• +6012-6268490
  • hey@thegblog.org

Tag Archives: Writer: Mai Mokhsein

Leaning In to the Patriarchy?

thegblogteam No Comments

There are a lot of universal truths in Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s brand of feminism for the working woman, #LeanIn. In 2013, she published a book called Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead’ that asks women to “sit at the table”, or “lean in.” She laid bare the hard-hitting truth that women are socialized into being less successful at work through the effects of gender-normative behaviour.

Lean In highlighted the troubling leadership ambition gap between the sexes. Unmistakably, this gap manifests when women learn that they are being socially taxed for displaying the same “bossy” traits that men do in order to get ahead in the workplace. In response, Sandberg asks that we “lean in” by being more assertive, and to move towards a leading, rather than a following, role. With her establishment of Lean In circles, perhaps Sandberg’s biggest contribution is that she has empowered many women to admit that they want career success and helped them build the confidence that it takes to get there.

At a time when feminist discourse is not popular, Lean In has dominated the bestseller charts worldwide and made subtle gender discrimination within the workplace far more visible. With her easygoing, agreeable nature and her commitment towards being both a business leader and a full-time mother, Sandberg singlehandedly humanized the image of the “boss lady” who is stereotypically perceived to be an emotionally barren, unmarried, and unforgiving woman. With over 21,000 Lean In circles across 97 countries, Lean In feminism has taken off and soared amongst a following of quintessential 21st century working women. Oprah Winfrey goes as far as to dub Sandberg as “the new voice of revolutionary feminism.”

 

Image via Huffington Post

 

Aside from Sandberg’s palpable role model effect, perhaps the reason why Lean In resonates so well with the current generation is because it places the autonomy back in the hands of women, and gives them assurance that they could change their own fate. Lean In asks women to question their internalized sexism and modify their own behavior to adapt to the system. It doesn’t ask of them to dismantle the patriarchy that entraps them, nor its capitalistic structure that further ensnares them in their own oppression.

It is telling that the definition of feminism within Lean In begins and ends with achieving gender equality within the system. We need not challenge the structures of the imperialist, racist, capitalist patriarchy we live in; instead, we feed into it.

While the impact of Lean In, as well as Sandberg herself, has been positively admirable, as a feminist blueprint it is deeply flawed. As a self-proclaimed feminist manifesto, its approach makes it seem as if women’s lack of endurance and adaptability were the problem, rather than the systemic inequality. Structural barriers to access equal opportunities do not just disappear when women set their minds to do something with gusto.

It is rarely the case that privileged men within the system will merrily extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to women if only they had the determination to “lean in”.

For every Sheryl Sandberg, we have an Ellen Pao who leaned in, played by the rules of the system and ended up losing a gender discrimination suit against her Silicon Valley firm. So, as far as being a model for gender equality, Lean In is a small patchwork on a disintegrating quilt.

 

Image via Wall Street Journal

 

What is also glaring about advising “all women” to work within the confines of capitalism is that this is a platform that best serves privileged women, who often experience more solidarity with privileged men, than they do with poor women or women of colour.  With a personal worth just shy of USD 1 billion, two Harvard degrees and having been declared by Forbes as the fifth most powerful woman in the world, Sandberg’s approach to workplace empowerment is decidedly privileged as well.

She is privileged enough to be able to successfully negotiate her paid maternity leave plan, a closer parking spot and better working hours by leaning in. Women in low-income professions simply do not have the bargaining power that a corporate executive may hold with their superiors. OECD reports that 73.8% of the Malaysian workforce is composed of low-skilled labour and with female labour participation at only 53.6%, the majority of female workers would not be able to access such workplace benefits by leaning in.

Sandberg is also privileged enough to have had a supportive spouse who was willing to share the household work and the raising of their children (up until his untimely passing a few years ago). Findings from research up to the year 2000 show that almost 1 million families in Malaysia are being raised by single mothers who cannot access that same support structure. In fact, many women with spouses still do not have the privilege of support; the Malaysia Human Development 2013 report evidenced that most women had to quit their jobs in order to take care of their children and household.

