I have been meaning for a while to write a post about what is bothering me about feminism. For a while I thought that it was just the gender studies department that was bothering me. I’m not a fan of gender studies. In fact, I almost see it as a waste of academic time. That is not to say that I don’t appreciate what some women have done in their academic careers as women’s studies majors, but it is to say that I will never do it. I’m starting to see now that what I really find problematic about feminism is the lack of inclusiveness amongst feminists.
There seems to be a disconnection between the commonalities that all women have with one another. There are fights about whether it is appropriate to wear lipstick, if we should wear high heels, what dressing like a skank really means and if it is appropriate for any one minute to make the choice to stay at home and be content as a mother. I only dare do this post tonight, as I have finished half a bottle of champagne. So I apologize now if there are silly errors, or if I make no sense in some parts. This is mostly a… mostly coherent rant on what I think about feminism today.
Second wave feminism during the late 1970s, had to abandon hope and enthusiasm for a definition that could be universally applied to feminism. There was seen to be a bias due to the fact that most feminist were white and or middle class and there was a rejection of biological determinism. The theory of intersectionality spawned from the charge by black and lower class women that feminism was overly focused on the problems of white middle class women.
Based on empirical grounds biological determinism became untenable. Women were finding that the patriarchal culture, limited their aptitude and talents. This is when the real problems of feminism started in my opinion. There was a lack of connection between the different cultures, that felt segregated by the patriarchal cultures yet no one was willing to work together.
This segregation can be seen especially in higher education. Classes, teachers and students are working in separate groups, in an attempt to reach the same goal. Women of color in the academy, outside of the US and throughout smaller local movements are largely left to their own devices. It is now completely acceptable for feminists to advocate in a way that creates a universally political void, because no one is working together. Feminism could be added to see for women to improve their lives. But instead, it is becoming more of a fight between different feminists and the different issues.
There has been an abandonment from the search to find a universal definition of a woman. This search was completely premature since all women have being a woman in common. There is too much of an expectation, the definition can be found that will define all women. However, the search for this definition has blinded us to the fact that there are commonalities among all women. Despite all of our differences.
There are little to no groups that can capture the substance and essence of everyone in their group with one standard definition. However there is always something common among them, that they can find to bring light to. There are so many things that women have in common we share a history that we can all identify with, social constructs which hurt us daily, the ability to be biological mothers, the heterosexual choice of men with a homosexual choice of another woman, oppression that we’ve faced throughout the years, and being born with the biology of a woman.
Simone de Beauvoir’s definition of a woman as the "other", as with other social groups that do not fit into stereotypical and powerful social constructs, can now be seen as an enormous over generalization, because not all women can be placed into her definition. Some women are comfortable with their lives, others are already in powerful positions, and some are comfortable with how they are living.
To give women the same definition that we give people of color, men who can’t not expressed anger and any other sort of non-socially accepted person belittles their segregation from the society that they are living in. Women should not be seen as radically different from men. Their commonalities with men should be the foundation, or at least part of the definition of a woman and a feminist theory. It is important to point out these similarities to men so that their capabilities are not undermined.
The understanding that women share relations with each other and with man calls for a theory of gender development, which is inclusive and to all women and their commonalities with men. It may even be better to make a definition of a woman and a feminist theory that simply includes all humans, not segregated by sex. It is important to realize the differences between a man and woman stop very much at birth. It may be true that women mature faster than men in a general sense.
However that does not mean that all women mature faster than men. We must leave room in the definition of a woman to ensure that we are not segregating any person from it. Even those that choose to be woman later in life. As we see gender identity now it is completely culturally imposed. I don’t mean this only in the terms of approval social roles. But also to the extent that storting of babies as either male or female expresses a social dichotomy. That is imposed on a continuum of biological sexual difference.
As a child their development is not only based around maturing through the ages, but is based around their gender development as a negotiation between culture, telling her, what sort of belief system she should hold and what sort she actually believes. There is external pressure and imposition on a woman to conform not only to stereotypes surrounding their race and age, but also to their gender. Women are assigned to their gender. Such skills can be redirected towards greater liberation can be found within the power dynamics that a woman’s autonomy may give her.
