There are a significant number of women who are reluctant to identify with feminism.
Nevertheless, they consider themselves equal to men and expect to be treated as the equals of men. The extent of this ‘proto’-feminist consciousness — an awareness of the inequality of women and a determination to resist it at an individual level — is a definitive accomplishment of the women’s movement. But the rupture between feminist consciousness and the movement from which it emerged is something of a conundrum.
Perhaps it is an inevitable fissure. Take for example the women’s enfranchisment movement. Recently, my mother-in-law, upon learning the subject matter of the book I was reading — Kumari Jayawardena’s Casting Pearls — was flabbergasted when she heard that at some point in history women did not have the right to vote. How many women today, young or old, identify with the women’s struggle for the vote in the early 20th century? Nevertheless, women today understand the power an individual vote has in determining the future of our country; and, I would imagine, be outraged if the State decides, say on the grounds of family cohesion, to introduce legislation allowing only male heads of household the right to vote. One could argue that this unquestioning acceptance of political rights as being fundamental to citizenship, this shift from a demand to the idea of an entitlement, signals the success of the suffrage movement.
Let’s take what I would like to call the 'proto-feminists' in the corporate sector: smart, savvy women who have excelled academically and who now hold management positions. They would not tolerate without protest any notion that men are smarter than them. They know that’s not true. They’ve outperformed them in the classroom, more often than not. These women certainly would not accept being paid less than their male counterparts either. She thinks, perhaps unconsciously, that as long as her contribution to the organization is recognized and she is equally rewarded for her hard work that there is gender equality.
Even in the home, these women would not accept, without protest, the gender division of labour—that they should do all the cooking, cleaning, ironing and child care without assistance from their husbands. Take for example my friend Iromie—mother of two, running her own small garment business who actively negotiates on an everyday basis how she and her husband share child-care and house-work responsibilities. Or Cristina, who actively protests stereotypical images of female beauty by refusing to wear makeup and ‘feminine’ clothes despite the many hints from her family. Iromie would be shocked if I tell her she’s drawing from a feminist consciousness, and Cristina cannot see any parallels between the choices she makes and feminism.
One danger posed by the expanding rift between feminism as a movement and this (proto) feminist consciousness is that feminist consciousness is losing its radical edge, argues Barbara Epstein, a professor at the University of California Santa Cruz, in her article “Feminist Consciousness after the Women’s Movement.” This has happened, she says, in the professional fields where feminism has tended to absorb the obsession with individual success that prevails in that arena. Rhonda Garelick, an associate professor at Connecticut College, writing in the New York Times, reflects on the lack of political engagement in the contemporary classroom about women’s rights and cultural politics. “Although virtually all of my female students expect to pursue careers, this is where their enlightenment seems to end. For them, the reassuring power of a college degree to unlock professional doors seems to have rendered ‘feminism’ obsolete. In other words, the fires of feminism may have burned down to the ashes of careerism.”
Let’s take an example of a young woman working for an international NGO. Having chosen to work on women’s livelihoods, she’s now preoccupied with writing countless reports and attending meetings. Because gender equality is part of the organizational philosophy, if not one of its explicit objectives, she may not think that there is any need to have a feminist awareness, and certainly does not identify herself as a feminist. (Perhaps, she’s even embarrassed by the label because of its associations with angry, humourless women with scant regard for personal appearance.) This lack of a feminist consciousness means a lack of political questioning of the work she does. So, she may not find it problematic at all to ‘work’ towards women’s ‘empowerment’ by setting up beauty culture and sewing classes.
Young women today are more self-confident, are climbing the corporate ladders, and are not afraid to speak their mind, for the most part. However, they are like the present day environmentally conscious people Epstein describes, who take action on environmental issues largely in individual ways - such as in their shopping habits and in recycling - but bear no resemblance to the activists who engaged in radical political activity. To some degree, this expansion of ‘consciousness’ beyond the borders of the movement in which it first emerged, as Epstein argues, shows the lasting influence of those movements. But as she says, it also has to do with what appears to be the decline of political and protest movements.