Understandably, the under-representation of women in any sector is still a feminist issue. But to the extent that the solution fuels a capitalistic structure that sustains gender inequality in other ways, Lean In bolsters the patriarchal design.

 

Image via ABC News

 

Women are far more likely to have household responsibilities than men, but those work will never be compensated in a capitalistic free market. Women are overrepresented in low-paid service industries. Women are more likely to have financial dependants which curbs their ability to pursue educational and skills enrichment for career advancement. Women are more likely to be unemployed altogether and to be fully reliant on social security. Thus, to focus on the plight of wealthy, employed women within the capitalistic structure would not only be short-sighted, it subverts feminist goals by marketing a false sense of equality through abolishing the glass ceiling for women at the very top of their careers.

On top of that, a capitalist feminism pushes for a class bias that does not reflect the diversity of female aspirations in society, nor does it address the sexist attitudes displayed in the everyday treatment of female colleagues in ways that are not reflected by the pay gap.

While Lean In does speak to its male readers by asking fathers to take a bigger role in their home life, at no point does it offer men any admonition on how to unlearn their sexist thinking within the workplace.

The problem with gender prejudice is that it is normalized into one’s subconscious; that without active self-interrogation of one’s decisions, or having their privilege called out by a third party or through structural reform, it goes unchecked. That sexism trickles down to hiring processes, performance assessments, job promotions and the granting of valuable opportunities in the workplace. Lamenting for women to try harder in a system that systematically disadvantages them might be a pragmatic move, but with trifling payoff and a demoralizing milieu.

To lean in is perfectly rational. It pursues self-advancement in a way that is appealing, commonsensical and practicable. But what’s necessary is never easy. The social, political, and economic solution for gender equality has to rest on the elevation of all women through the dismantling of the patriarchy. What will make things easier for all women will remove the structural barriers for each individual woman. But the reverse is not true: what makes life easier for one individual woman will not necessarily make things easier for women at large. Instead, by leaning into the patriarchy, we may end up making it harder for others to revolt against it.

 

Delusi “Choice Feminists”

thegblogteam No Comments

“Feminisme adalah mengenai memberi wanita kebebasan untuk memilih. Ia bukanlah satu peralatan untuk menjatuhkan wanita lain. Ia mengenai kemerdekaan, kebebasan dan kesaksamaan,” kata Emma Watson kepada wanita-wanita disambut dengan sorakan gemuruh di seluruh dunia. Jika terdapat contoh feminis abad ke-21, Watson merupakan wirawatinya dan kata-katanya merupakan motivasi kepada para feminis.

Choice feminism (salah satu cabang dalam feminisme yang mengutamakan kebebasan wanita untuk memilih) begitu dipuja dalam budaya kini sehinggakan apabila terdapat wanita yang mengkritik sebarang industri, institusi, dan konstruk sosial sebagai berunsurkan partriarki, wanita-wanita ini akan dituduh menyerang wanita lain yang memilih untuk menyertainya. Tidak kira apa pilihan mereka, bahagian komen akan sentiasa mengaitkan hak peribadi dia untuk memilih. Mengatakan perkara sebaliknya dianggap sebagai menghentam kebebasan peribadi dan pilihan dia sebagai anti-feminis. Tuntutan mereka mengenai wanita berhak memilih itu betul, tetapi adakah semua pilihan merupakan pilihan yang baik untuk kebebasan kolektif semua wanita?

Kesilapan rangka tindakan feminis ini adalah ia menganggap kita hidup di era selepas patriarki di mana setiap pilihan yang dibuat oleh wanita merupakan pilihan yang dibuat secara bebas tanpa pengaruh patriarki yang melemaskan. Ia menganggap bahawa pilihan kebebasan yang dibuat wanita dalam demokrasi dunia pertama tidak mempengaruhi dalam menguatkan lagi institusi-institusi patriarki untuk menghalang kebebasan untuk memilih wanita dalam negara-negara dunia ketiga. Paling penting, ia menganggap bahawa sesetengah pilihan dibuat tanpa mengorbankan kebebasan kolektif semua wanita.

