This is a guest post in a series on feminism and relationships at small strokes.  If you’d like to submit a guest post for this series, see the guidelines here and submit your post to samsanator(at)gmail(dot)com.

Last week my partner and I went out to dinner to celebrate the six-year anniversary of our first date.  I wore grey jeans and a black, short-sleeved blouse with my short dark hair up in a pompadour.  He wore khaki shorts and a long sleeved pale-blue dress shirt.  And after we finished eating, our waiter asked us if we wanted two checks or one.  And I loved it.

Seated at the next table was a proudly married couple.  She was dressed in platform wedge sandals, a pastel skirt past the knee, and a pale pink shirt.  He was dressed in frat-boy plaid shorts and a navy blue polo.  They held hands over the table, shiny wedding rings sparkling, and asked for an alcohol-free wine list.  Ahh… I thought to myself, we are so different here.

You see, we are both midwestern transplants out here in Utah, and we don’t really blend in with the majority culture out here.  I mention this because I think it’s relevant to the way that I am comfortable “displaying” my relationship in public.  Which is to say, I’m not.

Along with “feminist,” one of the most important pieces of my identity is “ally.”  And this means that I try to examine my apparent heterosexual privilege as much as possible.  It wasn’t easy moving across the country with my partner and trying to find a place to live as an unmarried couple here, but it was a lot easier than it would have been if we weren’t One Man and One Woman.  I am privileged by the fact that the person that I fell in love with portrays the opposite gender to the word, and so we look like people expect us to look.  We could hold hands in public, we could snuggle at the movies, we could kiss outside the restaurant and most people wouldn’t comment. But I spend a lot of time wondering how different that would be if I happened to be partnered with a woman.  I don’t think that it’s okay that I would suddenly have to consider my own safety and the safety of my partner just to express affection outside our home (which here, I would).  So I don’t engage with that privilege in public. Maybe if I lived someplace where that didn’t feel like an in-your-face flaunt of hetero privilege things would be different.  Maybe not.

Add to those two pieces of my identity “independent.” I am one person.  I am one whole person.  My partner loves that whole person that I am.  He’s his own person, too.  We’re committed to each other (three years long distance followed by three years living together and we’re still doing fine, thank you), but we’re not married.  We don’t need to be in order for our relationship to be meaningful, in order for our promises of fidelity to be taken seriously, in order for our friends and family to recognize our commitment.  I don’t wear a wedding ring, engagement ring, or promise ring and neither does he.  For me, this is about the fact that my relationship status isn’t the business of, well, anybody.  It’s not something I need or want people to know just by looking at me.

So when the waiter asked if we wanted separate checks, I felt a little proud in addition to greatly amused.  We gave the impression of two independent people out to dinner to enjoy one another’s company and some good food.  We weren’t one couple, we were two people.

Oh, and if you’re curious, my partner paid for dinner since I bought the tickets to the play we went to later.

This is a cross post from a good friend of mine.  It originally appeared at team berlin.  If you are interested in guest or cross posting at feministhemes.com, send a line with your idea to ms.wizzle@feministhemes.com.

In response to Vatican says women priests a ‘crime against faith’ [telegraph]:

Yep.  It’s definitely one of those times when I remember why so many people hate the Catholic faith.  Mostly because they’re full of dicks, both literally with all their penii flying all over the place and metaphorically in the sense that they’re quite mean.

REALLY?!  Worse than pedophilia?  REALLY?!  Honestly?  Who came up with an idea like that?  Only the Catholics could come up with a concept that is so obviously opposed to the teachings of Christ, and yet have such “reverence” for the Virgin Mary.  Yes, they have their insane reverence for a character in the Bible that hardly does anything at all, except for what they view as her womanly duty of giving birth.  Yet, they never look at the fact that there were female judges that led the Jewish people through battles and back into moral integrity.

What terrible hypocrisy.  How can we possibly allow such hate and sinfulness from a church?  I don’t care what we want to say as far as equality goes.  I don’t care when we want to say as far as women being ordained as priests.  If the Cathies just said, “No.  Not our style,” that would be okay.  That’s their thing, they’re sexist, and they like it.  I’ve long since accepted that.  But I cannot stand by when somebody who identifies as Christian is saying that ordaining women as priests is WORSE than pedophilia!

