Essay - "The sad fate of feminism: an egalitarian perspective"
Закончила и сдала свою работу по Women's Studies. К концу пришлось поурезать там и тут, потому что был лимит на длину. Про эгалитарианизм, надо будет развить идею в другом эссэ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad fate of feminism: an egalitarian perspective
Introduction
From where we stand today at the end of the first decade of the new millennium,, it appears that the feminist movement has not succeeded in its primary objectives, and may in fact be inadvertently to blame. Inadequately defined and promoted, the movement has followed a misguided path of using the very tools of its own oppression to achieve monocular ends, allowing domination structures around the globe to remain in place. In this paper, I will expose the reasons that I believe to be responsible for the impotence and self-destruction of the feminist movement, particularly those relating to the linguistic aspects of the theory.
As the very earliest feminists discovered, the core problems lie in our very language and culture, founded upon an oversimplified and self-serving binarity. It has created a power imbalance towards the male sex called patriarchy. It has also created a counter movement, resulting from the women’s enlightenment, called feminism. These poles have created a divisive confusion surrounding the words “sex”, “nature”, “feminism”, “gender” and “women”. That linguistic confusion affects our comprehension of the world and situation around us.
The subjective basis of the feminist theory, as well as the perceived need to convince the Left of its righteousness and adapt to all its subjects, segregated the movement into a multitude of strains, bringing non-sex-related topics of class and color into the melting pot of all identity politics in general. Further, rather than “dismantling the master’s house”, feminists used the “master’s tools” to build their own house [1]. In my paper, I will demonstrate why it is not possible to achieve feminism’s ultimate goal - fairness and equality - if we continue to genderize our language and theories.
Throughout the paper, I purposefully suggest solutions, rather than simply problematizing, and attempt to clearly define what I mean by “sex”, “gender” and “women” in an effort to stress the importance of words in the battle for equality. In the last section of my paper, I attempt to create and define a new “egalitarian theory”, which I believe will, in its clear goal and inclusiveness better serve society on the path to true global equality and justice, not just between men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor, but humans and animals and the planet as a whole. Before I jump into the analysis, I believe it is important I clarify my “location” and provide history to the issue.
My location
After reading “Notes Towards Politics of Location” by Adrienne Rich, I realized why it is so important to situate oneself in space and time before expressing analysis and theories [2]. While I don’t believe it has had a major impact on what I am about to say, it might help the reader understand my background and possibly expose some basis for my skepticism about western feminism and any potential biases I might have regarding the subject. This would seem a useful exercise in any field of study to help facilitate the reader’s filtering of the information through the author’s lens and tracking any potential blind spots.
My family emigrated from Russia to Canada in 1997, when I was twelve. While I did not personally witness much racial discrimination in Russia, I did register some class and sex discrimination. The rich had (and still have) special rights and privileges, bribery was engrained (and still is) in every bureaucratic institution. The woman is expected to clean, cook and raise the children, while holding a job. On this subject, my aunt, who is a professor of Gender Studies in Berlin, wrote in one of her articles on the subject that while Western Women were fighting for the right TO work, Russian women, exhausted from doing all the work while the men were at war and/or drunk, dreamed of the right NOT TO work [4]. I do not personally think that not working at all is the solution for women’s domestic and professional overload; however a redistribution of tasks is clearly in order on the family level.
Later, I realized that even in the most democratic and open-minded counties like here the Canada, oppression and discrimination finds its own form and can be all the more insidious for how they are concealed. Also, the great access to information does not always translate into consciousness or right minded decision- making, as often contradicting information is available. I quickly noticed, for example, that the media, arts, music, legal, political and educational systems, all still have a sex bias. Hence, I decided to involve myself in women’s studies to hear the women’s side of the story, an opportunity I surprisingly did not have until the age of twenty-four.
What I discovered was worse than what I expected. Activists, full of good intentions, have marginalized themselves falling far short of their objectives. The Public Service Alliance says “The Harper government may believe that women's equality has been achieved, but women know better” [3]. Invariably, they may know better, but they still accomplish less. Indeed, even though we have the Equity Pay Act, which Harper now denies being part of the Canadian Human Rights Act [5], Statistics Canada reports that women, on average, are still getting only 71% of the men’s earnings [6]. Also, “in 2003 the poverty rate was 48.9% for single-parent mothers compared to 20% for single parent fathers” [7]. This highlights the necessity of improving law enforcement and the system of information dissipation, as well as underlines conceptual flaws in our civil theory’s vocabulary, assumptions and conclusions.