Feminism is critical theory is normative, and so is feminist social theory. Study of gender individuals is addressed by psychology, while the study of anthropology and sociology can be applied to gender in a society. Change as an individual psychology or revisions of deep psychoanalytic theories do not automatically result in changes in society. But social institutions are not been dressed directly, which needs to be done in order for any sort of political change. The sort of definition of feminism I’m looking for not only needs to be normative.
But also needs to include social theories that be factual, comprehensive and capable of explaining why all sorts of women are oppressed. The sort of theory I’m looking for and the sort of feminism I seek needs to be motivational and empowering for women. Psychoanalysis is not an appropriate way to find empowerment for women although authority in theory can be a useful way of describing female gender formation in a system that is oppressive and masculinist. I mean this in the same way that Marxist theories understood as an economy that is dominated by men.
The most recent book I’ve read on this has recommended that women take a new grasp of their future and look at it as a vision of them ruling. However, I believe that feminism is about being equal to men. I do not wish to see women ruling the planet above man I wish for them to be ruling it beside men. Such rule would indicate the women are inherently different from men. However ruling equally beside them, would indicate that we do actually make up half of the population.
First world feminists have not undertaken any sort of political revaluation, because of their political inclusion, they somehow feel as though this is in a. However, the same system that grants these women some sort of formal quality continues to reproduce them in traditional ways. As incubators, biological mothers, and man’s heterosexual choices.
Feminist the two adopted global perspectives to be inclusive to all women and realize the first world women aren’t as liberated as they seem to think there. The in the Norwegian Parliament inclusion of women has been accompanied by the idea of economic self-sufficiency for women in their actual traditional roles. Although the political and the in Norway continue to gender stereotype, the political interests of men and women for this could be perhaps is the dichotomy however, there is inclusion of women as such. What I’m trying to get at is that formal equality and recognizing that women still need liberation in both first and second world, could enable feminists and women to correct the disadvantage seen in both areas.
While the idea of the women ruling not beside man, but above them is purely utopian is not utopian to strive for a type of feminism that puts us as equal to men. But before doing this thing needs to be global recognization that were in this together. Third World women, although they seem to have worse off life and more oppression that women in the first world are simply struggling with different feminist issues. But in order for there to be continuous progress to women in the first world must recognize the oppression of the Third World and their own oppression and see the commonality between the two of them.
And using the first and third world as only one example. Women across the board need to see the commonality of oppression that they are all experiencing. I’m not asking for utopian dream world where women are both men, but for one or women are actually willing to work with women. Before women can work beside men need to learn to work together to achieve our goals as feminists. I understand that the goals of feminists are profoundly different from race, age and class.
I’m really starting to believe that feminists have not thought of demographic political solution and why any sort of solution has yet to be implemented because feminists are too busy arguing with each other, what they’re actually fighting for. When women achieved implementation of women’s suffrage, it worked, because women have a common goal, they were working towards despite their differences. Now, the continue to the legal issues of women’s equality to men. These issues include professional employment, higher education and equal pay. Instead of arguing, what sort of lipstick is or is not appropriate to wear we should be coming together in a larger group to insist the equal pay is appropriate.
It should go without saying that heteronormativity is something that needs to be challenged and change. It is more likely that heteronormativity will become less acceptable in the future faster than matriarchal values, because homosexuals bisexuals and transsexuals work together to achieve common goals. But to change the private and social is not to change or abolish the state. Private and social change may best be to change in the laws within the state.
What is needed is a reevaluation of take you there is determine which ones should be exempt from the monetary symbolic order. It is essential that a deeper understanding of women in a common struggle is seen by all feminists. In order to create ample amounts of change. Currently, we are dealing with the feminist movement that needs theories simply to describe the theories.
At first I was questioning my feminist values and if I believed that feminism was still relevant at all. I do think that feminism is still relevant, as there is not a quality across the board for all human. However, I do think the current tactics been used to challenge the patriarchy, misogynist and oppression need to be more strongly enforced instead of attempting to enforce what a "real" feminists should look like, and all those other pointless fights among feminists that we see today in and around the blogosphere.
