The Retort

Clearing Up Confusion

October 23rd, 2009 by Jen Gross Of The Retort Staff

I am alarmed and unsettled by the reaction of many of my peers at the mention of “feminism.” Alarmed and unsettled, but not shocked. Most people who don’t self-identify as feminists hold serious misconceptions about the true meaning of the terms “feminist” and “feminism.” It is time to clear up the confusion.

At its very foundation, feminism is the belief that there ought to be equality between the sexes. Women and men should be no more and no less than equal in opportunity within our societal, cultural, and political institutions. Feminism challenges the dominant cultural and historical view that men, and their associated “masculinity,” are somehow superior to women and the concept of “femininity.”

Although patriarchy and male superiority have existed throughout history, the common misconceptions about and disdain for feminists can be traced back to the late 1960s. At that time, women began mobilizing and organized their complaints of discrimination, oppression and exploitation into a prominent social movement. These women’s actions provoked an intense and lasting oppositional movement, known as a backlash.

The dreaded backlash. It occurs in response to popular and influential movements, ideas or actions that not only suggest, but require, systemic change, and often a reassessment of one’s own values and actions. Many social movements elicit resistance from the mainstream because it almost always means that a person or a group of people will have to give up power and privilege.

The feminist movement of the late 1960s and 1970s threatened men’s position of power in the workforce, in politics, and in just about every other social institution save home economics and child rearing. Sensing this threat, men who didn’t care to consider women their equals, as well as women who didn’t perceive their inferior position in society as problematic, contributed to one of the most troubling backlashes of the twentieth century. The effects of that backlash, also known as antifeminism, can still be readily observed forty years later.

Today, an antifeminist attitude permeates the popular culture. Women who speak up against exploitation in the media, or who promote closing the gender earnings gap, are too often written off as wacked-out “radicals,” who would be better off not bucking the system that so clearly defines and distinguishes the rolls of women and men. Meanwhile, images of women in the media clearly send the message that women are objects, and that they should be happy to be considered so, while women continue to earn just 77 cents for every dollar that men earn.

It’s disheartening to see so many misconceptions about feminism cropping up right here at MSUB. I have frequently heard my peers refer to feminists as “overzealous, man-hating, hairy-legged dissidents.” First of all, I am inclined to point out that is an ad hominen argument. Rather than address the actual issue of gender discrimination, antifeminists often resort to cheap name-calling and defamatory tactics in an attempt to discredit the virtues of feminist thought and praxis.

Despite its prevalence, I have yet to encounter an antifeminist argument, on campus or off, that actually dismantles the premise that women and men ought to be treated equally within our societal institutions. Generally, antifeminist arguments rely on science or religion to “prove” that women are, in fact, inferior to men. For example, women are said to be biologically inferior to men, and the Bible is often quoted to justify subordination. However, similar arguments were once made by white people to justify the use of black people for human slavery. We can all agree (I hope) that the merit of those scientific and religious arguments did not justify slavery, even though at the time, many (white) people believed that it did. The same is true of contemporary arguments used to justify discrimination against women.

Often I encounter people who have so bought into the dominant patriarchal worldview that they are delusional to the point of thinking gender equality is one of the most preposterous concepts since affirmative action. “Sexism doesn’t exist, anymore,” men say, as they ogle the dangerously underweight and scantily clad female models in their magazines. “Sexism doesn’t exist, anymore,” women say as they despair at the sight of the impossibly thin and flawless models in their magazines. “Why bother with a women’s movement?” they ask. My reply? If we don’t bother, equality, peace and universal respect are but distant and unattainable pipedreams.

To me, antifeminism is chillingly reminiscent of yet another misconception, which happened to be a widely-held belief during the Age of Enlightenment. The French philosopher René Descartes led many people to believe that nonhuman animals were in fact automata, creatures incapable of feeling physical pain or any form of emotion. He espoused the practice of vivisection, whereby painful experiments, including the dismemberment of live, unanesthetized animals, were to be performed in the name of science.

Believe it or not, sexism and vivisection arise from the same conceptual framework that encourages a dominant group to use and exploit a group that is perceived as the inferior “other.” This applies as well to all forms of oppression and abuse, including those based on race, class, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or any other marginalization. In other words, all forms of oppression are are linked, and the forces underlying sexism are the same forces that promote racism, and, as I will argue in future columns, is the underlying cause of anthropocentric environmental decay.

Totally radical, you say? Well, that depends on your understanding of the term “radical.” The word “radical” has popularly been co-opted and re-crafted to describe someone or something that is not only unconventional, but is inherently dangerous and irrational. In actuality, and according to one of my favorite reference tools, “radical” is defined as “of or going to the root or origin; fundamental.” So feminism is radical in that it challenges the fundamental attitudes and beliefs of a societal structure that accords greater value to men than to women.

I don’t blame anyone for their misinformed perceptions of feminism. I understand that we live in a society that has systematically normalized discrimination, oppression, and exploitation since its inception. It’s hard to step away from that system in order to see something that is certainly present, yet so normal that we don’t even notice it. I think we have an obligation, though, if we desire to be ethical subjects, to question ideologies and practices that harm others. By harm, I mean that women are harmed when they are perceived as not equal to men. I do not mean that men will be harmed when gender equality removes them from the top of the hierarchal ladder.

I also wish to address the “all men are created equal” mentality that persists in this country. It is all too often touted as one of the most conscientious and inclusive political observations to have been made in U.S. history. I cringe every time I hear it. “All men are created equal” is anything but a conscientious and inclusive moral philosophy. It is, in fact, a depthless and exclusive way to advocate social justice for those who are already at the top of the hierarchal (patriarchal) order.

I realize that “all men are created equal” was used in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, a time when all the influential thinkers were white male property owners. Women’s rights were not yet being discussed, at least not in the mainstream. However, the feminist in me must quip that historical significance is no excuse for the frequent and continued use of a phrase that excludes at least 50 percent of the human population. Even if women were (are) presumed to be included in the scope of “all men are created equal,” it is an anthropocentric assertion that has no regard for the natural world, and inevitably leads to more oppression and more exploitation.

What am I getting at? There are many reasons indications that we not be so quick to judge and condemn feminists (or any other social activists seeking equality, for that matter) when we haven’t taken the time to think critically about the actual issue. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s right, remember? We all learned that as kids, but it is too often forgotten as we enter adulthood, conforming to the roles that society urges us to fill. We forget to question the whys of a system that is too vaguely understood as “the way it is.”

It is time to stop being manipulated by a system that counts on our willingness to believe that gender discrimination is acceptable. Rather, we must be critical of the popular preconceived notions about feminism and its advocates. We must stop belittling the courageous women who stand up to sexual harassment, and who lobby Congress for insurance benefits that include maternity care, and who cut their hair short and refuse to wear makeup.

We would all do very well to open our minds, listen, and learn from the fabulous and insightful feminists around us. Only then can we seriously entertain the notion of a world in which discrimination, oppression, and exploitation are replaced by equality, peace and respect.