This was the topic suggested by one of our visitors last week, and the winner probably because of them too. I had some reservations about the discussion, but in the end it turned out well enough. Maybe I should stop being so pessimistic.
The trouble with modern feminism is mostly that nobody knows what it is, in my opinion. While the feminists of the 19th century had clear and specific goals, that were achieved for the most part, modern feminism is more about attitudes than legislation. Even the Second Wave had clear targets. Now, the obstacles to equality are more in people's minds and behavior than in the law, which makes them much more difficult to overcome. This is especially true because many people do not even know these obstacles exist in others, not to mention themselves. Even being equal before the law does not mean we are treated equally in practice, as any minority can attest, and this is the mindset that modern feminists try to attack. As humans, we have a tendency to group people and consider the group an individual belongs to rather than the qualities of that individual, not in an attempt to discriminate for the sake of discrimination, but simply for efficiency. Unfortunately, we no longer live in small groups of a few hundred. Our biology is not set up to tackle cities of thousands and millions, especially when a great number of groups are represented in the population. We have to fight against our "instincts" to be good modern humans. Feminism focuses on women and the problems they face, naturally, but the goals of feminism are good for men as individuals as well. When each individual person is responsible for him or herself, rather than automatically being expected to be attached to any number of other people, stress is lowered. Men should not be expected to sacrifice their health by working excessive hours just as much as women should not be expected to sacrifice their working lives for the possibility of having a family. Some people might make those choices for themselves; the key word there, however, is "choice" rather than simply doing what is expected. If more resources exist for women to escape violence in their families, or deal with physical and mental violence from coworkers or even strangers, it is because we have organized and created those resources or been able to convince the authorities that it makes sense to protect a vulnerable population. Also, the idea exists that women are more sensitive and in touch with their feelings than men, and more capable of using a network of people to support them, while men are go-it-alone types who do not need such help and who should never complain about difficulties. By breaking down that stereotype, we can allow men to access the same mental health support offered to women, without the disdain they commonly receive today. Things can change. Things do change. One failure of feminism has been the fact that, while women are more allowed into men's spaces, women's traditional spaces have not been given enough respect to be attractive or acceptable to men. Women can wear pants and nobody, except certain religious whackaloons, says anything about it, but if a man wears a skirt he is a rebel or a weirdo. We celebrate CEOs and scientific researchers who happen to be women, but suspect Mr. Brown the kindergarten teacher or Mr. Green the daycare provider to be pedophiles. We wonder, why would any man want to be around children, especially children who are not his own? We are still stuck with the idea that only women nurture and there is something terribly wrong with a man who does so.
Another problem with modern feminism, which has actually existed from the beginning of the movement, is the lack of attention paid to intersectionality by leaders of the movement. From the beginning, it has been for the benefit of women like me - white, educated, from an industrialized country and at least middle-class socioeconomic background. Not to mention heterosexual, able bodied and without any glaring mental illness. Women of color, women with disabilities, poor women and transwomen have felt themselves excluded from the movement, and some even refuse to use the term feminist when they agitate for greater equality, preferring to be called "womanists". They have legitimate complaints about the movement, but why would the people it most represents not be feminists? How can people who claim to believe in equal rights not accept the label of feminist? Some believe it is a term for a sort of activist, and if they do not participate in rallies or marches, or write letters and emails to their government representatives, they do not fit the description. Others have bought into the propaganda spread by social conservatives who use scare tactics to guide people away from all social justice movements. They claim feminism wants to simply reverse the social order, making men slaves to women. They see any recognition of the rights and inherent humanity of those not in their group as a reduction of their rights and humanity. The Leader has mentioned in many meetings that the powerful use the fears and obligations of the less powerful to maintain the status quo and continue the social hierarchy, and this is exactly what it happening. A leveling of social status is terrifying to those on top, not because they would then be on the bottom, but because they simply cannot conceive of those from lower strata is being as human as they are, and as deserving of respect.
Our Doctor began with the opinion that there was not much to discuss concerning the topic, since everybody agrees that we should be equal. He brought up the victim blaming so common when a woman is attacked or raped, not supporting it fully, but saying that provocative clothing does bring out certain instincts. He also reminded us that feminism is different in different areas of the world, which is certainly true, but given our circumstances we most likely should limit ourselves to its manifestation in the West. He admitted his perspective of women can only be from his own experiences, and ended his first speech with a rather romantic statement that women are the best thing in the world, so it makes to sense to discriminate against them. He gave us a more medical viewpoint next, explaining that biologically men and women are different animals. We have (some) different organs, our hormonal balances are different, bones develop in a different way, etc. Again, he fell into a romantic mood, describing the superiority of women in terms of physical resistance and intelligence. He also insisted that the law today tells us we are equal, but socially, he admitted, we still have some way to go. He later blamed money for the continued sexism in society, as it also promotes other social conflicts. Regarding us as individuals, he reminded us that our genetic code is unique, in all the universe. We do not understand each other because we do not even understand ourselves. We are looking for a perfect state of mind, an absence of passion, but so many factors influence our mental state that we are forever entrapped in our passions. One of his final thoughts was that reality is very unreal, a statement easily interpreted in a multitude of ways.
