Valentine's Day for a feminist

Every February 14, across the United States and in other places around the world, candy, flowers and gifts are exchanged between loved ones, all in the name of St. Valentine. But who is this mysterious saint, and where did these traditions come from? Find out about the history of this centuries-old holiday, from ancient Roman rituals to the customs of Victorian England.

The Legend of St. Valentine
The history of Valentine's Day--and the story of its patron saint--is shrouded in mystery. We do know that February has long been celebrated as a month of romance, and that St. Valentine's Day, as we know it today, contains vestiges of both Christian and ancient Roman tradition. But who was Saint Valentine, and how did he become associated with this ancient rite? 

The Catholic Church recognizes at least three different saints named Valentine or Valentinus, all of whom were martyred. One legend contends that Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death. 

Other stories suggest that Valentine may have been killed for attempting to help Christians escape harsh Roman prisons, where they were often beaten and tortured. According to one legend, an imprisoned Valentine actually sent the first "valentine" greeting himself after he fell in love with a young girl--possibly his jailor's daughter--who visited him during his confinement. Before his death, it is alleged that he wrote her a letter signed "From your Valentine," an expression that is still in use today. Although the truth behind the Valentine legends is murky, the stories all emphasize his appeal as a sympathetic, heroic and--most importantly--romantic figure. By the Middle Ages, perhaps thanks to this reputation, Valentine would become one of the most popular saints in England and France.

Origins of Valentine's Day: A Pagan Festival in February
While some believe that Valentine's Day is celebrated in the middle of February to commemorate the anniversary of Valentine's death or burial--which probably occurred around A.D. 270--others claim that the Christian church may have decided to place St. Valentine's feast day in the middle of February in an effort to "Christianize" the pagan celebration of Lupercalia. Celebrated at the ides of February, or February 15, Lupercalia was a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus, the Roman god of agriculture, as well as to the Roman founders Romulus and Remus. 

To begin the festival, members of the Luperci, an order of Roman priests, would gather at a sacred cave where the infants Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were believed to have been cared for by a she-wolf or lupa. The priests would sacrifice a goat, for fertility, and a dog, for purification. They would then strip the goat's hide into strips, dip them into the sacrificial blood and take to the streets, gently slapping both women and crop fields with the goat hide. Far from being fearful, Roman women welcomed the touch of the hides because it was believed to make them more fertile in the coming year. Later in the day, according to legend, all the young women in the city would place their names in a big urn. The city's bachelors would each choose a name and become paired for the year with his chosen woman. These matches often ended in marriage.

Valentine's Day: A Day of Romance
Lupercalia survived the initial rise of Christianity and but was outlawed—as it was deemed “un-Christian”--at the end of the 5th century, when Pope Gelasius declared February 14 St. Valentine's Day. It was not until much later, however, that the day became definitively associated with love. During the Middle Ages, it was commonly believed in France and England that February 14 was the beginning of birds' mating season, which added to the idea that the middle of Valentine's Day should be a day for romance. 

Valentine greetings were popular as far back as the Middle Ages, though written Valentine's didn't begin to appear until after 1400. The oldest known valentine still in existence today was a poem written in 1415 by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following his capture at the Battle of Agincourt. (The greeting is now part of the manuscript collection of the British Library in London, England.) Several years later, it is believed that King Henry V hired a writer named John Lydgate to compose a valentine note to Catherine of Valois.

                   The feminists don't hate Valentine's Day!

Valentine’s Day. V-Day. The Day of Love. Qi Qiao Ji (if you’re Chinese). Single Awareness Day. Whatever one wishes to call it, every Feb. 14 people all over the world participate in the one holiday that claims to be solely devoted to love. Despite my self-defined feminist persona, I will admit that I am still a hopeless romantic who gets rather excited about this holiday, even when I’m single. But when I shared my enthusiasm with my co-workers, they looked at me rather strangely.
I remembered the endless times I had heard that Valentine’s Day was in complete contradiction to feminism, about how the holiday reinforces the injustices of gay marriage bans, gender inequality, and domestic violence. How many times had I read in pages of everything from The New York Times Magazine to Cosmogirl that women shouldn’t wait around for valentines, that we are perfectly capable people without men at our side? Why was having a valentine necessary if modern women don’t need validation from men? I began to wonder if I could reconcile feminism with full-fledged Valentine’s Day enthusiasm. After much internal deliberation and external research, I concluded that my love of the Day of Love does not conflict with my status as a proud young feminist. Valentine’s Day is not inherently at odds with feminism, as some have tried to suggest. Rather, Valentine’s Day can be used to raise awareness not only about women’s rights, but about a variety of other causes as well. Many humanitarian organization organizations have started to use the holiday to their advantage, and progressives should follow their lead.

