What does it mean when a woman says “I’m a feminist”? Does it mean they’re interested in equality for all, or does it mean that women’s interests are more important than men’s?
It’s a rhetorical question obviously. We all know what it should mean. Feminism is not really about women per se. It’s about fighting against irrational injustice with a focus on women. It would be hypocritical for example if a person were to say “I’m a feminist. But you know, I really hate gay people”! It’s hypocritical because the fundamental basis of feminism is in realizing that how you were born cannot define you. It’s what you make of yourself.
Sometimes though, I see people with so strong a focus on benefiting women, that they do so to the detriment of others. So focused on carving out advantages for women, that it ends up becoming unfair for other groups like men.
Look at the recent Mangalore attack by self proclaimed “moral police” (I hate that word because it gives them a sliver of legitimacy instead of just calling them what they are – thugs). When the State Women’s Commission Chairperson C Manjula went to investigate, this is what she said:
“The chief of the women’s panel said she did not meet the boys as they were not assaulted. But when told that boys too were assaulted (as shown in TV footage), Manjula said she was in Mangalore to safeguard the interest of women.”
Here we’re talking about the same incident. The same hooligans. But because the victims were also from a different gender, there’s no interest in addressing them. There’s no cost to doing so. A simple “No one has the right to physically assault anyone else” would have been the right thing to say. But to claim that she’s only concerned about the women who were beaten up and not the men…is just wrong don’t you think?
Other examples are laws meant to protect women but are harmful to some men. While they certainly address the needs of most women, they cause grave injustice in a few atypical cases. Are laws meant to bring justice to everyone or “most of the people”?
Some of the recent Marriage Amendments in India for example are grotesquely unfair to men when they earn less than their wives by giving all women a set 50% share of the husband’s post and pre marital property without giving anything to the husband regardless of whether or not the woman contributed to it. Sure, in most cases women do contribute indirectly, but not in all cases.
I expected many women bloggers to highlight this discrepancy and raise their voices against it. But I didn’t see anyone do so. I never saw any passionate blogs about unfair treatment to men. I had a discussion about this on Google+ once, and it was agreed that the laws were unfair. But where are the voices raised against discrimination from those who actively fight for equality for women?
I fully understand that one cannot fight everything. It makes sense to focus on one particular set of rights in order to do so more effectively. But what do you do when the pursuit of one goal causes collateral damage? Do you simply ignore it and push forward focused only on the set of rights you’ve chosen for yourself? Or you do at least pause and think about what you’re truly fighting for in the first place? Especially when you’re fighting for sexual equality!
As a man, my gender plays no role in deciding which rights I’m passionate about. I fight for gay rights, for women’s rights, and for animal rights. In short, I fight for equality. For fairness. I fight against inequality no matter who the victim is and who the perpetrator is.
So an open question to many bloggers who focus strongly on women’s rights. Do you feel hesitant about fighting against laws that are openly prejudicial against men? Like the recent Marriage amendments? How do you feel about the statement made by the State Women’s Commission Chairperson and do you think she’s doing a disservice to the ideals of feminism by so selectively dismissing violence against another set of people?
About four years ago. I wrote something similar…I am very reluctant to call myself Feminist because of the way it is interpreted. It is never defined in terms of Fairness and Doing what is Right. I want fairness and justice regardless of the Gender.
http://mysoul.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/on-feminism/ Thats the one I wrote.
In reply to Mysoul
Good one. The word feminism doe have it’s uses. It acts as a focus for your special interest. But I don’t think one can lose sight of the core values themselves which ultimately have nothing to do with gender.
I think this is one of those instances when feminism becomes more than just political label. The basic definition of feminism is believing women and should be politically and socially equal. Okay, that’s pretty basic, but then it gets complicated. If you ask any feminist, they’ll agree that women are politically and socially oppressed, but then it becomes even more complicated. If we are to believe women are oppressed, how does one go about solving this? That’s also why you have so many different types of feminism. There’s no agreement as to how to go about liberating women.
So to answer your question, it’s not so such about not caring about men’s issues, but (and there’s a whole lot issues with this) there are things don’t hurt men as much as it hurts women. For example, feminists are against the objectification of women, but then what about the objectification of men? Well here’s where it gets even more complicated, feminists will ask in what ways are men objectified? The objectification of women has proven to have severe consequences (i.e. violence, dehumanization, etc.). So I’m not saying men can’t be objectified, but it’s not to the degree that women are.
I can come back and explain what I mean better, but I hope this makes sense.
In reply to RenKiss
Those are valid points. Especially when you talk about how objectification doesn’t have the same consequences for men as it does for women.
But what about aspects which are the same for both genders? Like finances or physical assault? Is rape for example any more traumatic for a woman? Or being left with inferior financial resources after marriage?
