political priorities: are you doing feminism ‘wrong’?
I was talking with a friend recently about the perpetual debate regarding whether or not women should be able to serve as front-line soldiers. This argument has always been a particularly interesting one for me, as for many self-described progressives, humanitarians and feminists the issue can bring core beliefs into direct conflict.
A resounding “yes” is often the immediate response to the question of whether female soldiers should be able to serve on the front-line. So long as women meet the same physical and psychological standards required of male soldiers there should be no restrictions placed on what role they can play in the military. To prevent a capable female soldier from serving on the frontline merely because she is a woman is blatant sexism. “But” argue some, “should we really be seeking equality for women within an institution such as the military?” It is hard to deny that the primary function of this nation’s military has always been to help further the imperial aims of whatever benevolent global empire we are aligned with (yeah I know, some will vehemently deny this). Why then should it be a priority to advance the rights of women within an organization that is essentially an obstacle to real global progress and, ultimately, equality?
This clash of values is a question that can only be answered by the individual. A balancing of values is required. In my own opinion, the removal of the military as an inviolable, quasi-religious institution in our society is of far greater importance than the promotion of women’s rights within it. Indeed, greater rights for women within the military may serve to make the armed forces even more untouchable in public discourse. But I digress…
This conversation led to another interesting, although this time hypothetical, discussion. Imagine, if you will, that in the near future the political landscape transformed to the point where one of the two major parties is now pro-women’s rights but dawdles on climate change action, and the other party is active in the fight against environmental destruction but very socially conservative. Now I admit this scenario may seem unlikely but in today’s 24 hour news-cycle and opinion poll-driven world, well, it could happen.
Again a balancing of values would be required. Are women’s rights subordinated to environmental concerns? We determined that it obviously would depend in large part on particulars. But the point that feminist concerns need not necessarily be paramount in all circumstances was cause for reflection. The point has been made often before, but feminist issues do not operate in a vacuum isolated from other social problems. An exaggerated focus on addressing gender inequality at the expense of other struggles is counterproductive to all. It can distract from more pressing concerns and it can alienate the public at large to the ‘feminist’ label.
A person who in all situations is concerned only with advancing the rights of women regardless of other relevant issues is, despite their own loud assertions, not really a genuine feminist. The world is a complex web of various oppressions and injustices all of which we are morally compelled to address. Advancing proper equality for the sexes is one of the great issues of our time, but not the only one. If you consider yourself a feminist but are not concerned by other things such as staggering wealth inequality, the influence of money on politics, the erosion of civil liberties, environmental destruction and the creation of a world divided between haves and have-nots then something ain’t right.
The fact that there are many varieties of feminism within academia reflects this concern. Many feminist and gender study scholars are uncomfortable with aspects of mainstream feminism as they feel it does not consider the ways in which race and class work in concert with gender to create oppressive systems.
Your views as a feminist should complement your other reasonable, progressive and, perhaps most crucially, practical opinions on how to improve society for all, not define who you are. If you identify solely as a feminist and concern yourself exclusively with promoting women’s rights you are doing yourself, the female sex and society at large a great disservice.
Hopefully you’re reading this thinking “DUH. There are obviously other struggles outside of women’s rights and gender issues. This, I don’t need to be told. What a terrible pointless piece.” If that’s you right now I genuinely apologize. BUT I would ask that you take a moment to reflect on what issues you have been vocal about lately. For instance, is there much on your facebook/tumblr/twitter about Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage? Hopefully, because it’s a step in the right direction. But hopefully there is also some mention of other issues. Possibly that Bradley Manning, previously labelled a ‘weird homosexual’ by the very same Obama administration, is still awaiting trial. Or that only a short time before Obama came out in favour of marriage equality predator drones had murdered 14 Afghan civilians with virtually zero reporting of the event in the mainstream media. OR, if you prefer national issues, there is always the looming and very real threat of an Abbott government (that’s a big one).
All truly reasonable and moral people are feminists whether they realize it or not. If you identify as a feminist but cannot link your beliefs to a greater narrative of enduring global progress then, in my opinion, you’re doing it wrong.
