This year we’ve seen a lot of buzz about feminism in the media and the public discourse. There have been awesome examples: Emma Watson’s on-point UN speech addressing equality, and our mate Karl Stefanovic’s epic experiment where his unnoticed lack of suit rotation made a valid point about the excess criticism faced by women in the media.
Feminism has also experienced some bona fide kicks to the proverbial balls ovaries ‘collective-gender-non-specific-tender-areas’.
Australia’s only current female cabinet minister, Julie Bishop, publicly rejected a feminist identity. This came hot on the heels of an online anti-feminism movement using the hashtag ‘#IDon’tNeedFeminismBecause’. Slews of young social media users raised arms (read: held up pieces of paper scrawled on with sharpies, and took selfies) in order to make a statement about why they “don’t need feminism”.
But in the absence of passion for a cause, complacency quietly breeds apathy – a situation with its own dangers.
But why are people so eager to publicly reject a movement that at its base has the most inclusive of intentions?
The reasons that the women (mostly teenage, white, upper-middle class western women) behind anti-feminism movements prudently stick the middle finger up to feminism have baffled and dismayed self-identified feminists the world over.
Meanwhile, the reasons a prominent individual like Julie Bishop would have for rejecting feminism don’t appear to have anything to do with the previous waves of feminism – movements that opened doors for women to compete with men for respected positions like the one she holds – but rather the current incarnation of the movement, which to outsiders is stereotyped as radical (not in the ‘cool’ way) and over the top.
But the greatest issue a woman like Julie would have with (publicly) identifying with feminism is that it is inherently pigeonholed with being a ‘leftie’ title. And, y’know, being associated with a political agenda that promotes equality and socialist economic policies would just not go down so well at the next polo match, tea party or whatever royal-family-approved get togethers the ‘righties’ gather at.
And it’s no wonder people get confused – on one hand the public sees feminists applauding women for proudly wearing whatever the hell they want, while also seeing other self-defined feminists shaming a woman for getting her boobs out.
If someone doesn’t see feminism as redundant, then they see it as contradictory.
These polarising examples of feminism (when seen by people who are not actively involved in the movement) leave the public with mixed feelings about all that women’s rights jazz – ranging from confused and conflicted to downright hating on feminism, to the degree of fashioning meme’s with the words “FUCK FEMINISM” emblazoned across them.
As in any topic that has been opened up for discussion by social media, feminism is now freely debated by both positive and negative voices – some dangerously so.
Now as a self-identifying feminist, logging into my Facebook on a dreary weekday afternoon to see one such meme, shared by an acquaintance that I’ve known to display a considerably balanced degree of respect for both men and women, left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I scanned down a customary rage spiral of keyboard warrior debates in the comments section, where I saw the remarks had left a taste beyond bitter on the tongues of my feminist peers; whilst trolls and dangerously men’s-rights-activist-esque commenters boasted about desires to purchase their own versions of the scientist’s internationally televised shirt that sparked the initial debate cluster-fuck of opinions that spiraled out of control in the first place.
Livid debates by keyboard warriors are an all too common sight for social media users. Whether they are sparked by a petition against an R-rated video game, or a measured critique of the patriarchy’s damaging influence, you can be sure that the cries of “MISANDRY!” will ring through the night.
Antifeminist opinions more often than not come from a place of ignorance or from the ill-informed (unless you’ve learned the facts and yet still remain a chauvinist pig), which leads to dangerous misunderstandings and the perpetuation of a patriarchal culture.
But on the flipside, the movement needs to be accessible enough without needing to read the appendices in order for it to be widely embraced. Campaigns like #HeForShe, that invite men to get involved in positive change, are applauded by many feminists (male and female) while they are also critiqued from within the movement by those disgruntled at men receiving “special names and special recognition”.
Jargon and buzzwords have in many ways opened up a magnificent dialogue to tackle the myriad issues oppressing women and holding back true equality. But, when someone unfamiliar with the ‘slang’ sees these terms being thrown around, they may be discouraged from identifying with the greater cause. Much like how political jargon and inner conflict * cough * Julia vs Kevin * cough * might confuse a nation into voting for a leader that would turn out not to serve the public’s best interests * cough * Tony Abbott * cough *.
Extremism in any cause more often than not leads to negative, counter-productive outcomes. The delicious drama of sensationalism also makes for more interesting headlines and more passionate discussion. Mediators are often overlooked in favour of supporting an extreme opinion – a factor as to why the official apology over the Shirtstorm debacle issued by the American Astronomical Society went largely ignored in favour of supporting an anti-feminist narrative.
But in the absence of passion for a cause, complacency quietly breeds apathy – a situation with its own dangers.
Complacency towards politics means that we’ve ended up with a widely declared embarrassment of a Prime Minister. Complacency towards women’s rights means the threat of sexual assault is considered a normal part of a young woman’s night out, or walk home from work at night.
Complacency is the luxury of Western society, where many shrug off a movement with wide-reaching benefits for both genders – or actively oppose it while not understanding its depth and consequences.
No Comments