But, wait! Protest cannot become irrelevant or old-fashioned because the struggle is by no means over. Personal success is not equality. What about domestic violence? What about equality before the law with regard to land and property rights? What about women continuing to be regarded as wives and mothers and not valued for who they are? And what about being classified with children and the disabled—in our Constitution no less! What about the barrage of gender stereotypes and sexist imagery that is spewed at us in the name of advertising? Why do women continue to be told how to behave, how to dress, and what to look like? Why do we accept without protest the misogynist commentary of our radio DJs during morning shows?
A feminist consciousness is a consciousness that is not complacent—it is forever analysing and always critiquing.
What about sexual harassment? Otherwise strong, independent women continue to tolerate it in the workplace because of fear. Fear to tip the precarious balance of equality because it would prove that women really are not up to the task of serious work if they’re going to cry every time the boss makes a sexual innuendo. Fear that one would lose one’s popularity with the boys and perhaps even other women. Fear that one would be labelled a ‘feminist’, i.e., a ‘prude’ with no sense of humour.
A (proto) feminist consciousness is inadequate to the challenge.
Nevertheless, they consider themselves equal to men and expect to be treated as the equals of men. The extent of this ‘proto’-feminist consciousness — an awareness of the inequality of women and a determination to resist it at an individual level — is a definitive accomplishment of the women’s movement. But the rupture between feminist consciousness and the movement from which it emerged is something of a conundrum.
Perhaps it is an inevitable fissure. Take for example the women’s enfranchisment movement. Recently, my mother-in-law, upon learning the subject matter of the book I was reading — Kumari Jayawardena’s Casting Pearls — was flabbergasted when she heard that at some point in history women did not have the right to vote. How many women today, young or old, identify with the women’s struggle for the vote in the early 20th century? Nevertheless, women today understand the power an individual vote has in determining the future of our country; and, I would imagine, be outraged if the State decides, say on the grounds of family cohesion, to introduce legislation allowing only male heads of household the right to vote. One could argue that this unquestioning acceptance of political rights as being fundamental to citizenship, this shift from a demand to the idea of an entitlement, signals the success of the suffrage movement.
Let’s take what I would like to call the 'proto-feminists' in the corporate sector: smart, savvy women who have excelled academically and who now hold management positions. They would not tolerate without protest any notion that men are smarter than them. They know that’s not true. They’ve outperformed them in the classroom, more often than not. These women certainly would not accept being paid less than their male counterparts either. She thinks, perhaps unconsciously, that as long as her contribution to the organization is recognized and she is equally rewarded for her hard work that there is gender equality.
Even in the home, these women would not accept, without protest, the gender division of labour—that they should do all the cooking, cleaning, ironing and child care without assistance from their husbands. Take for example my friend Iromie—mother of two, running her own small garment business who actively negotiates on an everyday basis how she and her husband share child-care and house-work responsibilities. Or Cristina, who actively protests stereotypical images of female beauty by refusing to wear makeup and ‘feminine’ clothes despite the many hints from her family. Iromie would be shocked if I tell her she’s drawing from a feminist consciousness, and Cristina cannot see any parallels between the choices she makes and feminism.
One danger posed by the expanding rift between feminism as a movement and this (proto) feminist consciousness is that feminist consciousness is losing its radical edge, argues Barbara Epstein, a professor at the University of California Santa Cruz, in her article “Feminist Consciousness after the Women’s Movement.” This has happened, she says, in the professional fields where feminism has tended to absorb the obsession with individual success that prevails in that arena. Rhonda Garelick, an associate professor at Connecticut College, writing in the New York Times, reflects on the lack of political engagement in the contemporary classroom about women’s rights and cultural politics. “Although virtually all of my female students expect to pursue careers, this is where their enlightenment seems to end. For them, the reassuring power of a college degree to unlock professional doors seems to have rendered ‘feminism’ obsolete. In other words, the fires of feminism may have burned down to the ashes of careerism.”
Let’s take an example of a young woman working for an international NGO. Having chosen to work on women’s livelihoods, she’s now preoccupied with writing countless reports and attending meetings. Because gender equality is part of the organizational philosophy, if not one of its explicit objectives, she may not think that there is any need to have a feminist awareness, and certainly does not identify herself as a feminist. (Perhaps, she’s even embarrassed by the label because of its associations with angry, humourless women with scant regard for personal appearance.) This lack of a feminist consciousness means a lack of political questioning of the work she does. So, she may not find it problematic at all to ‘work’ towards women’s ‘empowerment’ by setting up beauty culture and sewing classes.