Tonggak utama kepercayaan choice feminism adalah setiap pilihan yang dibuat untuk keinginan sendiri adalah gerakan feminis. Cerita di belakang tabirnya adalah mulia: pilihan wanita dibuat ketika mereka dipengaruhi patriarki masa lampau yang lebih teruk, jadi keupayaan untuk memilih merupakan suatu bentuk kebebasan. Kelemahannya adalah apabila pilihan-pilihan yang menghambakan wanita kini diberi nafas baru kononnya sebagai pilihan peribadi yang membebaskan; dengan mengenepikan hakikat bahawa patriarki, budaya popular, peruncitan korporat dan media massa semuanya beriya-iya menyalahgunakan pilihan wanita untuk keuntungan mereka sendiri.

Pornografi dan pelacuran telah dijenamakan semula sebagai kebebasan seksual. Pembedahan kosmetik dan solekan telah dijenamakan semula sebagai keinginan peribadi. Sexual objectification (layanan terhadap seseorang hanya sebagai alat untuk kepuasan seksual) telah dijenamakan semula sebagai pemerkasaan peribadi. Malah perkahwinan, dan tindakan mengambil nama suami, kini sedang dibina semula sebagai pilihan feminis. Semua ini berlaku namun wanita masih menjadi mangsa diskriminasi sistematik pada dasar yang sama yang digunakan untuk pemerkasaan.

Wanita masih terpaksa menghadapi tahap keganasan seksual yang tinggi dan berjuta-juta wanita di seluruh dunia masih tidak mempunyai perlindungan undang-undang yang logik seperti rogol dalam perkahwinan. Aktivis masih berjuang di seluruh dunia untuk hak wanita dan gadis untuk tidak dicacatkan (mutilation) dan diekspoitasi. Pornografi dan pemerdagangan wanita dan kanak-kanak perempuan berkembang pesat terutamanya dalam eksploitasi seksual. Menyokong pilihan yang mengukuhkan institusi-institusi ini bermaksud untuk  mengabaikan jumlah tinggi wanita di seluruh dunia yang masih menjadi mangsa kepada penindasan dan ketidaksamaan hak.

Kita juga harus mengakui bahawa pilihan tidak muncul dari udara, tetapi dibentuk oleh norma masyarakat yang mengelilingi mereka.

Kami tidak tahu sama ada pilihan peribadi ini dibuat kerana patriarki ataupun tidak. Dalam banyak kes, budaya kini membina pemikiran di mana wanita mendapat keinginan, kepuasan dan kebahagiaan dengan memenuhi peranan yang lelaki inginkan. Walaupun pilihan ini tidaklah dipaksa, kepercayaan bahawa wanita sedang menjalankan hak mereka hanyalah sebuah ilusi, jika dia tidak bertanya pada diri sendiri tentang sebab mengapa pilihan yang “membebaskan” ini dibuat. Walaupun dia memakai solekan untuk keinginannya sendiri, adakah dia sedar bahawa keinginannya dibentuk oleh taraf kecantikan yang menindas yang dicipta oleh lelaki? Misogini boleh disebatikan dalam diri dan pilihan wanita boleh disebabkan oleh hasil pengaruh patriarki terhadap wanita tanpa disedari mereka. Memandangkan tiada cara untuk mengetahui perkara ini, choice feminism menjadi cara mudah bagi institusi-institusi ini untuk menunjukkan kononnya semua wanita sedar akan hak mereka untuk memilih dan membebaskan diri mereka daripada tekanan sosial ini.

Namun, walaupun choice feminism menyatakan bahawa pilihan wanita dalam masyarakat liberal bebas daripada patriarki, feminisme jenama mereka juga telah menerima banyak perhatian dalam budaya kini sehingga memasuki masyarakat di mana kaum wanita sememangnya masih lagi dibelenggu oleh budaya patriarki ini. Video “My Choice” yang dilancarkan oleh Vogue India telah menjadi popular dengan ikon popular, Deepika Padukone menggambarkan pemerkasaan wanita melalui beberapa pilihan. Ini sangat ironik kerana video itu dilancarkan oleh industri yang menyokong taraf kecantikan yang seksis; dan membingungkan, kerana India mempunyai budaya keganasan seksual dan epidemik rogol yang tidak terkawal. Sesetengah pilihan itu bukan setakat mengukuhkan lagi penindasan wanita dalam masyarakat yang konservatif, tetapi wanita yang terperangkap dalam persekitaran ini sering tidak diberikan kebebasan untuk memilih.