The words of the culture and the cultures of the word
I believe that the most important obstacle on the way to equality and fairness is our biased interpretation and the one-sided development of our languages. According to the linguistic relativity principle, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, our thoughts are directly influenced by the language we use to talk about it. And vice versa, creating a vicious circle. To eradicate the domination of one group over another, we need to rethink the social theory entirely, and we need to start by selecting words that are clear, well-defined and free of sexual, racial or class bias.
Our relatives, especially parents, and the language surrounding us significantly impact how we perceive ourselves and make us painfully aware of the societal norms on how we ought to be and act. It is what is currently referred to as “gender” in most academic discussions, however, “gender” is often believed to be a substitute to “sex” or “sex” being a part of “gender”. In my opinion, words “sex” and “gender” need to be fully separated and revised. Sex refers to either the act of sex or the biological characteristics of the individual, which can be male or female on the extremes, but also anything in between [8].
The word “gender”, on the other hand, is much harder to reinvent or redefine. It is believed to originate from the Latin genus and meant 'kind', 'type', or 'sort'. But after Aristotle’s “The Technique of Rhetoric“was used to define the grammatical gender, the word took on a sexual interpretation. It is also interesting to note, that he separated the nouns into males, females and things. It was translated to English in the 19th century, but that segregation has already been adopted in most complex languages around the world. Since then, “gender” has morphed to represent “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women” [9]. Not only is the word often misused or misunderstood, its definition ties it to “sex characteristics”, assumed to be binary and static. The solution to this dilemma would be to redefine “gender”, as the multitude of feelings and opinions the individual or the others have regarding the individual’s sex characteristics. This definition allows for multiple possible “genders” on a continuous spectrum. , while highlighting their subjectivity and volatility. However, until such a definition is widely accepted, I believe we should avoid it, if another term, like “sexual identity” or “sex”, can be used.
The second problem is the binarity of “man” (male human) and “woman” (female human) - characteristics that that have been gender-tainted and overcomplicated. Since Aristotle, language has affected the culture, so in return the culture affected the language. Research has found that culture, and not genetics or biology, is responsible for existence and evolution of language [10]. Therefore, society has absolute power over definitions. Culture and language co-exist and cross-pollinate one another, thus we cannot eradicate a domination-promoting culture without dismantling the domination promoting language.
To summarize the problem, we have legitimate notions of Female, Male and Intersex, based on biology, but it somehow replicates itself with notions of “Man, Woman and Other”, and “Transgender, Masculine and Feminine”. And the fact that it is no longer two categories, but three, was celebrated only recently.
First of all, if we consider possible new definition of gender as discussed above, we may see that there is no such thing as “masculine” or “feminine”. In this paradigm, all become “transgendered” as each person now has one gender, unique to them and part of their personality. Societal categorizations of gender should be avoided, or at least - not used in parallel to those of the sexes.
Second, “Man” and “Woman” are simply our guess as to the sex of the individual, which is why we are easily fooled in this category. One person can adjust behavior and physique to portray one sex or the other, while different societies can also have different behavioral and physical expectations or characteristics for the two sexes. The “Other” is simply an intersex person, who will be classified by society as a man or a woman because of an inclination to accentuate one of the two extremes of expected sex characteristics. Simply put - you are a woman, if you are human and female. Your personality can disagree and will invariably try to adapt your body to match its perception of your sex. Same can be said about the individual’s behavior, but if there is no artificial binary division, the individual will be free to choose any behavioral pattern. But the outside world has to base itself on what the individual exhibits to guess the individual’s sex, therefore, there is a great level of uncertainty and volatility involved in the society’s determination of what a man or a woman is.
Another problematically binary word is “feminism” itself, the goal of which is to provide women with more rights. Feminists claim to fight for equality, while the word that unites them rejects the concept of men’s issues. By existing, it also implies that a second extreme exists, namely a certain “masculinism”, better known as “the patriarchy”. To make matters worse, it has mostly been represented by white western women. How can we end the war for supremacy, if we are creating a women’s supremacist movement with a racial bias?