Young women today are more self-confident, are climbing the corporate ladders, and are not afraid to speak their mind, for the most part. However, they are like the present day environmentally conscious people Epstein describes, who take action on environmental issues largely in individual ways - such as in their shopping habits and in recycling - but bear no resemblance to the activists who engaged in radical political activity. To some degree, this expansion of ‘consciousness’ beyond the borders of the movement in which it first emerged, as Epstein argues, shows the lasting influence of those movements. But as she says, it also has to do with what appears to be the decline of political and protest movements.
But, wait! Protest cannot become irrelevant or old-fashioned because the struggle is by no means over. Personal success is not equality. What about domestic violence? What about equality before the law with regard to land and property rights? What about women continuing to be regarded as wives and mothers and not valued for who they are? And what about being classified with children and the disabled—in our Constitution no less! What about the barrage of gender stereotypes and sexist imagery that is spewed at us in the name of advertising? Why do women continue to be told how to behave, how to dress, and what to look like? Why do we accept without protest the misogynist commentary of our radio DJs during morning shows?
A feminist consciousness is a consciousness that is not complacent—it is forever analysing and always critiquing.
What about sexual harassment? Otherwise strong, independent women continue to tolerate it in the workplace because of fear. Fear to tip the precarious balance of equality because it would prove that women really are not up to the task of serious work if they’re going to cry every time the boss makes a sexual innuendo. Fear that one would lose one’s popularity with the boys and perhaps even other women. Fear that one would be labelled a ‘feminist’, i.e., a ‘prude’ with no sense of humour.
A (proto) feminist consciousness is inadequate to the challenge.
Asha Abeyasekera-Van Dort (MHC '98) is a native of Sri Lanka.
3 comments:
Absolutely love this article! Amen Asha!
Asha, I read your blog and found it very interesting, but I have a question ... why this? Why feminism f all the other agendas out there that could, in a gender-neutral way, lleviate suffering?
Your argument, as I see it, is that feminist movement's work is not yet over all women everywhere are not yet "equal" to men) and the very forces that signal success of the western feminist movement, (such as the growing equality of women in the corporate workplace and the growing entitlement women feel over
this equality) reinforce a very personal, individualistic hybrid of
feminism/career ambition that does not have the service-orientedness that is needed to liberate the rest of the sufferers.
But could the purpose of feminism (equality of women, not dominance of women, hopefully) not be accomplished by other equally compelling ideologies? - an
assertion of human rights, or even of the individualism you criticised?
Feminism's radical edge has probably lost out to time - there is a natural life cycle, I would presume, for any movement. A radical phase can hardly last for
too long, it would not be "radical" anymore, unless it constantly evolved or
mutated into more radical version. If encouraging liberation through other
means (like career ambition) seems to work, why not go with it? Why must suffering be looked at through a feminist lens? And btw, if women want to have beauty or sewing classes, why not? The important thing is, did they choose it, no?
This article seems a bit misdirected in two fundamental ways. First, it appears anachronistic. If the 'proto-feminist' consciousness is being internalized (as is evident in all the examples cited), that seems more powerful than what appears to be political propaganda. In fact, ideology -- or, what you don't know you know -- is perhaps the most powerful weapon 'feminism' has right now. The revolution is subtle: gender equality becomes more and more internalized as a way of life, rather than as political protest. This seems to me a much more realistic method.
Furthermore, I am a big supporter of "non-complacent consciousness, always analyzing and critiquing." Why this consciousness should be relegated to a gender is unclear. In fact, the "proto-feminists in the corporate sector: smart, savvy women who have excelled academically and who now hold management positions" appear to be the standpoint of critique rather than the object. The loss of our smart, idealistic, progressive graduates to corporate consulting and investment banking firms whose goals are to increase company profit by any means necessary (in a disillusioning, ironic use of the famous phrase) should be, it seems to me, the object of critique. The article, as I understand it, seems to be congratulating women for getting as lost as men in the 'logic of capital'.
Post a Comment