Trying to blog about politics is like trying to dance about feminism

There seems to be something wrong- okay, not wrong, but outdated- about my feminism.

It's becoming perfectly clear now, during the Democratic primaries, since I have aligned myself with Hillary Clinton. Clinton, various media sources inform me again and again, is the choice for older women. Older feminists. Women who see their own struggles playing out before them- the story of a woman who worked hard, did everything right and, instead of reaping the benefits, has everthing swept away by a less qualified man (I'm paraphrasing Slate's Political Gabfest here). Women who, though they also support Clinton's take on the issues, find the concept of a female president more compelling than any political stance.

My old-fashioned feminism can be seen in my academic work as well. It is not cool to be interested in feminist theory and the Victorian novel. This era has passed. I'm known, in certain literary circles of NYU, for my love of Gilbert and Gubar's The Madwoman in the Attic, a text that was new and compelling in- wait for it- 1979. Perhaps my love of this text is the origin of my disillusionment with the entire field of advanced literary study. One could make this argument. Of course I feel like there's nothing new to say- my theoretical Bible was published almost thirty years ago!

Then there's my stance on women's choices within their personal lives. Sure, being an advocate of abortion is current enough, so I'm okay there. But my fear of marriage as an institution that exploits women, that pushes them to the bottom, reeks of a bygone age. Aren't we supposed to be over that? Aren't we supposedly equals now? I have not watched a single female friend enter marriage without feeling enormous anxiety over her fate as a married woman. Makes all those wedding receptions far less joyous (just kidding- put enough wine in me, and I can be happy about anything).

Possibly I was born in the wrong era. Possibly I'm backwards. Possibly one day my feminism will catch up to the times- it will be current, hip and know just what to wear to cocktail parties (Wait, no one throws cocktail parties anymore? Well, shit.).

Yet I can provide rebuttals and justifications for all the behaviors and opinions I've listed.

Of course I have reason to fear the institution of marriage. I once had a conversation with a recently married woman whose husband was ready to have children, though she was not. And she told me her husband had said it might not be her choice, since in the state where they lived, there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. Seeing my horrified face, she assured me he had just been kidding. I see other female friends marry under immense societal pressure that they don't even seem to realize exists.

And yes, my methods of scholarship may be outdated. But in all our classrooms we still teach far more works by male authors than females and there is a sense that many of these 'recovered' female works are being taught just to try and fix the balance. I'm not saying we should teach every obscure female writer we find or give less merit to the works of Shakespeare. Judith Shakespeare couldn't be a writer, after all, and no amount of minor works from the Renaissance period will ever change that fact. But the canon is flawed, and I don't see anything wrong with spending my scholarly efforts in a direction that has only been discussed for thirty years instead of four hundred or so. Also, while there are more women than men in my English classes- and always have been- there are more male professors than female at NYU and (I'm just guessing here, but I bet I'm right) most higher institutions of learning. Even popular fiction genres illustrate the gender bias- far more respect is given to the mystery or thriller genre than the romance genre, though the same criticisms about formulaic writing and stock plots can be shot at both.

Though in some ways, feminism, the woman's movement- whatever you want to call it- has come so far, in other ways we are merely inching along. And I think Hillary Clinton's campaign embodies both sides. Yes, a woman is running for president. And she's doing well. This is a wonderful step forward for women. And yet, as an article I read in New York Magazine this morning states, "There’s no doubt Clinton has been forced to perform a sort of ridiculous high-wire act this campaign, trying to find the perfect balance between attracting women voters without scaring away men, seeming human without seeming too much of a female human. Too much either way, and she falls."

This article by Robin Morgan has gotten a good deal of criticism for being too extreme and polarizing in its support of Hillary Clinton. Same with Tina Fey's SNL endorsement of Clinton this weekend. Fey happily calls Clinton a bitch, lumping herself and Amy Poehler in the same category and saying, quite proudly, that "bitches get things done."

It's a funny sketch, and I join with Fey in deriding women who've "come so far as feminists they feel they don't need to vote for a woman" but follow the preachings of Oprah Winfrey instead. Still, bitch is a loaded word, and I'm not sure what to do with it. I hate its prevalance in the media today, how it's suddenly all over prime time TV. The sentiment is right: the way Hillary Clinton acts is the way a leader should act, and if she were a man, no one would be thinking twice about it. Yes. But do 'we' (I should really say I here, I suppose- I'm not speaking for any specific woman's movement here) want to reclaim the word bitch or eliminate it from the popular lexicon? I'm not sure.

I'm not good at talking or writing about politics. I'm young and I'm new at it. And I'm informed enough to know that I'm woefully underinformed (this goes for just about everything else in the world, too, actually). If Barack Obama wins the party nomination, yes, I will support him. I like hime well enough, and I shudder at the alternative. But I feel his popularity is frenzied and not entirely legit. I feel that, if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, a huge reason is going to be because she is a woman. And I care about this.

I had a recent epiphany when trying to deal with my parents' Republican politics that, very often, people with opposing political views to my own are not stupid, they just have different priorities. I know this sounds pretty obvious, but it was a big step for me. This is my priority- trying to figure out where to take my feminism in today's society and what to do that's best for women- and I think Hillary Clinton as president would be a great step in the right direction.

And I guess, after writing all this, what I'm really saying is that my feminism may seem old-fashioned at times, but it's in no way irrelevant.

Go, Hillary Clinton!