Recognizing and eliminating a patriarchal, racist and otherwise discriminatory lexicon and gesturing from use, not by banning, but rather by educating people on topics of conscious selection and critical analysis, should be the first step of withdrawing the tools from the master. Following this train of thought, we should also critically review any material we currently teach to children for domination-biased content and historical flaws. It is essential that children learn the history of women’s oppression and late insurgency as part of their history classes starting at the high school to encourage the development of critical thinking framework amongst the general public. Language lessons also need to incorporate information regarding the genderization of the language, so that new generations recognizes the need to consciously select the words they use. Some other concepts not discussed above, most notably “love”, “marriage”, “infidelity”, “jealousy” and “nurturing”, should also be given a profound thought and critical assessment.
The problems of the Core Concepts of Feminism
Men, with their self-proclaimed need to compete and conquer, be worshiped and obeyed have been, inadvertently, creating an unhealthy and unattainable expectation for their sons. This has caused the problem to spiral and peak in the recent revival of the individualism. By “men”, I do realize that I am generalizing. In fact, the meaning is limited to those men, who had the power over history, culture and language in the past, willingly promoting the dogma that benefited them most throughout time. If they were to consider the collective interest, I cannot imagine a scenario in which people would want to slow down their own evolution through elimination of opportunities for survival and development to all personae non gratae, notably women and people of color, as well as animals and the environment.
Men also often claim that animal patterns of ‘survival of the fittest’ have selected them to be stronger, smarter, but also more brutal and violent. Women, on the other hand, needed to be nurturing and therefore weaker and obedient. But in reply, I note that we no longer pretend to be animals, we pretend to be of a high order because we can reason. So why exactly are we still using animal patterns to explain human interaction with the world? We have developed contraception, genetic manipulation, in vitro insemination and on the path to develop a spermatozoid from an egg. Times have changed. The faster men realize that their success and achievements lie in an honest, open, undivided and considerate humanity, the more happy years of existence it is bound to have.
But that also goes for the victims of discrimination, as by holding grudges and stirring hate they are using the master’s tools, while trying to dismantle the master’s house. Women and minorities need to realize, that by creating Affirmative Action(s) they create reverse discrimination, therefore increasing the total discrimination levels. Here, I do not speak of structures that monitor that equality is maintained in salary levels, individual rights ect. Here, by Affirmative Action(s), I mean those that push on for more rights for a certain group, regardless of what the equality levels should be, because they are claiming damages for past harm. We cannot afford to discriminate another 100 years in the opposite direction because we are hurt now and were hurt in the past.
Aside from the name itself being an example of useless genderization and binarity, feminism also suffers major conceptual flaws. Preparing for this section, I did not find any published authors actually disapproving the word itself, only bloggers, although many mention that it became the second F-word to many men and women. I was fortunate enough, however to catch a Concordia co-op book sale where I discovered Judith Grant, an Assistant Professor at USC, who connected the dots. In her book “Fundamental Feminism: Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory”, she demonstrates how the three core concepts of the theory, “Women”, “Experience”, “Personal Politics” are “master’s tools”, which have pushed us back into self-definition in a binary system.
First, to differentiate themselves from the Left, feminists had to define their subjects and came up with “Women”, foreshadowing “a de facto acceptance of the female difference” [11]. They stated that women are oppressed because of their female nature. “The resulting contradiction was that women’s ways of being were simultaneously understood negatively, since they had been foisted upon women as a means to oppress them, and positively, as a set of behaviors that was uniquely female and to which all people might even aspire.” [12]
The notion of “Experience”, she claimed, was developed as a response to the Left’s criticism of “Woman”. Instead of using sex as a determinant of their oppression, feminists argued in reverse that women’s experiences are proof enough to show that oppression exists. But experiences are different and subjective. That resulted in feminists being the only political movement with a subjective standard of oppression, falling exactly where it should vis-à-vis the objective patriarchal theories.
The third concept, “personal is political”, came out to justify the presence of “women” and their “experience” in politics. The feminists made a claim that politics was essentially about power, and a power struggle is also present in personal relationships. This opened an endless flood of women’s issues addressing consequences rather than causes of domination. This trend also gave birth to many “hyphenated” feminisms that try to adapt to particular women’s situations, creating divisive theories.