In reply to bhagwad
No those experiences aren’t more traumatic for women, of course not. But rape for example, while I think it’s a step to make it more gender neutral, the world is still very reluctant to view rape as something that’s about power. Also many are just beginning to picking apart the dynamics of it all, of course men can be raped and it can be very traumatic. I had a discussion with close friend of mine who applauded the effort to make rape laws more gender neutral. I raised the question to him that since this is going to happen, will there be a push to start telling men how to avoid being raped? He couldn’t give me an answer. To me, that goes to show, it’s going to be difficult to make rape laws gender neutral if society’s going to treat victims of rape differently based on gender.
In reply to RenKiss
I’ve always felt that good laws lead and society follows. Many people for example are not ready for homosexuals having equal rights. But let the laws give them equal rights…and sooner or later, people or their children will come to acknowledge it. Laws tacitly tell people what is acceptable and what is not.
So if we have gender neutral rape laws, it’s a signal to society what the formal stance of the government is. That is the first step towards people aligning their beliefs about rape in line with what the laws are.
In reply to bhagwad
Well, that’s where it’s tricky. In order for laws to pass, people have to push for them, part of the reason why laws are being made to legalize gay marriage is due in part to same sex relationships becoming more socially acceptable and people pushing for it to be legalized. Though it doesn’t always happen like that, take abortion for example, perfectly legal, but I wouldn’t say it’s something that’s socially acceptable. In fact, there are people trying to fight to make it illegal, if they can’t do that, they’ll fight to put as many restrictions on it as possible. But that’s an entirely different subject. :P
About the State Women’s Commission, these people seem to be just catching up with the basics of feminism as it stood in the 70s and one can only be grateful if they don’t make statements that are outright discriminatory to women, leave alone men. To expect them to be at the vanguard of feminism which is grappling with men’s rights is almost like asking too much. I would just ignore anything they say. The very fact that the question was asked though means that there are people thinking along the lines of equality for all.
Regarding the divorce laws, the reason I personally have not said much about it is because it’s one of those issues I missed the bus on and didn’t get concrete information. For me, it not a cut-and-dried issue because it does seem that while the law has an inbuilt discrimination, it might work out for most people in practice. You seem to suggest that the laws in essence must be equal to all people at all times…I’m not sure about that. For example, I’m pro-Reservation even though it ends up affecting me and my family adversely. I’m also okay with divorce being made a little difficult to attain based on my research into the history of marriage – for a contract to have force it needs to a little difficult to get out of, the degree of difficulty of course can be debated.
To take a stand on this issue I would need to read up more, which frankly I don’t have the time to do that because, for me, to talk about this issue would mean not just digging up information on this one law (the news reports you linked to are very brief and I have a distrust of the way things are summarised in Indian newspapers) but on the history of law itself. I know this sounds like a cop-out but I’m interested in what others have to say.
In reply to The Bride
I realize that when we live together like we do, certain groups will benefit more than others. Like a tax on providing cheaper education to children is unfair to couples who don’t have children. Reservations are another good example – and a lot of people already have big problems with how fair they are.
But compared to the proposed divorce amendments, these injustices pale into insignificance.
I have a problem when a person is affected too much and too unfairly by laws that are meant to benefit a set of people. I’ve read up as much as I can about the proposed marriage amendments, and depriving a person like me of half my property acquired both before and after marriage when my wife and I have strict financial independence from each other (even sharing our Internet bills and rent) is an injustice too great to not cry out against.
So there’s a line obviously. Would the state have the right to torture 10,000 people if it benefited a billion? Because it served the greater good? No. In all conscience my heart says no. Because in the end we’re all individuals looking out for ourselves. I live in a state because there’s a net benefit. I don’t belong to the state or the government.
Would the state have a right to torture 10,000 people if it saved a billion?
Ans – No, I believe not even 1 person should.
But in the case of making laws, when addressing situations for the first time, it does boil down to numbers . Would you pass or strike down a law, which while helping 50,000 people also harms 500 people, when striking it down or having it amended means it might never get passed again anytime soon? Esp when your thinking has never expanded to the point where you can even imagine the harm being done to those 500 people?
Like the person who pointed out that most of these people are only now coming to grips with a 1970s version of feminism, it’s perhaps too much to expect them to be at the forefront of equal rights. There are still people who will fight for women’s right but not for gay rights because they are not ‘natural’, hypocritical I know but it does happen.
For people who are only now waking up to the injustice faced by a large group of citizens, it’s difficult to understand how the ones they thought should be in a dominant position, can ever be the weaker ones (I use the term loosely as in earning less or less strong etc than their wife).
In reply to Shilpa J
What do you think should be appropriate response of those 500 people who are facing gross harm? And the response of regular educated people like us who care about these issues? Do we:
a) Say god bless and tell the 500 people to suck it up. Or…
b) Try and get the law amended even if it takes time to pass it?
Specifically, should the affected 500 people say:
a) I realize that I’m going to suffer greatly. But what to do? I should sacrifice myself at the altar of the greater good. Or..
b) I’m outa here. I can’t live in a state that doesn’t benefit me. I don’t owe anything to anyone.
I had a blog but I shut it down. Else, you’d see my voice there.
I have discussed the amendements to marriage act in my peer group at office and we all agreed that it was unfair. I also think the statement made by KSWC chairperson also was wrong.