It isn’t as if the Catholic church has belittled pedophilia enough already.  No, they seem to do plenty of that.  No really, Catholic church, take as long as you need to prosecute or punish the pedophilic priests.  We’re not in a rush to get any sort of justice or closure on these.  8 years?  No, go ahead and take longer.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following is a cross post from Electric Emily over at Jukebox Heroines – be sure to check out all the other great music-based info she’s got at her blog!  If you are interested in cross posting or guest posting at feministhemes.com, please send your ideas to ms.wizzle@feministhemes.com.

Lady Gaga was on Larry King on June 1st, 2010. I just watched it, and once again, female artists have to defend themselves for their art, presentation, and politics.

Larry King asked if Gaga was a feminist, she said:

“Yes. Yes I am. I am a feminist. Does this settle the ongoing debate once and for all?”

Why is it so hard for people to believe that Gaga is a feminist? I have a few thoughts on the matter.

Is it because she is a pop-star, and somehow we have obscured pop music/stardom with instant sell-out status, misogyny, and manufactured faux empowerment?

That isn’t to say that there is some of that in music, and that pop music, like every other music genre has issues with gender, race, class, looks, etc, but presuming this of pop music limits one from experiencing some amazing talent. Just because you can dance to is, and it is accessible to the majority of people don’t make it lesser than. Pop music has a long-standing tradition of being seen as feminine, and as “of the body,” which is seen as less artistically sound and worthy than the masculine, “of the mind” rock or indie music scenes.

Is it because Lady Gaga is an attractive woman and hence, could never be a feminist, because you know, feminists are ugly, fat, hairy, bra-burners!

Ha, you know that one. All the myths associated with feminism, I’ve heard them all before! They never seem to go away. Let’s run them down: feminists are only women, they are not attractive (ugly), hate men (perhaps because their ugliness denies them a suitable mate), hate children, are lesbians, angry, don’t wear make-up, witches, choose career over family, cock-blockers, want to rule over men….did I get them all?  These myths serve in separating women from each other, and deter women from joining a movement that is about social, political and economic equality for not just women, but all.There is nothing wrong with that, except that it challenges a system of inequality in our culture that continues to keep women in a second class status. Challenging that is dangerous. Therefore these myths exist to maintain the status quo and silence any opposition.  And why would a beautiful woman want to get involved with any of that? She apparently has everything right? Oh, how wrong that assumption is, and Lady Gaga isn’t fooled by those myths. She smashes them with a sequined, flame-engulfed hammer.

You could say Gaga even makes fun of the whole bra-burner myth via her fabulous spark-bra. Read the rest of this entry »

I have fallen in love with Lady Gaga over the past month, and this post from Jukebox Heroines on the feminist themes in her music was too awesome not to share.  If you are interested in cross-posting or guest-posting at feministhemes.com, please contact me with your ideas at misswizzle@feministhemes.com.

Lady Gaga – The Fame (2008) on (Streamline/Konlive/Cherrytree/Interscope)

Part 1:

Oh snap. Yes, I just said it. Lady Gaga’s music is feminist. Why do I say such things? Because I can back it up. And because I love her music, videos, and persona. She is the reason I have actually started to listen to pop music again. So, let me tell you about feminist music….

Why do I say that her music is feminist? Whether or not she herself claims to be a feminist, her work criticizes gender, sexuality, the body, pop culture’s representations of women, and the nature of power. This in itself is a feminist act. Now, feminism, I guess we must define in some form, considering most representations of it are: man hater, bra burner, lesbian, ugly, want power over men, bitchy, hate children…..not true. Feminism is the political and social movement for women’s social, political, and economic equality. In that social part lies music, and Lady Gaga knows exactly what she is up against in the music industry. Feminist Music therefore, can be made by anyone, male/female/trans, as long as it fulfills the goals of fighting for equality and justice based on gender.

How does she present feminist ideas? I will give you a few examples. Read the rest of this entry »