Feminists know a woman doesn’t need to have a man to make her happy. Her significant other should not be the sole determinant of her happiness. But many people still assume that a man has to make the first move on Valentine’s Day, which only reinforces notions of weak-willed, submissive women. Is this still what the average woman hopes for? If so, this is a problem with our culture, not with the holiday. I know plenty of women who have reversed the roles and asked men out for Valentine’s Day. Other countries have gotten it right; in many Asian countries, such a Korea and Japan, women actually give men gifts on Valentine’s Day. By denouncing the holiday as a whole, one is pre-supposing that it is a day where the men are in charge. The holiday is not going anywhere anytime soon, but women’s rights advocates have the opportunity to reshape the Valentine’s Day into a more progressive form. A strong woman can enjoy the holiday while acknowledging that it will not make or break her in any way, and that it can be celebrated on her terms.

In fact, groups such as V-Day, which performs The Vagina Monologues every January and February, already use the date to raise awareness about problems such as rape and domestic abuse. Their message is not to renounce love, but to remind Americans that there are still very serious problems in the women’s world today. The group uses the holiday to their advantage. Instead of denouncing the holiday as a one that is as anti-feminist—which is never going to succeed in making it disappear—feminists would be well-advised to embrace the holiday, making it their own in order to bring attention to complicated issues of love and gender.

Many have also argued that another reason the holiday is stuck in the traditional past is that it is a completely heterosexual affair. However, this is simply not the case anymore. The holiday has adapted, and gay rights advocates have given an important role to Valentine’s Day. Specialty stores and an endless number of online websites offer and sell gay-friendly Valentine’s Day cards. GLAAD uses the holiday to raise awareness about most Americans’ heterosexually biased language; it promotes asking about V-Day plans with “partners” rather than boyfriends or girlfriends. Unfortunately, Hallmark has yet to come out with a gay-friendly section. However, what better way to advocate for rights than to highlight this blatant inequality? Why not use Valentine’s Day to talk about the heterosexual biases that are still rampant?

In Iran, the holiday has evolved into a form of political protest. Valentine’s Day is not officially approved by the government, so it has caught on as a signal of revolt against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s oppressive regime. It is just one of the ways for the younger generation to subtly protest the traditions of the regime and their elders. In the recent past, fanatic groups within other countries have persecuted citizens for their decision to take place in Valentine’s Day. In Delhi, India in 2003, stores that rebelled against the tradition and sold Valentine’s Day cards were attacked by extremists from the Shiv Sena Party.

Finally, Valentine’s Day is perhaps one of the best days of the year to remind Americans about the practice of safe sex. Why should progressives reject a holiday that can be directly used to encourage and prove that people need sex education? There is no better time than Valentine’s Day to spread awareness about the need for comprehensive sex education, inexpensive and easy access to birth control and condoms, and similar sexual health issues. Feb. 14 is also National Condom Awareness Day.

Skeptics and lovers of Valentine’s Day alike should enjoy this Thursday free from guilt over
giving in to this incredibly commercial holiday.

 Spend it with your Valentine, even if it is just your parents or your best friends. Going on a Valentine’s Day date does not make one a hypocritical feminist and buying chocolates for someone you care about can only help the economy. Enjoy the day guilt-free in the knowledge that many organizations use the holiday to raise awareness about a variety of progressive issues, and follow in their footsteps if you so choose. Above all else, enjoy Valentine’s Day simply because holidays are meant to be enjoyed, regardless of their supposed political implications.

Can the feminists be fashionable in today's world?

Let's see more about fashion as this is one of the most important even of this week.

Feminism and fashion have always had a rocky relationship. Fashion has historically played  a tumultuous role in gender politics—both serving as a medium for the advancement of women, and as a weapon of restraint.
If feminists ignore fashion, we are ceding our power to influence it. Fortunately, history has shown that feminists can, instead, harness fashion and use it for our own political purposes.

It’s hard to deny the key role that fashion has played in the women’s movement.  When the rhetoric of equality fell on deaf ears, suffragists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made quite literal fashion statements. Green, white and violet jewelry was a favored suffragist accessory, but not because of any aesthetic imperative: The first letters of each color— G, W, V—was shorthand for give women votes.New York City women garment workers in the early 20th century  wore hats to signify that they were earning their own money, and thus financially independent. Women in the 1980s adopted a male style of dress (ties, tailored skirt suits, shoulder pads) in order to gain a foothold in the male dominated world of business. And Carol Moseley Braun, the first African American woman elected to the U.S. Senate, wore a pantsuit on the Senate floor in 1993, ending the Senate’s ban on women wearing slacks there.