Judith Grant also outlines the problem that feminism is too concerned with theoritizing and problematizing, rather than acting and solving. She also posits that “gender” is binary, based on the “rape culture” and should be eliminated to allow humans free self-determination. I, however, disagree with her notion of “humanist feminism”, as feminism in itself is genderized, making that notion contradictory. Although closer to the notion of equality, pure humanism is also questionable, as its subjects are humans; the environment and the animal kingdom are disregarded. Inclusive humanism tries to incorporate the rest of the planet into the equation, but it still treats the human species’ interests as superior, dominating the rest of the environment.
The concept of Egalitarianism
One thing all seem to agree on is that oppression of the female, just like that of class and race, does exist and that this situation is no longer socially acceptable. But in addition to doing harm directly to all these, it is also lowering the overall level of satisfaction of society, just like “lemons” lower the overall level of utility to the market in economics. By giving “weaker” groups inferior rewards - we create societal inefficiency, therefore capping our development. In other words, the faster the society finds a way that rewards its citizens based only on their merit in all areas - a fair method of selection - the greater will be the pace of our progress as a species.
In modern discourse, egalitarianist theory is surprisingly poorly developed. It fails to differentiate itself from humanism and is understood to mean “that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights“ [13]. My definition of egalitarianism is that it should be a movement that recognizes the interconnectedness of all the elements known in our existence. This purpose would be to actively research and expose inequalities found in our current institutions. The egalitarianist body can unite under its theory all those fields of study currently concentrating on inequality and domination, notably all relating to race, class or sex, but also animal rights and climate change proponents. One of the first steps towards humans’ acceptance of such a body would be proper education on the subject, hence why Studies of Inequality should be part of the early curriculum in history. The purpose of egalitarianism will be to remove domination structures currently in place by exposing it’s consequences on our species and environment as a whole, rather than for a certain group in particular. For example, the egalitarian approach will not only expose that genderizing has limited female humans in their development, but will also expose the fact that male humans have also been cut off from a whole array of human characteristics and emotions that are beneficial to the overall progress of humans. This, in turn, will unite all humans in the fight against such limitations. As a consequence, I believe that, if properly established, egalitarian theory and body can bring to end the war for supremacy on Earth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad fate of feminism: an egalitarian perspective
Introduction
From where we stand today at the end of the first decade of the new millennium,, it appears that the feminist movement has not succeeded in its primary objectives, and may in fact be inadvertently to blame. Inadequately defined and promoted, the movement has followed a misguided path of using the very tools of its own oppression to achieve monocular ends, allowing domination structures around the globe to remain in place. In this paper, I will expose the reasons that I believe to be responsible for the impotence and self-destruction of the feminist movement, particularly those relating to the linguistic aspects of the theory.
As the very earliest feminists discovered, the core problems lie in our very language and culture, founded upon an oversimplified and self-serving binarity. It has created a power imbalance towards the male sex called patriarchy. It has also created a counter movement, resulting from the women’s enlightenment, called feminism. These poles have created a divisive confusion surrounding the words “sex”, “nature”, “feminism”, “gender” and “women”. That linguistic confusion affects our comprehension of the world and situation around us.
The subjective basis of the feminist theory, as well as the perceived need to convince the Left of its righteousness and adapt to all its subjects, segregated the movement into a multitude of strains, bringing non-sex-related topics of class and color into the melting pot of all identity politics in general. Further, rather than “dismantling the master’s house”, feminists used the “master’s tools” to build their own house [1]. In my paper, I will demonstrate why it is not possible to achieve feminism’s ultimate goal - fairness and equality - if we continue to genderize our language and theories.
Throughout the paper, I purposefully suggest solutions, rather than simply problematizing, and attempt to clearly define what I mean by “sex”, “gender” and “women” in an effort to stress the importance of words in the battle for equality. In the last section of my paper, I attempt to create and define a new “egalitarian theory”, which I believe will, in its clear goal and inclusiveness better serve society on the path to true global equality and justice, not just between men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor, but humans and animals and the planet as a whole. Before I jump into the analysis, I believe it is important I clarify my “location” and provide history to the issue.