I think the problem is, in India, every discussion and decision by the law makers, politicians, bureaucrats aims at being populist. Some how, each time, it looks like the person in the know/power is trying to gain some mileage out of it.
If you think about it, what are the chances that the KSWC chairperson will get re-elected if she said “I think men were equally harassed. They need to find justice too”. The women’s groups would turn at her and say “You are supposed to protect women’s rights. What do you care about the men? They can handle it themselves. You have to support women and women alone. Thats your job”.
The same goes for law makers. The government can claim that they encouraged equality of women by bringing the amendments. Women still don’t form a sizeable chunk of voters. And most women are guided by men about whom to vote. Now, wouldn’t the government gain publicity and hopefully votes by passing such amendments in the parliament? Sure some men will not like it, but then this alone won’t be the decisive factor. There is still hope.
If you look at it, all laws passed that pertain to minority also aims for populism, not really fairness. I am sure the esteemed lawmakers have enough sense to see the injustice, but they choose to pass it nevertheless.
In reply to ACS
To add another point, even though women’s groups want equal rights for women, they still think women need to be protected. Educated and empowered too, but that comes much later. So, women are seen as victims always.
In reply to ACS
That is of course, another possible reason – populism. Probably why we still have reservations that are only increasing :(
This comment is slightly out of topic but still…
From what I have noticed,there are 3 types of feminists
1)Hard code feminists – They would hate men more than they hate death.They would blame that the problems in world is only because of men.They would never accept that even a single man on earth is a good hearted guy.Most of these women must have undergone severe abuse and mental trauma and a stage in life has reached where they are unable to accept men as somebody worth.We cannot completely blame them because the trust which they had in men must have been torn apart that badly.
2)Show off feminists – 80% of the self proclaimed feminists belong to this category.They would tell around that they are feminists and often end up in pointless argument and spoiling their relationships.Instead of thinking sensibly they would simply talk non-sense.
3)Sincere and sensible feminists – They work hard to make sure that their voice is reached to the right people at the right situations.Though may be writing only about women issues,they are still empathetic about the issues with men.Most of them either have the talent to make their men stand beside them like a wall during problems or they are lucky to get men who are supportive.If you check out their blogs/articles/talk with them,you would know that they are mentally matured enough to handle a situation sensibly.They raise their voice in public because they feel that some women are not as courageous and assertive as them,so letthem give them a helping voice
In reply to Bhavia
Good analysis Bhavia :)
Do you think as people mature, more 2nd category feminists become 3rd category ones?
In reply to bhagwad
As far as I have noticed and heard,NO!!
We all have our specific focus when addressing the issue of rights. I am very vocal on feminist issues, but I talk more about the social impact of it. There are others who highlight different issues related to feminism. And yet others who fight for gay rights most vocally. This does not mean that I, as a person, am not interested in gay rights or other issues of equality.
However, I too have noticed this tendency among women bloggers to side with the women to the detriment of the men. I don’t see how giving women special benefits is going to help them in anyway. They also seem to be giving different standards of behaviour to men and women, which will ultimately result in keeping the status quo intact. I agree we need to have a more inclusive approach towards rights.
In reply to Fem
I also think that if you give a group special benefits encoded into law, that group becomes formally “downgraded” rather than only socially so.
On this issue, we agree completely. Feminists insist that feminism is ‘the radical idea that women are people’—a condescending statement if you ask me. But what they do is undermine the rights of men by asking for special privileges for women almost as reparations for ancients slights women have endured. The marriage amendments in India are awful. Even in America, women can abort their fetuses if they want to, but a man who doesn’t want a baby can be forced to pay child-support even retroactively by a woman who is legally permitted to keep the child away from him. Why are these rules so ass-backwards? Because men have left the debate.
Read ‘The Myth of Male Power’ by Warren Farrell if you haven’t already. Good stuff.
Nicely written Bhagwad.
PS: I’ve written a post called 5 things feminists need to stop saying. Do check it out.
In reply to Bharatwrites
I don’t believe that all feminists are insensitive to the needs and concerns of men. Most women I know are actually quite balanced in their views.
As with everything else though, often the most incompetent people rise to the top and get to dictate policy :(
I couldn’t have said it better. I haven’t written a lot against the discrimination but I did write a bit about it in one of my posts. Read the part where I talk about BEST reservations for women in the post Women’s Day? Really? As far as the marriage amendments go, I have always felt that the big picture is never seen. I have seen (personally known) couples where the woman knowing the marriage laws would work in her favor, has fleeced her husband for big money during divorce proceedings. I am not saying every woman is guilty, but there are women who do take advantage of such women-friendly laws. I am sure I am going to get beaten up by some feminists for this remark, but again am not generalizing.
In reply to Deepa
Nice post you wrote about bus seat reservations! This is something that seems to divide a lot of people and I myself have struggled to figure out what the policy should be.
I think laws should be written in such a way that only the intended targets benefit from them. Nothing wrong with women friendly laws – not in the least. It should be trivial to introduce a clause saying that it will only apply to those women who are not financially independent…