That feminist notions that fashion can be destructive, certainly didn’t come from thin air. The fashion industry is notorious for pushing an impossible female body ideal, and sending the message to women that their self worth is tied up with owning the $1,500 shoes of the moment.

Fortunately, fashion in recent years does appear to be moving in a feminist direction. “It” designer of the moment Phoebe Philo has been met with acclaim at Céline offering streamlined clothing including strong jackets and wide-leg pleated pants perfect for career women. Blogger Leandra Medine of The Man Repeller has risen to Internet fame espousing fashion choices that are enjoyable for women to wear (but leave men scratching their heads). And Lady Gaga, the most ubiquitous style icon at the moment, plays with female archetypes, but has a personal style that is more easily classified avant-garde, rather than overtly sexy.

Still that damned if you do, damned if you don’t attitude persists in regards to women and fashion. Women with an interest in fashion are deemed retrograde and superficial.
"My passion for fashion can sometimes seem a shameful secret life,” wrote Princeton University English professor Elaine Showalter in 1997.
And indeed, after these words appeared in Vogue, more shame was heaped on her. Surely she must have “better things to do,” said one colleague.

Women who choose to ignore fashion trends are deemed slovenly and out of touch. Tim Gunn of Project Runway illustrated this attitude when on Lopez Tonight in 2011 he said of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “Why must she dress that way? I think she’s confused about her gender. All these big, baggy menswear-tailored pantsuits. No, I’m really serious. She wears pantsuits that are really unflattering.” But if she shows a hint of cleavage—as she famously did in 2007—it can ignite a media firestorm that eclipses her political platform.

The fact that even the most politically and culturally commanding women must walk a razor’s edge between looking powerful and still appearing “appropriately feminine” underscores visual theorist John Berger’s concise description of mainstream society: “Men act and women appear.” In other words, men are judged by their deeds; women, by their looks.

If feminism is fighting for equal political, economic and social rights for women, that should also include the ability for women to wear what they want to, without risk of personal or professional failure. Men in the workplace are praised for their actions, and women should be afforded that same latitude—whether they are wearing Jimmi Choo heels or  slippers.

Interestingly, feminism’s distaste for fashion goes to show that the toughest critics of women are often other women. Ask any woman who she is getting dressed up for, and the answer will inevitably be her girlfriends. On the flip side, women have certainly perpetuated stereotypes of what it looks like to be a successful and capable woman .

The global fashion industry generates over a trillion dollars a year—predominantly because women simply love fashion. So let’s ease up on judging one another by what we wear, and remind ourselves that fashion, at its best, is supposed to be fun.
Wearing fashion does not have to mean that we allow it to wear us down.

The feminism started with Eve

"If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, together women ought to be able to turn it right side up again." - Sojourner Truth

The feminist condition for Fashion Week in New York

It's New York fashion week, and there's a lot to hate about it. The crash diets. The extremely skinny, disturbingly young runway models who are held up as "ideal", and all the ways they're exploited. Then there's the extravagant cost of the clothing, where a shopper may drop in one trip what many Americans make in a month.

What's not to hate is the creativity, the art and the women whose shopping sustains the industry.

It's all too satisfying to brand women who like fashion as shallow, self-involved or dumb. And there's certainly a lot to be criticized when it comes to promoting consumption based on a particular brand identity meant to signify wealth – the signature Louis Vuitton bag, the big Chanel Cs. Through the recession, brand identity went slightly more covert in response to an increased hostility to gross displays of wealth, but also as a way to establish a sense of insider-ness. Only the "in crowd" knows the exact shape of a Chloe bag or the signature weave of Bottega Veneta.

Displays of pure consumption to signal social and economic status are not exactly progressive, but it's hypocritical to single out women for being shallow in their wardrobe spending. Men spend money on things that are just as unnecessary and just as intended to signal class and social tribe. For men, items like bespoke suits, fancy cars or innumerable electronics somehow signal a James Bond image, not a shallow one.

While it's a common assumption that women simply have more clothing items in their closets than men, that also reflects social necessity. Women can be (and are) fired for not being attractive enough, for not wearing enough make-up, for being too attractive or for not putting out the right "look". And being attractive isn't just about whether or not your face is pretty; it's about how you signal your social class and your sexual availability.

Women walk this tightrope daily, which is why this fantastic piece of feminist art by Rosea Lakes went so quickly viral. Her piece shows a woman's leg with horizontal lines written on it – lines closer to the ankle are labeled "matronly", "prudish" and "old-fashioned", while lines higher up the thigh segue from "flirty" to "provocative" to "asking for it" to "whore".