My location
After reading “Notes Towards Politics of Location” by Adrienne Rich, I realized why it is so important to situate oneself in space and time before expressing analysis and theories [2]. While I don’t believe it has had a major impact on what I am about to say, it might help the reader understand my background and possibly expose some basis for my skepticism about western feminism and any potential biases I might have regarding the subject. This would seem a useful exercise in any field of study to help facilitate the reader’s filtering of the information through the author’s lens and tracking any potential blind spots.
My family emigrated from Russia to Canada in 1997, when I was twelve. While I did not personally witness much racial discrimination in Russia, I did register some class and sex discrimination. The rich had (and still have) special rights and privileges, bribery was engrained (and still is) in every bureaucratic institution. The woman is expected to clean, cook and raise the children, while holding a job. On this subject, my aunt, who is a professor of Gender Studies in Berlin, wrote in one of her articles on the subject that while Western Women were fighting for the right TO work, Russian women, exhausted from doing all the work while the men were at war and/or drunk, dreamed of the right NOT TO work [4]. I do not personally think that not working at all is the solution for women’s domestic and professional overload; however a redistribution of tasks is clearly in order on the family level.
Later, I realized that even in the most democratic and open-minded counties like here the Canada, oppression and discrimination finds its own form and can be all the more insidious for how they are concealed. Also, the great access to information does not always translate into consciousness or right minded decision- making, as often contradicting information is available. I quickly noticed, for example, that the media, arts, music, legal, political and educational systems, all still have a sex bias. Hence, I decided to involve myself in women’s studies to hear the women’s side of the story, an opportunity I surprisingly did not have until the age of twenty-four.
What I discovered was worse than what I expected. Activists, full of good intentions, have marginalized themselves falling far short of their objectives. The Public Service Alliance says “The Harper government may believe that women's equality has been achieved, but women know better” [3]. Invariably, they may know better, but they still accomplish less. Indeed, even though we have the Equity Pay Act, which Harper now denies being part of the Canadian Human Rights Act [5], Statistics Canada reports that women, on average, are still getting only 71% of the men’s earnings [6]. Also, “in 2003 the poverty rate was 48.9% for single-parent mothers compared to 20% for single parent fathers” [7]. This highlights the necessity of improving law enforcement and the system of information dissipation, as well as underlines conceptual flaws in our civil theory’s vocabulary, assumptions and conclusions.
The words of the culture and the cultures of the word
I believe that the most important obstacle on the way to equality and fairness is our biased interpretation and the one-sided development of our languages. According to the linguistic relativity principle, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, our thoughts are directly influenced by the language we use to talk about it. And vice versa, creating a vicious circle. To eradicate the domination of one group over another, we need to rethink the social theory entirely, and we need to start by selecting words that are clear, well-defined and free of sexual, racial or class bias.
Our relatives, especially parents, and the language surrounding us significantly impact how we perceive ourselves and make us painfully aware of the societal norms on how we ought to be and act. It is what is currently referred to as “gender” in most academic discussions, however, “gender” is often believed to be a substitute to “sex” or “sex” being a part of “gender”. In my opinion, words “sex” and “gender” need to be fully separated and revised. Sex refers to either the act of sex or the biological characteristics of the individual, which can be male or female on the extremes, but also anything in between [8].
The word “gender”, on the other hand, is much harder to reinvent or redefine. It is believed to originate from the Latin genus and meant 'kind', 'type', or 'sort'. But after Aristotle’s “The Technique of Rhetoric“was used to define the grammatical gender, the word took on a sexual interpretation. It is also interesting to note, that he separated the nouns into males, females and things. It was translated to English in the 19th century, but that segregation has already been adopted in most complex languages around the world. Since then, “gender” has morphed to represent “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women” [9]. Not only is the word often misused or misunderstood, its definition ties it to “sex characteristics”, assumed to be binary and static. The solution to this dilemma would be to redefine “gender”, as the multitude of feelings and opinions the individual or the others have regarding the individual’s sex characteristics. This definition allows for multiple possible “genders” on a continuous spectrum. , while highlighting their subjectivity and volatility. However, until such a definition is widely accepted, I believe we should avoid it, if another term, like “sexual identity” or “sex”, can be used.