Kita tidak patut menyokong kerangka feminis yang mempersoalkan pilihan yang mengukuhkan lagi penindasan wanita dan dikecualikan daripada kritikan. Kritikan ini bukan serangan peribadi terhadap sifat wanita ini, tetapi langkah untuk memeriksa pandangan dunia feminis mereka.

Realiti yang tidak dapat dielakkan adalah semua wanita melalui liku-liku kehidupan yang berbeza dan ini membataskan kita daripada menjadi adil kepada wanita lain yang tidak melalui pengalaman yang sama. Pergerakan feminis kita mempunyai keluk pembelajaran di mana ramai wanita berjuang untuk didengari dan dimasukkan ke dalam naratif feminis. Choice feminists mempunyai alasan untuk berhati-hati terhadap keluk pembelajaran ini: para feminis perlu diwajibkan untuk mengkritik satu sama lain kerana membuat pilihan yang secara tidak sengaja tidak feminis.

Tetapi ini bukanlah petanda kemerosotan solidariti feminis. Ini adalah pergerakan yang diperlukan dalam merumuskan versi solidariti yang dapat meningkatkan kedudukan wanita. Walaupun feminis mungkin berbeza dalam pendekatan terhadap feminisme, tiada yang menafikan bahawa kita berkongsi matlamat yang sama dalam mencapai kesetaraan sosial, politik dan ekonomi. Satu-satunya cara untuk mencapai kesetaraan yang tulen adalah dengan mengatasi pelbagai penindasan patriarki yang dialami oleh wanita yang berlainan latar belakang. Sebagai sebuah pergerakan, kita tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mengenepikan seorang wanita sebagai tidak feminis, namun kita boleh membahaskan pilihan mana satu yang akan membantu perjuangan ke arah kesetaraan kita.

Kritikan ini bukan hanya sebahagian daripada proses pembelajaran, jika dilakukan kepada tokoh-tokoh yang dihormati ramai seperti Emma Watson, akan memberi kesan kepada seluruh masyarakat. Dalam pergaduhan antara Nicki Minaj dan Taylor Swift di Twitter, Minaj telah mengkritik MTV Video Music Awards kerana terdapat unsur-unsur kecenderungan budaya yang memihak kepada taraf kecantikan dan seksual yang dipamerkan supermodel. Dalam apa yang dikatakan sebagai serangan terhadap pencalonannya, Swift yang mengakui dirinya sebagai seorang feminis, menulis: “Saya tidak pernah melakukan apa-apa selain daripada menyokong kamu. Ia tidak seperti kamu untuk melagakan wanita sesama wanita. Mungkin slot kamu telah diambil oleh seorang lelaki…” Ketika Swift menawarkan pengalaman dia sebagai seorang artis berkulit putih, dia mengabaikan pengalaman Minaj yang melalui diskriminasi atas sebab taraf kecantikan dan seksual yang seksis sebagai wanita berkulit hitam.

Apa yang berlaku seterusnya ialah Swift telah diajar semula untuk memahami apa makna menjadi seorang intersectional feminist. Dia kemudian memohon maaf dan menulis: “Saya terlepas pandang dan salah faham, kemudian salah memberi pandangan.” Pembetulan pandangan dunia feminis Swift adalah disebabkan oleh kritikan dan laungan ketidakpuasan hati daripada para feminis dan penyekolahan semula Swift menjadi satu titik pembelajaran bagi ramai perempuan yang telah terlepas pandang penindasan wanita dalam golongan minoriti. Malah ikon feminis yang terkenal tidak terlepas daripada keluk pembelajaran ini. Gloria Steinem membayangkan bahawa penyokong Bernie Sanders yang terdiri daripada wanita muda hanyalah di sana untuk mengikuti lelaki dan Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie memberitahu bahawa perempuan trans bukanlah perempuan. Ianya merupakan reaksi daripada feminis yang membuatkan kedua-dua ikon ini untuk mendalami semula pandangan mereka dan meminta maaf secara terbuka atas keterlanjuran mereka.