By Paul Ferlitsch
Although Lip does not necessarily endorse or agree with the views expressed above, we’d be keen to hear what you guys think! Comment below to join the discussion!
As a pacifist who protested against the current wars and who hates wars in general I do feel the need to defend our army just a tad.
In recent years it has become a highly effective disaster relief and police action force. I think we all know what happens to female poplulations at the hands of men when the rule of law dissapears.
I would suggest then that the Australian Army, instead of being disolved, focuses even more on rapid responce crisis relief. I would love a word where militarys are never required but even if you could guarentee perpetual peace they still would have a use.
As a woman, I find it peculiar that a man would tell women they’re “doing feminism wrong”. Feminism as a movement should be led and driven by women. I personally believe that men can and should be feminists, but I do not think they should take up the cause and champion it as their own.
i struggle to agree with the statement made by rose.
i feel it is contradiction to be saying that feminism should be primarialy driven by women. men are the other half, the other side of the issue, if we are saying we should be the only ringleaders and active supporters of this issue i feel as though you are misinterpreting the issue all together. by saying it should only be us? and that it is not there place?….i dont know but it seems to me there is something very backwards and anti progreesive about that kind of thinking
I believe that feminism should absolutely be organised and led by women, Anna. That’s not to say that input from men is always going to be dismissed, but that it’s a movement founded and driven by women by its very nature.
I do think that there is a place for men within feminism, and that men can be feminists, but I would also question why they would want to be involved if they want feminism “done” differently.
The goals of feminism affect society holisically. In this particular instance part of the article was discussed the abolishion of the army. If you want to change society that much all of society needs a say.
Its not about a man saying feminism should be done one way or another. Its about a citizen saying I want this or that for my country.
“In my own opinion, the removal of the military as an inviolable, quasi-religious institution in our society is of far greater importance than the promotion of women’s rights within it. Indeed, greater rights for women within the military may serve to make the armed forces even more untouchable in public discourse.”
The goal to abolish the army was proposed by the author as something that should take precedence over promoting women to equal status within it. It wasn’t a proposal by feminism that he was addressing or critiquing.
And absolutely, had Paul written an article about why he thinks it’s important to abolish the army or champion environmental causes, I very much doubt any women would’ve been pissed off by it. But when a man writes –
“If you identify solely as a feminist and concern yourself exclusively with promoting women’s rights you are doing yourself, the female sex and society at large a great disservice”
– that actually IS a man saying feminism should be done (or rather, shouldn’t be done) a certain way.
Ah. I only noticed the by line at the top of the article not the writers name at the bottom.
I’ll try and clarify what I mean. There is a place for men in feminism, just as there is a place for straight people within the gay rights movement. I would call myself an ally to that movement, but as a straight woman I would never try to lead or alter it. The same applies to feminism. Women must self-lead because, let’s face it, society doesn’t let us lead too many other things. So, men can of course be involved because the patriarchy affects them too. But they should never dictate.
(Sorry for pretty much repeating Rose’s comment; it was very poignant)
These criticisms seem quite discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of intellectual debate.
firstly,
“I would call myself an ally to that movement, but as a straight woman I would never try to lead or alter it”
– There’s a false conflation here between “alter” and “lead”. If I offer a different opinion on the feminist, or any other, movement, that is not the same as me offering to “lead” it. I hope the “leaders” of the aforementioned movement agree with my ideas, but it is certainly not the same thing. At no point does Paul offer to or claim the right to “lead” the movement.
And regarding Paul’s views on feminism, you might disagree with them, that’s completely fair, but some of the commenters are not doing that, they’re disputing his right to have a view on feminism.
If you don’t agree with him, dispute him on the merits of his individual points instead of judging his argument according to his intrinsic physical traits. To do otherwise would constitute, in my eyes, a pretty clear example of discrimination or, dare I say, sexism.
Conversely, I don’t think there’s anything wrong if a woman wants to make a comment on “men’s issues” or a Bulgarian wants to make a comment on Australian politics. I’ll feel obliged to address their points on their own merits rather than dismiss it on the basis of whose mouth is voicing it.
I have no problem telling people they’re “doing feminism wrong.” http://radfemway.blogspot.com/2012/11/doing-feminism-wrong.html