Slate.com posted an article last October that examined the multiple ways in which leading female activists and voices of gender equality define feminism. The cast of opinions included director/writer Norah Ephron, whose blunt message -- "you can't call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in the right to abortion" -- didn't leave much to interpret. Others, like The Nation columnist Katha Pollit, were less concise in their personal prescription for what constitutes feminism, questioning whether a person like Sarah Palin could identify as a feminist while actively engaging in politics that explicitly challenge the rights of women (again, probably in reference to specific issues like the legality of abortion).
As a self-identified feminist who consciously recognizes a host of system-specific and influential circumstances (being male, white, materially and educationally privileged, just to name a few) that shape my experience in the world, I am not sure I can read this article with ease and propose an appropriate solution: Yes, we are a grabbag of conditions that stem from our economic and social structures, which makes it difficult to find a universally applicable model of feminism, but at the same time, as bell hooks notes in her book Feminism is For Everybody, "Feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions."
I found it difficult defining feminism myself when I first entertained the notion back at the beginning of sophomore year. I wasn't sure if I was should establish some kind of neo-feminism that included genders of all expressions in the fight to eradicate institutionalized practices and normalized understandings of sexism, or just make up another word (femenism, anybody)? Then I began to realize that many feminist causes, in fact, already included males in their engineering, and any of my doubts were often the result of what kind of feminism mainstream society communicated -- feminism that presupposed rejecting men from participation (again, hooks mentions this by acknowledging that "anti-maleness" is often associated with modern and historical feminisms in mainstream discourse).
I may have found my answer, albeit complex, after reading another book I finished over winter break -- Violence by philosopher Slavoj Zizek. In it, he discusses the fact that universality has lost its utility; instead of defining movements and actions that are good or bad for our society, and thus, defining how we can utilize them for democratic action, we have become trapped in a world of political correctness and multicultural tolerance -- concepts that discourage us from applying any kind of universal standard.
He has a point. Why can't there be any all-encompassing element that extends our dialogues on feminist battles to other nations and cultures? Can't I say feminism is, simply put, promoting the democratic, peaceful fight against oppressions through the visor of sexism? This doesn't mean I'm "intolerable" of Afghan feminists when they fight their own grassroots campaigns against male domination. True, I might use a standard definition of feminism like the one aforementioned -- one that is therefore directly influenced by my background as a Westerner, but my ability to understand feminism as a peaceful and democratic process means I would refuse to exercise soft-wired tendencies to act as an imperialist, too. In other words, I would be personally obligated to avoid claiming that Afghan women need to be saved in "a certain way" because it is anti-democratic to say so and take action accordingly (especially when such an idea itself has been manipulated to legitimize horrifically violent wars).
Based on this definition, any kind of undemocratic approach to feminism abroad would be a violation of my own ethical code. Imperialism is inherently violent and thus, not peaceful, as is domestic abuse. These kinds of universal definitions that discredit elitism, imperialism and neo-colonialism are certainly more effective than PC-friendly stamps that allow us to avoid asking critical questions in fear of "offending" women overseas...
And so, we come back to Ephron. Is feminism really about siding with the rights of anyone to have an abortion? Isn't that going to be a culturally sensitive issue that should require us to consult an anthropologist "expert" first before telling other women they're being denied certain rights? In some ways, yes. Abortion involves the body of a women -- a physical, living system that is continuously objectified and commodified in our culture but plays vital reproductive roles as well as manifests cultural conceptualizations of what a body is meant for.
However, if we cannot respect a woman's right to make a choice for her body, how can we claim we are fighting for peaceful and democratic movements against sexism? Anti-abortion legislation is sexist and thus, anti-feminist. Ephron makes a good point by skipping the shallow pond in which multi-culti crap drowns and getting to the kernel of truth: you can't say you're a feminist if you support something inherently anti-feminist. This doesn't mean we should parade the world with unwarranted condescension, informing women of other racial, ethnic and national backgrounds that they are "wrong" for circumcising their daughters or whatever else they do. It means, instead, that we must have critical standards of feminism that avoid undermining democracy.
We can't have a common movement without some kind of common ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment