The Other Side of the Argument?

I’m having a lovely car ride in Sydney peak hour traffic, listening to ABC’s Triple J, when I hear the news group “Hack” announce they will host a segment over whether or not we should change the date of Australia Day. Two thoughts immediately occured - firstly, “duh we should change the date, or just cancel it”, and secondly, “Triple J, we know you’re politically alligned with the progressive left wing, why are you even bothering to give equal airtime to the right wing? Why are you giving conservatives a space to promote their regressive ideas?’”

Obviously, this argument comes with the precedent that conservative ideas are counterproductive for social equality and progression, but hey, this blog would be an empty shell without that paradigm.

Very often, progressive organisations or movements provide open panels and discussions on leftist issues, and invite conservative interlocutors to create a two sided conversation. Although this sounds lovely and fair and democratic, I actually see many problems with this model of publicly discussing feminist ideas.

When the Australian government provided equal funding to the “yes” and “no” campaign for the (thankfully cancelled) marriage equality plebescite, when SBS and every other left-wing news company under the sun continually invites Trump supporters for interviews, when white Australian patriots have a centre seat on a change-the-date-panel, I do not see an even, open minded platform of discussion. I see conservative opinions given space in places they do not need to be, with the inevitable impact of progression being held back as panelists have to spend expensive commercial TV airtime politely explaining that Indegenous Australians are systematically disadvantaged by a lingering colonialist and racist Australian culture, rather than addressing the actual issue of January 26th.

Ultimately, these discussions hosted by progressive institutions go absolutely nowhere while the right wing somehow manages to publicly endorse only their own views in their topical debates - Fox News rarely features a leading left wing thinker to provide an alternative view on the issue at hand.

Why this disparity? The first thing that comes to mind is some convoluted form of respectability politics. Which is basically just a buzzword for “the Left and the oppressed are expected to pander to what a power majority decrees as ‘respectable’”.

We live in a world where the right wing has always been the archetype of what is polite, respectable and acceptable, especially when discussing politics. Martin Luther King addressed the problem of the “White moderate”; the White person who denounces racism in the quiet privacy of their home, but criticises any radical, violent or loud protests as “unneccessary” and “impolite”. The fact that successful, empowering conversations about implicit biases in police brutality, or the responsibility of all cisgender people to be accountable for transphobia, are constantly shut down because they threaten and challenge the privilege of social majorities causes the Left to strive for acceptance within a conservative world. This inevitably means sacrificing the impact of Radical, important ideas for a more politically central, “respectable” discussion in the hope that it will draw in a conservative audience. There is definitely credit in reaching out to a wide demographic, but I see a problem when every Leftist forum feels it necessary to trade off their values for public respect.

Firstly as stated before - I view these discussions as extremely stagnant. Hack’s January 26th discussion came to the conclusion: “maybe it’s bad. Maybe it’s good.” Perhaps if the panel held a variety of opinions from across the broad and diverse spectrum of “the Left”, the conversation would have quickly established the issues with celebrating a day of invasion and oppression and begun to constructively discuss possible alternatives or critique the general Australian attitude towards Indigenous issues. Secondly I find it extremely disempowering that progressive values are deemed less worthy of airtime and respect than their right wing counterparts. When feminist ideas are denied a popular space to exist in society, it sends a message that feminism is not as legitimate as conservatism, despite the former actively empowering and bettering many people’s lives.

Ultimately, space in a public forum is the most important way for minorities to express their experiences and opinions, and attempt to enact change within their societies. But when these spaces are infringed upon by a pressure to conform to conservative standards of “respectability”, our conversations are prevented from achieving their goals.

Hannah

Feminism is a Discussion

Time and time again, articles come out on influential newspapers and online magazines, claiming "feminism is finished".
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