Satu-satunya cara untuk kita memastikan tokoh awam dan feminis untuk menyedari  kembali keistimewaan mereka, atau untuk menyedari kesan daripada pilihan mereka terhadap wanita lain adalah dengan mengkritik pilihan mereka. Kita tidak boleh lagi memastikan perkara ini apabila ‘pilihan’ digunakan secara terang-terangan sebagai pertahanan untuk menamatkan perbualan. “Itu adalah pilihan dia,” “Dia tidak dipaksa oleh sesiapa, dia yang memilih untuk melakukannya demi keinginan diri sendiri,” atau “Dia bukan seorang mangsa, pilihan dia telah meningkatkan kedudukan dia” kini menjadi taraf unggul dalam menentukan nilai pilihan feminis.

Pilihan itu mungkin boleh memberi manfaat kepada individu tersebut, namun ia juga berkemungkinan untuk tidak  bermanfaat kepada kebebasan kolektif wanita.

Memandangkan feminisme moden menghargai pelbagai cabang feminisme yang mengakui bentuk penindasan yang dihadapi oleh wanita berbeza bergantung kepada identiti dan konteks mereka, choice feminism yang melemahkan konteks pilihan tertentu adalah membingungkan. Kita mahu membina satu solidariti politik, namun kita enggan bersama dalam membantah pilihan yang mengukuhkan lagi penindasan wanita yang berbeza berbanding diri kita sendiri.

Sekiranya penderitaan kita dikaitkan bersama, maka jalan penyelesaian kita juga haruslah sama. Asal usul gerakan feminis tidak pernah bermaksud untuk kebebasan pilihan hanya untuk individu yang terpilih, tetapi untuk kebebasan seluruh jantina sebagai kelas sosial yang terpinggir. Pilihan yang melemahkan pergerakan ini, walaupun boleh dibenarkan, tidak patut diraikan oleh feminis.

The Choice Feminist Delusion

thegblogteam No Comments

  

 

  “Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality,” said Emma Watson to a chorus of female cheers reverberating across the world. [1] If there was ever an archetype for the 21st century feminist, Watson would be its superhero and those words would be the battle cry for her fellow choice feminists.

Choice feminism has been so fetishized within popular culture that when women criticise particular industries, institutions and social constructs as patriarchal, they are often met with accusations of attacking the women who choose to participate in them. It doesn’t even matter what the choice is, the comments section would inevitably devolve into her personal right to choose. To say anything otherwise is to defeat her personal liberation, and to stampede on her choice is anti-feminist, so they say. They’re right, in so far as women should have the right to choose, but does it follow that every choice is a good choice for the collective liberation of all women?

The pitfall of this feminist blueprint is that it presumes that we live in a post-patriarchal world where every female choice made, is one that is made independent of the suffocating influences of the patriarchy. It presumes that a liberating choice made by women in first world democracies has no effect in entrenching the very institutions that robs choice from women in third world countries. Most importantly, it presumes that some choices are not made at the expense of the collective liberation of all women.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

The core belief of choice feminism is that any choice you make towards your self-fulfillment is a feminist action. The narrative behind that is noble: women’s choices were made for them under a more severe patriarchal past, so any ability to choose is a liberating one. The foible presents itself when choices that seem to personify female subordination are now being repackaged as liberating personal choices; despite the fact that the patriarchy, popular culture, corporate retail and the mass media are all clamouring to hijack the promotion of those choices for their own gains.

Pornography and prostitution are being rebranded as sexual liberation. [2] Cosmetic surgery and make-up are being rebranded as personal fulfillment. [3] Sexual objectification is being rebranded as personal empowerment. [4] Even marriage, and the act of taking your husband’s name, is now being reconstructed as a feminist choice. [5] All of this is happening while women are still primarily the victims of structural discrimination on those very same platforms that are being used for empowerment.