The second problem is the binarity of “man” (male human) and “woman” (female human) - characteristics that that have been gender-tainted and overcomplicated. Since Aristotle, language has affected the culture, so in return the culture affected the language. Research has found that culture, and not genetics or biology, is responsible for existence and evolution of language [10]. Therefore, society has absolute power over definitions. Culture and language co-exist and cross-pollinate one another, thus we cannot eradicate a domination-promoting culture without dismantling the domination promoting language.
To summarize the problem, we have legitimate notions of Female, Male and Intersex, based on biology, but it somehow replicates itself with notions of “Man, Woman and Other”, and “Transgender, Masculine and Feminine”. And the fact that it is no longer two categories, but three, was celebrated only recently.
First of all, if we consider possible new definition of gender as discussed above, we may see that there is no such thing as “masculine” or “feminine”. In this paradigm, all become “transgendered” as each person now has one gender, unique to them and part of their personality. Societal categorizations of gender should be avoided, or at least - not used in parallel to those of the sexes.
Second, “Man” and “Woman” are simply our guess as to the sex of the individual, which is why we are easily fooled in this category. One person can adjust behavior and physique to portray one sex or the other, while different societies can also have different behavioral and physical expectations or characteristics for the two sexes. The “Other” is simply an intersex person, who will be classified by society as a man or a woman because of an inclination to accentuate one of the two extremes of expected sex characteristics. Simply put - you are a woman, if you are human and female. Your personality can disagree and will invariably try to adapt your body to match its perception of your sex. Same can be said about the individual’s behavior, but if there is no artificial binary division, the individual will be free to choose any behavioral pattern. But the outside world has to base itself on what the individual exhibits to guess the individual’s sex, therefore, there is a great level of uncertainty and volatility involved in the society’s determination of what a man or a woman is.
Another problematically binary word is “feminism” itself, the goal of which is to provide women with more rights. Feminists claim to fight for equality, while the word that unites them rejects the concept of men’s issues. By existing, it also implies that a second extreme exists, namely a certain “masculinism”, better known as “the patriarchy”. To make matters worse, it has mostly been represented by white western women. How can we end the war for supremacy, if we are creating a women’s supremacist movement with a racial bias?
Recognizing and eliminating a patriarchal, racist and otherwise discriminatory lexicon and gesturing from use, not by banning, but rather by educating people on topics of conscious selection and critical analysis, should be the first step of withdrawing the tools from the master. Following this train of thought, we should also critically review any material we currently teach to children for domination-biased content and historical flaws. It is essential that children learn the history of women’s oppression and late insurgency as part of their history classes starting at the high school to encourage the development of critical thinking framework amongst the general public. Language lessons also need to incorporate information regarding the genderization of the language, so that new generations recognizes the need to consciously select the words they use. Some other concepts not discussed above, most notably “love”, “marriage”, “infidelity”, “jealousy” and “nurturing”, should also be given a profound thought and critical assessment.
The problems of the Core Concepts of Feminism
Men, with their self-proclaimed need to compete and conquer, be worshiped and obeyed have been, inadvertently, creating an unhealthy and unattainable expectation for their sons. This has caused the problem to spiral and peak in the recent revival of the individualism. By “men”, I do realize that I am generalizing. In fact, the meaning is limited to those men, who had the power over history, culture and language in the past, willingly promoting the dogma that benefited them most throughout time. If they were to consider the collective interest, I cannot imagine a scenario in which people would want to slow down their own evolution through elimination of opportunities for survival and development to all personae non gratae, notably women and people of color, as well as animals and the environment.
Men also often claim that animal patterns of ‘survival of the fittest’ have selected them to be stronger, smarter, but also more brutal and violent. Women, on the other hand, needed to be nurturing and therefore weaker and obedient. But in reply, I note that we no longer pretend to be animals, we pretend to be of a high order because we can reason. So why exactly are we still using animal patterns to explain human interaction with the world? We have developed contraception, genetic manipulation, in vitro insemination and on the path to develop a spermatozoid from an egg. Times have changed. The faster men realize that their success and achievements lie in an honest, open, undivided and considerate humanity, the more happy years of existence it is bound to have.
