I Would Love to do Meredith Goldstein's Taxes

by Shaker Phira, a crazy, bird-owning Bostonian feminist who is lucky enough to work in a very unique female-dominated biology lab.

I've grown up and lived in or around the Boston area for my entire life, and since my parents have always subscribed to the Boston Globe, I still turn to the Globe as my primary news resource. Now that I read it online, instead of in print, I also spend a lot of time reading the various blog-columns, including Meredith Goldstein's "Love Letters."

For a long time, it's been a guilty pleasure. I've always felt as if I shouldn't be reading the column, as if somehow I might be giving ammunition to anti-feminists who might claim I read the column because my feminism has made it difficult for me to have fulfilling (heterosexual) relationships. That's not true, obviously. But that's what's made it a guilty pleasure, instead of a plain old pleasure.

But today, not only do I know why I've read the column again or again, but I also now have a burning desire to do Meredith Goldstein's taxes.*

Today's column is entitled: "I want to sweep a lady off her feet." I groaned when I read it. To me, the whole "sweep person off their feet" screams of bad romantic comedies (and Meredith apparently agrees). But then I saw Meredith's introduction to the letter:

This letter is about little feminism, purses, and lunch on Tuesdays. Not in that order. Enjoy it while I go dig up my old Women's Studies papers.

Feminism? Women's Studies papers? This was about to get interesting.

The letter, written by a young (male) lawyer, is rather obnoxious, but not in an unexpected or absolutely mind-boggling fashion. The man complains that all the "girls" he meets are either bitchy feminists who try to kill him if he treats them like ladies, or they're gold-diggers with MRS. degrees. Where oh where, he asks, can he find someone who wants to be treated like a lady?! And he writes all of this off as him being a "hopeless romantic," who just wants a real romance.

Meredith does not give him advice on where to find these "girls" who want to be treated like "ladies." She step-by-step explains the flaws within his reasoning, and more importantly, his attitudes. She immediately makes it clear that romantic comedies instill in many of us an unrealistic idea of what love is. As for feet-sweeping: "I'm all for feet-sweeping, but that should be the second or third step in any good relationship. The first step is really getting to know someone as a peer."

The use of the word "peer" here is excellent; dating and relationships involve getting to know another person as just that: another person. Additionally, you don't just magically fall into the rom-com life of getting lost in the moment or whatever. You know the person.

And Meredith doesn't think this man is getting to know the people he's dating; he's immediately expecting romance without making an effort to learn about this potential partner. Although Meredith doesn't say so outright, from this man's letter, it seems as if he's looking for a woman to act as a place-holder for his fantasy, something that many women are expected to fulfill, both historically and currently.

And then, the making-my-day point of Meredith's response:

And whatever you do, cut it out with the anti-feminist talk. It's ridiculous. You say you want to find a woman who wants to be treated like a lady. Most women want to be treated like a human. Think about how you'd want to be treated and behave accordingly. Be a friend.

Meredith is calling this man's letter and his ideas what they truly are: anti-feminist. She doesn't avoid the subject, or the language, in order to downplay the feminist issues and avoid using the "f" word.

I think it's highly unusual, not only to find feminist writing like this in mainstream newspapers, but also to see the word "feminism" used, and portrayed as a positive thing, something that isn't radical, but expected. It's not radical to suggest that a man treat a woman like a human being. Meredith is very simply and effortlessly making feminism relevant to her column-readers.

Why is it so important that the Globe has a feminist writing a relationship advice column? Not only are we getting a twice-weekly dose of advice from a feminist, but we're also getting that advice on personal relationships, which (as seen from this week's column especially) can be greatly affected by sexism, stereotypes, and gender expectations. Also, it's important because now I won't ever feel guilty reading this column ever again.

Additionally, the first comment on the column, made by someone with the username "proudfeminist," calls out the male letter-writer for constantly referring to women as "girls." It's awesome.

* The title of this post and this particular line are inspired by Melissa's "Feminism 101: On Language and the Commodification of Sex Via Humor," where she suggests that instead of saying, "I love you and want to marry you/have your babies/etc.," we try saying things like, "I love you and want to do your taxes for you free of charge."