Many women, myself included, recognized the inherent silliness in those lines, but also the fact that we have a skirt for every one.

When it comes to fashion, then, women are socially shamed no matter what we do. Don't engage at all? There are entire television series dedicated to making you over, since you clearly lack self-esteem. Do a little shopping but at cheap low-end stores? You look "trashy". Buy pricier items and enjoy it? You're shallow and materialistic.

The feminist condition for Fashion Week in New York

There are of course some extremely talented women who excel at perusing the aisles of thrift stores and second-hand shops, and who balance loving fashion with a dedication to social justice (no sweatshop labor) and the environment (recycled clothing). My friend Kate Goldwater, the owner of New York's AuH2O boutique, is one of them. But stores like hers aren't nearly as ubiquitous as designer shops, and women who work in places that demand business wear usually can't get away with only rocking vintage and thrifted finds. And unlike men, women can't recycle through the same three high-end suits and be considered "well-dressed".

Women, for better or worse – although mostly worse – are the class of people who are on physical display. Sure, men are judged by their appearance, but as long as they look clean and are wearing an outfit within the universe of what's considered socially appropriate for the occasion, they'll avoid criticism. While being an attractive man is beneficial in the job market, being an attractive woman is beneficial only if you're in a traditionally female career. Otherwise, even pretty women face job discrimination.

There are racial elements to this as well. Some companies, like retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, have reportedly favored hiring employees with "all-American" good looks. Black women have long been told that natural hair or braids aren't "professional" (meaning they should have to spend money and time chemically straightening their hair to fit someone else's aesthetic ideal).

And, of course, the body you're putting into the clothes changes how the outfit is read. A relatively thin, flat-chested woman wearing a v-neck blouse isn't a problem, but bustier women are accused of attention-seeking or looking "inappropriate". A few years ago, conservative bloggers went wild over a photo of Bill Clinton and several liberal writers, because Jessica Valenti, the founder of Feministing.com and one of the bloggers in the photo, was wearing a crew-neck sweater, under which were two breasts. For women who are big-busted, sometimes a turtleneck isn't even enough coverage to be considered "professional".

Of course a lot of us have closets full of clothes to make sure we can meet these ever-shifting demands, and the many requirements of varying social and professional settings.

Fashion is also fun, at least for some of us. While I'm the first person to object to the social expectation that women be visually pleasing creatures, as long as I'm in that jail, I'm gonna take joy where I can get it.

Aesthetics aren't the enemy of feminism; social codes that require women to meet certain aesthetic principles, and to be constantly putting in time, effort and money in the service of femininity, are the enemy. Fight the system, not the people who do their best to operate in it, or, God forbid, take a little pleasure where they can find it. Gendered fashion requirements are bad. Enjoying the self-expression and aesthetic appeal of clothing? Girl, go ahead and enjoy your new shoes.

That's the central issue though, isn't it? That fashion is a thing girls enjoy, and so therefore it must be silly and stupid. There's nothing that makes an afternoon of shopping any sillier than an afternoon watching football; there's nothing inherently less useful about a handbag than a new video game. But because fashion and clothes are stereotypically feminine pursuits and sports are stereotypically masculine, fashion is frivolous and sports are awesome. Women who spend money on themselves are self-involved. Men who do are either dapper or early adapters of the gadget du jour or just "that guy with the boat".

Men, in fact, spend more money on consumer products than women. They spend $11 a day more on average, and they're less likely to be the kind of smart shopper who compares prices and returns items they don't like. But men aren't considered frivolous spenders, because the connotations of the very word "frivolity" are feminine.

Men are also the ones enjoying the lion's share of the money and the fame for women's "shallow" interest in fashion. They outnumber female designers and they get more recognition. The New York Times noted in 2005 that The Council of Fashion Designers of America had given its prestigious annual award to young talent to 29 men and eight women. While male designers have taken home the Womenswear Award 13 out of 18 years, a woman has never won the CDFA Menswear award.

The system that keeps women out of top tier positions, even in industries that largely cater to and are supported by women, is worthy of condemnation. And I won't argue with critics of mindless consumerism. But for all of its faults, the fashion industry creates wearable art, and its designers display laudable ingenuity, creativity and commitment to aesthetic pleasure.

So I hope Fashion Week naysayers were also turning their noses up at last weekend's money-drenched Superbowl, even the best fashion shows don't cost $126,666 per second or $4m a spot like Superbowl ads. And for everything you can say about fashion being a mindless endeavor, at least it doesn't require its players to literally destroy their brains in order to succeed.