Why I believe in feminism and why I believe it is still relevant, and will always be relevant, is two-pronged from even the most cursory of glances:
- Women should be entitled to a collective identity of the feminine and womanhood; and
- Women should be allowed to care for one another.
I allege that where feminism goes wrong is when it tries to absolve women and females from equal responsibility.
Radical feminism simultaneously both attempts to and inevitably fails to absolve women for ‘50%’ responsibility for the state of the world; this equal responsibility tacitly acknowledges that women and men are and always have been equal in power, just in different ways. Even with clear-cut patriarchal regimes such as the Taliban’s Afghanistan, it is appallingly self-flagellating for men to oppress women. For example, to oppress women through mandating the wearing of the burkha may mean a pregnant woman, carrying a male foetus, may not get sufficient vitamin D from sunlight, which may harm this male even before birth; another example is the male control exerted over women against allowing girls and women having healthy emotional connections within friendship circles, which stifles group development of intellect in social dialectics.
To oppress women is to stifle their potential for much more being-for-men that free women have, as a function of their larger and more generalizing being-for-others.
If women are oppressed by men why else or can it be that school girls are outperforming school boys? Some food for thought?
I concede that I agree with radical feminists that we need more fully equalize gender roles, whilst disagreeing with their claims of a male supremacy or of a simplistic explanation in attempted substantiation of women’s oppression.
Refuting the meta-claim that “women are oppressed by men” is inevitably one meta-claim (purportedly) refuting another meta-claim: that “women are not oppressed any more than women oppress men”. The single most scientific edifice supporting this ‘not oppressed’ claim is that women have proportionately a larger and more active anterior cingulate gyrus area of the human brain. This region is likely implicated in procuring and cultivating greater brain-based empathy.[1]
We see that greater emotional regulation, emanating from a more streamlined brain-based empathy, as a dimorphic characteristic of women, gave evolutionary advantages, not only for their offspring, but also for their gender.
Simplistic claims of radical feminism, unfortunately like any top-heavy ideology, leads to a hateful and reactionary worldview, stifling cooperation and not allowing for the give-and-take gender negotiation dialectics. Good faith gender negotiation is a two-way street; it is in good faith to acknowledge the shortcomings of one’s own gender in taking responsibility for poor and/or sub-optimal behvaiours, as well as the candid admission of the nature of one’s own gender’s privilege, and how these unique privileges can be better shared for more gender equity and/or better equality (of gender roles).
[1] See Henneberg, M & Saniotis, A 2016, The Dynamic Human, Sharjah, Bentham Science Publishers, p. 130.
Henry Willoughby's Social Justice Blog 