Women still face unbearably high levels of sexual violence and millions of women around the world do not even have the limited protection of common sense laws like marital rape. Activists are still fighting all around the world for the rights of girls and women to not be mutilated and exploited. Pornography and the trafficking of women and girls are booming global businesses trading primarily in sexual exploitation. To support choices which strengthen these institutions ignores the horrific number of women worldwide who still experience oppression and inequality.

We also need to acknowledge that choices are not made in a vacuum, they are shaped by the normative social forces surrounding them.

We have no way of knowing if these personal choices are made because of the patriarchy or despite of it. In many cases, popular culture constructs a mindset in which women find fulfillment, satisfaction and happiness from fulfilling the exact roles that men want them to. While these choices are not exactly coerced, the agency that some women believe they are exercising is an illusion, if she does not self-interrogate the reasons why she makes these “liberating” choices. While she wears make-up for her own personal fulfillment, is she aware that her fulfillment is shaped by the oppressive beauty standards perpetuated by men? Misogyny can be internalized and her choice could be a byproduct of patriarchal influences that she is not consciously aware of. Since there’s no way of knowing, choice feminism presents an easy cop-out that paints all women to be self-aware in a way that frees herself from these coercive social forces.

Yet, even if choice feminists can genuinely proclaim that the choices of women in liberal societies are made independent of the patriarchy, their brand of feminism is also taking over popular culture en masse which trickles down to societies where women are definitively not free from those patriarchal forces. The “My Choice” video launched by Vogue India went viral with a popular icon, Deepika Padukone depicting female empowerment through a series of choices. [6] Ironic, considering the video is launched by an industry that reinforces sexist beauty standards; and confounding, considering that India suffers from a culture of sexual violence and a rape epidemic that’s beyond control. [7] Some of those choices not only consolidate the female oppression in conservative societies, but women trapped in these environments are often not in the position to freely make these choices.  

We should not stand for a feminist framework where questioning choices that reinforce female oppression can be inoculated from criticism. These criticisms are not a personal attack to the character of these women, they are stepping stones to recalibrating their feminist worldview.

The unavoidable reality is that all women experience different levels of privilege which potentially barricades us from being fair to other women who do not have the same shared experiences. Our solidarity has a learning curve wherein many women are fighting to be heard and included in the feminist narrative. Choice feminists have reason to be wary of what this learning curve may entail: fellow feminists would have to be obliged to criticise one another for making choices that are unwittingly “unfeminist”.

 

 

But this is not a devolution of feminist solidarity. This is a necessary maneuver in formulating a version of solidarity that could elevate the position of all women. While feminists may differ in our approach to feminism, there is no denying that we share a common goal in achieving the complete social, political and economic equality of all genders. The only way we can accomplish genuine equality is to capture the different shades of patriarchal oppression suffered by women of different backgrounds. As a movement, we are not singling out individual women as unfeminist, we are simply debating which choices serve our cause for equality better.

These criticisms are not only part and parcel of an educational process, doing so to public figures that are greatly revered by many, like Emma Watson, has a spillover effect to the rest of society. In the infamous Nicki Minaj-Taylor Swift Twitter debacle, Minaj lambasted the MTV Video Music Awards for having a cultural bias in favor of the slim, supermodel-type of beauty and sexuality. In what she perceived to be an attack towards her nomination, Swift, a self-professed feminist, tweeted: “I’ve done nothing but love and support you. It’s unlike you to pit women against each other. Maybe one of the men took your slot…” While Swift was offering what was true to her own experience as a white female artist, she is ignoring the intersectionality of Minaj’s experience of sexist beauty standards as a black woman. [8]

