will be one-dimensional. Certainly there are such people. There are also one-dimensional sports fans. One dimension is hard to cope with.

[The Gonzman]

You know, I can tell you exactly why I don't work out in "relationships" and why I am pretty clear to those women I date that if they are looking for one to move on and look elsewhere - I'm pretty set in my ways, and unwilling to compromise myself or my independence to be in one. What I actually demand is really radical equality, and independence. Dates, laughs, weekends -great. Give up my lifestyle, my financial independence, my ability to come and go as I please - to answer to someone? Pass. Just not me. I've raised my kids, for the most part. What time I have left is mine.

As far as the radical equality goes, - well, I will be dipped if I will be involved with a woman who requires me to support her. Just won't do it. Have a job - have a house - and pay your bills, because I ain't helping out if you can't make the car payment except in a few extreme circumstances, ones in which I might be inclined to help out anyone. I don't want to make anyone else's decisions - I have my own life to run, thank you very much. I want to be told what someone wants directly instead of reading hints. I don't want a mother - I'm grown up. I can clean my own house, wash my own clothes, and do my own dishes, and you will have to look long and hard to find someone who cooks better than me.

There is give and take on that. A few really nice women have walked down the road - and well and good they did, too. I'd have made them miserable, as some of the women who figured they could "change" me, and lied to us both, found out. Of course, I've dodged a lot of bullets that way too, so things even out. But, all in all, I behave like a feminist in a lot of respects. I decide what is good for me. I don't compromise on things. I maintain a fierce independence, making it clear that the other person is not needed, and a part of my life that may be disposed of at any time - perhaps with regret, but still disposable.

I can't tell you what makes a lasting marriage or relationship. I have had three divorces. I'm pretty sure, though, that I am qualified to speak of how NOT to conduct relationships, though, or marriages. So understand, I ain't bustin' chops - I am no damn better. But I admit it.

Now, if you really think you can sustain such mutually contradictory positions as independence and interdependence, compromise and integrity, and other such things - go ahead. I won't begrudge anyone the right to practice or believe six impossible things before breakfast every day if they want. I just don't see it happening.

[evil_fizz]

I maintain a fierce independence, making it clear that the other person is not needed, and a part of my life that may be disposed of at any time - perhaps with regret, but still disposable.

Is this one of those things you think constitutes behaving like a feminist? Because that's a new one on me.

I've personally always found being a feminist to be an asset in my own relationships. I think that there is a fairly strong social pressure on women not to be overly demanding in relationships, lest they drive away all the men, but it all depends on what's considered "overly demanding". The fact that my fiance takes me seriously, respects me, and doesn't hit me aren't high demands on my part. They're actually pretty basic, and I am continually horrified by the idea that anyone would think that wasn't the rock bottom minimum.

Also, my experiences have been a lot like sophonisba's: if I assume other people share my ideas on equality, they seem to act accordingly.

And one more little thing: Hugo, I second the idea that it's much better to be lonely than to wish you were. I'm going to go have a stiff drink and wince at the thought of my sixteen-year-old self now.