The True Philosopher does not consider himself an expert in the subject area, but came up with a short article pointing out some of the achievements and the obstacles still in our way. In the meeting, he told us that there is a noticeable difference in the popularity of feminism in different areas of his country. In rural areas, traditional gender roles are more strongly enforced, and influence from the West is minimal. Women's liberation is a non-issue. In cities like Manila, on the other hand, the movement does exist, I imagine with the same problems of class and social status that plague Western feminism. Interestingly, matriarchal societies do exist in Pacific island cultures, and even in the Philippines, ostensibly patriarchal, there are realms where the woman reigns and the man does not venture, for instance, regarding the marriage of children.
The Leader, too, did not profess great knowledge of feminism in particular, but has displayed strong opinions on social inequalities in general in the past. He questioned the success of the movement, first in writing, then in the meeting, pointing out that even so-called "wins" have had serious negative consequences for women, using maternity leave and its detrimental effect on the career as an example. He hammered away at the idea of male privilege in the workplace, insisting that men are favored because they are easier to manipulate, having to comply with the social image of the "family provider". The Leader suspects, perhaps more than just suspects, that married men are given more weight in the hiring and employment process because of their supposed greater responsibility. Furthermore, in those fields where women have entered with little difficulty, the reason is not that their qualifications were recognized but that men left the field, so that the gap had to be covered. This is most evident in wartime, at least in past wars when large numbers of men were shuffled off to the service. Women were allowed to take over the heavy lifting at home, even in the factories as famously promoted during World War II, but when the men came home it was back to the kitchen. He disagreed flatly about the importance of biological differences in regarding men and women. There are some obvious differences, but there are also obvious differences between individuals, which are really more important. People should be given what they need, or the means to get what they need, according to the Leader, and in the case of discrimination against women the blocking of access to health care is clearly wrong and inhumane. He is also aware of the problems feminism has in serving all women, even in a single country, and blames the lack of progress on the movement's attachment to political ideas instead of social ones.
A Sometime Participant spoke of the superficial changes that have been applied, but warning us that the public face that celebrates modern equality can be the private face that clings to old inequalities. Change does happen through all levels of society, but only little by little. Echoing the True Philosopher's observations on rural women, she stressed that claiming rights depends on education. For this reason, societies with higher levels of education might seem to be more unstable and less happy, because people are aware of what they can have and are demanding it. By extension, we can guess this is the reason some cultures wish certain groups, women in particular, to remain uneducated. The same could be said for the slave owners of the past, who punished those who dared to teach slaves to read. Finally, this participant wondered why the rates of domestic violence and rape are so high in such egalitarian countries as the Scandinavian ones, a question many ask simply as a gotcha. However, one reason may be just that a more egalitarian society encourages people to report abuses; they are confident that their complaints will be taken seriously and they will not be victimized again by police and other authorities.
The Educator did not much care for the bio-determinism from the Doctor, insisting that despite some physical differences, humans are more similar than dissimilar. Much of the trouble is our resistance to change, so all the prejudices of the past linger far longer than they should. Religious superstitions should be counted among those prejudices, for example the story of Eve and the serpent, which blames women for the hardships we suffer in our lives. To support her thesis of similarity, the Educator reminded us that when women have power, they are perfectly happy to start wars and be aggressive towards other countries. The problem is not having testicles, it is having power. Although some believe feminism to be an extremist movement, it is necessary in her opinion. Women suffer more poverty and abuse, even in "advanced" societies, and are objectified to sell other objects to men. Even if the reverse were to happen, the goal is to respect people, not turn them into things to have and use. She also fretted about the culture of beauty that women face every day, feeling pressure to use make-up, heels, and flattering clothes while men just have to show up. Other participants stated that they used make-up only because they enjoyed it, and the Leader told us it would behoove men to pay more attention to their grooming as well, not let everyone forget about it. In any case, the point is to respect people as entire individuals, not as the shells they parade around.
A Prodigal Participant remarked that the discussion really should even be necessary, since we theoretically agree that civil rights are due to everyone. We have to morally reject violence against women. He scolded us a little for our generalizations of men, saying that men do not get together to decide what the collective opinion on women is. Just a reminder of how easy it is to see an opponent as a monolith and all similar individuals as your opponents as well, no matter what their actual views may be.
The Seeker of Happiness believes that voting is the key to all social changes, if only we would exercise our right properly. He also thought that the general attitude of society that scorns children as unimportant in reality, meanwhile exulting them as all important in the abstract, is the major source of discrimination against women, since we are the ones who actually "produce" children. He, like the rest, insisted that the fight must continue, that we cannot allow resignation to overcome us, because there is still work to do. He is confident that the causes of violence and disrespect will be identified and eliminated in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment