Apparently, people who believe in a fairly basic standard of equality are a dying breed. Joy.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, almost all these articles are basing their proposal on the same "evidence": feminists are constantly disagreeing with each other, fighting for multiple causes at once, and don’t seem to have a cohesive aim. The authors of these articles, and anyone who agrees, infers that this is substantial evidence to assume that feminism has outgrown its use. They point to times gone by, of organised marches and timetabled bra-burning, when women were focused on one specific goal and set out to achieve it; apparently this is what “real feminism” should look like. And since we have moved on from the ~cohesive movement~ of the 70’s, surely feminism is now derelict and outdated?
…Nope.
This train of thought relies on the assumption that feminism must be a tight-knit community movement, with central ideologies and structured plans of action. Firstly I’d like to point out the logistics: females make up roughly 49.6% of the world population. That is quite a few too many people to organise into a “uniform sisterhood”, don’t you think? Then there is racial diversity. Women from different racial and cultural backgrounds are influenced to have different experiences as women/females, and one perspective is not less valid than another. Oh and then we have socio-economic status. And sexual orientation. And gender identity. Skin colour. Body shape. Ability. Marital status. Get the picture? Unlike other global-wide movements, such as Christianity or Islam, humanism, capitalism (and even they have their contextual subcategories), feminism is based on the experiences and needs of real people, who are too diverse to label under a single doctrine.
Secondly, the glorification of the 1970’s marches, rallies and bra-burnings of what is commonly known as second-wave feminism, is quite harmful. That phase of feminism did indeed bring many helpful reforms and previously taboo topics to the world’s attention. However it was specific in its aims, and exclusive in its participants. Women of colour were often put down by that movement; made to walk at the back of the march or not participate at all. Trans-women were generally excluded, and in fact, the “heroines of the 70’s” were mostly just white, Western, middle and upper class women, and their “cohesive goals” usually only benefitted them.
 |
| They're all white! |
So you see, the fact that feminism is non-uniform, non-centred and “all over the place” is because in the 21st century we have started to see previously silenced and marginalised members of society being able to take a place in feminism, and bring their unique ideologies, issues, fighting tactics and sisterhoods to the forefront. It is important that some women focus on anti-workplace discrimination legislation, and others on ripping apart gender roles at their core. It’s important that some people focusing solely on African American women, others on women’s rights to wear a hijab. Invalidating feminism because it’s not a “real movement” with “a central ideology” is a fairly ignorant stance to take, and it serves only to silence marginalised folk. Again.
If you type "feminist theory" into Wikipedia, you end up with an extremely long list of all the different variants of feminism. And with each little blue hyperlink lies another rapidly breeding family of sub-movements, each with a handful of different theories and so on. This doesn’t mean feminism is illegitimate. It means there is no one single ideology because feminism is a discussion. It’s an ongoing process of questioning, talking about, and critiquing the world around us in a million and one ways, and chipping away at oppressive structures from a million and one angles. The internal fights can be a problem. The mixed messages can confuse people. But each conflict, resolution and discussion enriches feminism little by little, and it’s rather beautiful.
Leave your comments, questions and thoughts below :)
Hannah
No comments:
Post a Comment
No hate or harmful comments