Monday, October 6, 2014

Feminism, definition, and criticism

I think I'm finally getting the hang of being on tumblr.

A lot of the time, I feel afraid to criticize anyone. People who claim to be feminist who are radical, especially, since those people are the types who pull the victim card, argue that you're triggering and oppressing them (I may be a member of an oppressive class to them, sure, but sometimes that seems really irrelevant, like being a member of an oppressed class doesn't free you from fucking up or make you immune to criticism). But I also feel afraid to criticize those who say things like "We don't need feminism anymore" or that feminism has turned into a hate movement- the same people who complain about "not all men" (which perhaps may be valid, perhaps feminists need to clarify that statement a little more) but then turn around and point out the actions of extremist feminists and act like those actions of an extremist few mean the movement as a whole is bunk and ridiculous.

I've got news for those people: feminism comes from a history fraught with racist and classist issues, not to mention a shitton of eugenics, holy fucking crap. Eugenics EVERYWHERE. And obviously not all of those issues are gone.

My issue with feminist criticism is ... well, actually, I have no issue with valid, logical criticism of feminism (especially when coupled with suggestions for how feminism could improve!) but I find that most of these (this is just in my experience) come from people who already identify as feminist and have for a long time and who place great value in the movement. To me, those people want to see feminism change for the better, to make it more valuable and relevant. People who actively claim not to be feminists who criticize the movement to me don't have the same aim. Why would they be interested in making feminism better if they're not a part of it anyway? To me, saying "I'm not a feminist" and then critiquing feminism means your aim must be to destroy it, to obliterate it, to say "anything good it accomplished was in the past" and move on to some other movement (that probably has the exact same goals anyway).

And I can acknowledge that receiving or even making critique of a field you love and support and care about deeply can be really, really hard. Because to you, this movement is great and wonderful and of course you don't want to admit that some part of it might be wrong! But I think it's important that feminism critiques itself (mainly the ways in which it is presented) in order to change and improve.

This is frustrating because it's so hard to define feminism. It almost seems like everyone has their own separate definitions- although I think one of gender equality and the expanding of genders beyond the binary is kind of where it's at. I think it tends to focus on women's issues because feminism was a movement borne out of women calling attention to their issues. It was borne of suffrage, of critique of political rights, of a lot of critique of marriage as an institution, etc etc.

And you can't say "feminism doesn't just get to include issues of race too that's not fair" because it's literally impossible for feminism to be valid without it being intersectional. My experience as a woman is likely very coloured by my skin colour and class and many other factors. Different women experience sexism differently, and it's really important to keep that in mind. Without that you often just end up with a bunch of women like myself- white, upper class, heterosexual, able bodied, etc- trying to solve their problems while neglecting the problems that other women face. That's not fair, and that certainly isn't inclusive. Of course feminism focuses mainly on gender issues, but it also acknowledges that issues of race, class, and many others cut through that. Identities are complex.

And I'm getting really tired of people saying feminism doesn't care about men's issues (it does and goddamn that needs to be publicized more), or worse, that feminism caused men's issues. Feminism opposes the same shitty social structures that mean men are incapable of being emotional or caring or sweet or timid, because those same shitty social structures mean that women, no matter what they are, are kind of always laughed at, whether they are emotional, caring, sweet, or timid OR brash, loud, opinionated, and aggressive.

That is also why to me, feminism has the "femin" bit. Because if a man successfully fulfills all his societal duties, and is the perfect replica of all the descriptors we associate with masculinity, then he is socially rewarded. He is a real man, good for him. But if a woman does the same, fulfills her societal duties and is a perfect replica of her descriptors, she's "weak" and "irrational" and "too emotional to ever be in charge of anything" (except running a home and raising children, apparently). If she fulfills all the male characteristics, she's too much- too loud, too opinionated, too career-driven, too bossy. If men don't take time to help out with the raising of their children, that's almost commonplace (although I'd like to think it's becoming less so now), but god forbid a woman do the same.. but if she stays at home to raise kids, she's "just a homemaker."

This is what bothers me. We've set up a system in which men can only win (i.e. be accepted, something along those lines) by fitting this narrow, constrictive mold... but at the same time, women can't win, even if they fill their mold. So it's obviously unfair to both parties, but at the same time, one party still has a chance. That's what strikes me as unfair. Men should be allowed to fulfill whatever role they feel most comfortable in, but so should women. We should all be winning. This doesn't mean you have to like everyone else on the planet, it just means they can't be unfairly held back by their gender OR how their gender is performed. That's really shitty and restrictive and sucks for everyone. Plus, it sets up systems where people (women especially) are taught to be jealous of those around them who better fulfill those characteristics, and it also seems like it would result in a lot of identity crises. It just doesn't work. It's silly, it's arbitrary, and it doesn't work.

My thoughts are that after some kind of social system is established in which people feel free to fulfill whatever characteristics they want, gender will become kind of arbitrary. What makes me a woman anyway? What makes someone a woman? It isn't their genitals, because then what about trans people? What about people born with genitals that aren't one of two sets? It doesn't work. Obviously you can still define people by biological sex, but gender is a really, really weird thing. It affects so much of our lives, and that pisses me off.


On a final note, I had an interesting idea about job/school applications (or applications for anything in general, really). I think it would be neat to set up a system in which people's names, ages, and races were completely left out of an application, and the only way to pick an applicant was solely on their merits. Obviously you'd need some way to contact them- I think a phone number could work for that, or even an email which is vague and gender neutral. Really I think that would eliminate a lot of discrimination... but then I don't know. I also thought it solved the problem of "affirmative action" because you can't select people based on their gender or race. It's more merit-based than based on whether or not your gender or race has historically been accepted to that position/school/institution/whatever...and obviously there would still have to be interviews... hmm. I didn't think of that. Any thoughts?

yer pal,
swegan

No comments:

Post a Comment

comment-type-thingies