But that also goes for the victims of discrimination, as by holding grudges and stirring hate they are using the master’s tools, while trying to dismantle the master’s house. Women and minorities need to realize, that by creating Affirmative Action(s) they create reverse discrimination, therefore increasing the total discrimination levels. Here, I do not speak of structures that monitor that equality is maintained in salary levels, individual rights ect. Here, by Affirmative Action(s), I mean those that push on for more rights for a certain group, regardless of what the equality levels should be, because they are claiming damages for past harm. We cannot afford to discriminate another 100 years in the opposite direction because we are hurt now and were hurt in the past.
Aside from the name itself being an example of useless genderization and binarity, feminism also suffers major conceptual flaws. Preparing for this section, I did not find any published authors actually disapproving the word itself, only bloggers, although many mention that it became the second F-word to many men and women. I was fortunate enough, however to catch a Concordia co-op book sale where I discovered Judith Grant, an Assistant Professor at USC, who connected the dots. In her book “Fundamental Feminism: Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory”, she demonstrates how the three core concepts of the theory, “Women”, “Experience”, “Personal Politics” are “master’s tools”, which have pushed us back into self-definition in a binary system.
First, to differentiate themselves from the Left, feminists had to define their subjects and came up with “Women”, foreshadowing “a de facto acceptance of the female difference” [11]. They stated that women are oppressed because of their female nature. “The resulting contradiction was that women’s ways of being were simultaneously understood negatively, since they had been foisted upon women as a means to oppress them, and positively, as a set of behaviors that was uniquely female and to which all people might even aspire.” [12]
The notion of “Experience”, she claimed, was developed as a response to the Left’s criticism of “Woman”. Instead of using sex as a determinant of their oppression, feminists argued in reverse that women’s experiences are proof enough to show that oppression exists. But experiences are different and subjective. That resulted in feminists being the only political movement with a subjective standard of oppression, falling exactly where it should vis-à-vis the objective patriarchal theories.
The third concept, “personal is political”, came out to justify the presence of “women” and their “experience” in politics. The feminists made a claim that politics was essentially about power, and a power struggle is also present in personal relationships. This opened an endless flood of women’s issues addressing consequences rather than causes of domination. This trend also gave birth to many “hyphenated” feminisms that try to adapt to particular women’s situations, creating divisive theories.
Judith Grant also outlines the problem that feminism is too concerned with theoritizing and problematizing, rather than acting and solving. She also posits that “gender” is binary, based on the “rape culture” and should be eliminated to allow humans free self-determination. I, however, disagree with her notion of “humanist feminism”, as feminism in itself is genderized, making that notion contradictory. Although closer to the notion of equality, pure humanism is also questionable, as its subjects are humans; the environment and the animal kingdom are disregarded. Inclusive humanism tries to incorporate the rest of the planet into the equation, but it still treats the human species’ interests as superior, dominating the rest of the environment.
The concept of Egalitarianism
One thing all seem to agree on is that oppression of the female, just like that of class and race, does exist and that this situation is no longer socially acceptable. But in addition to doing harm directly to all these, it is also lowering the overall level of satisfaction of society, just like “lemons” lower the overall level of utility to the market in economics. By giving “weaker” groups inferior rewards - we create societal inefficiency, therefore capping our development. In other words, the faster the society finds a way that rewards its citizens based only on their merit in all areas - a fair method of selection - the greater will be the pace of our progress as a species.
In modern discourse, egalitarianist theory is surprisingly poorly developed. It fails to differentiate itself from humanism and is understood to mean “that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights“ [13]. My definition of egalitarianism is that it should be a movement that recognizes the interconnectedness of all the elements known in our existence. This purpose would be to actively research and expose inequalities found in our current institutions. The egalitarianist body can unite under its theory all those fields of study currently concentrating on inequality and domination, notably all relating to race, class or sex, but also animal rights and climate change proponents. One of the first steps towards humans’ acceptance of such a body would be proper education on the subject, hence why Studies of Inequality should be part of the early curriculum in history. The purpose of egalitarianism will be to remove domination structures currently in place by exposing it’s consequences on our species and environment as a whole, rather than for a certain group in particular. For example, the egalitarian approach will not only expose that genderizing has limited female humans in their development, but will also expose the fact that male humans have also been cut off from a whole array of human characteristics and emotions that are beneficial to the overall progress of humans. This, in turn, will unite all humans in the fight against such limitations. As a consequence, I believe that, if properly established, egalitarian theory and body can bring to end the war for supremacy on Earth.