What follows next is tremendous, Swift experienced a public re-education on what it meant to be an intersectional feminist. She apologised and tweeted: “I missed the point, I misunderstood, then misspoke.” This recalibration of her feminist worldview was owed to the massive outcries and criticisms levied by fellow feminists and Swift’s public schooling acted as a multiplier force for many young women who have also not considered the complexities of female oppression for minorities. Even renowned feminist icons are not free from this learning curve. Gloria Steinem insinuated that young female supporters of Bernie Sanders are there to simply follow the men and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie purported that trans women are not women. It is the feminist backlash that made both of these figures recalibrate their positions and publicly apologize for their ill-considered stumbles. [9][10]

The only way we can compel public figures and everyday feminists to check their privilege, or to realize the far-reaching consequences of their choices to other women is to criticise their choices. We can no longer access this when ‘choice’ is flagrantly used as a catch-all defense to end conversations. “It’s her choice,” “No one forced her to do it, she chose it to do it for her own fulfillment,” or “She is not a victim, this choice improved her position” has now become the golden standard to determining the value of a feminist choice.

While that may benefit the individual, it may or may not benefit the collective liberation of women.

Considering that modern feminism appreciates intersectionality which acknowledges the different levels of oppression that women suffer depending on their identity and context, choice feminism which belittles the context of certain choices is perplexing. We want to build a politics of solidarity, yet we refuse to collectivize against choices that perpetuate the oppression of women who suffer differently than we do.

If our suffering is interwoven together, then our solution must be, too. The origin of the feminist movement was never meant to be about liberating the specific choices of individuals, it was about the liberation of the entire gender as a marginalized class. Choices that undermine that, while they should be allowed, should not be celebrated by feminists.


References

 

[1] Washington, A. (2017, May 3). Emma Watson defines feminism in her response to Vanity Fair topless photo shoot criticism. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/emma-watson-defines-feminism-her-response-vanity-fair-topless-photo-shoot-criticism-983295

[2] Bell, K. J. (2009). A feminist’s argument on how sex work can benefit women. Inquiries Journal. Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/28/a-feminists-argument-on-how-sex-work-can-benefit-women

[3] Neustatter, A. (2014, February 3). I’m a feminist and I’ve had cosmetic surgery. Why is that a problem? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/feminist-cosmetic-surgery-low-body-confidence

[4] Berlatsky, N. (2014, October 7). Beyoncé doesn’t perform for the male gaze. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/social-justice/beyonce-91908

[5] Deitz, B. (2015, September 30). Why changing your name after marriage can be a feminist act. Bustle. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/articles/113010-why-changing-your-name-after-marriage-can-be-a-feminist-act

[6] Deepika Padukone – “My Choice” directed by Homi Adajania – Vogue Empower. (2016, February 10). Retrieved from http://www.vogue.in/video/deepika-padukone-my-choice-directed-by-homi-adajania-vogue-empower/

[7] Khan, S. (2016, March 23). What’s really behind India’s rape crisis. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/whats-really-behind-indias-rape-crisis

[8] Armstrong, J.K. (2016, February 1). Taylor Swift’s feminist evolution. Billboard. Retrieved

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7423962/taylor-swift-feminism-impact

[9] Crockett, E. (2017, March 15). The controversy over Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and trans women, explained. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14910900/chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-transgender-women-comments-apology

[10] Contrera, J. (2016, February 7). Gloria Steinem is apologizing for insulting female Bernie Sanders supporters. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/02/07/gloria-steinem-is-apologizing-for-insulting-female-bernie-sanders-supporters/?utm_term=.1deec594fc77

 

The Hijabi Feminist: Am I A Walking Contradiction?

thegblogteam 7 comments

by Mai Mokhsein 

There is this limbo that exists for a liberally-educated person who believes in religion.

You grow up learning the undeniably benevolent core values of religion until they become an unshakeable part of who you are; but you also grow up learning the unquestionable ideals of human rights – that the thought of siding with oppression in any way, is outlandish and unacceptable. At some point in your adult life, you start to realize that these two versions of you cannot co-exist without contradicting each other time and time again. And the moment you attempt to reconcile these two beliefs, you also realise that you exist on the fringes of both of the communities you wish to embrace. You are just a tad too progressive for the religious community you grew up in, yet a tad too conservative for the secular society you aspire to belong to.

1

Get in Touch!

We're fun to talk to. We promise!