I had a discussion with a friend on twitter a while ago. She stated that “the most insecure woman at any event will usually have the shortest dress on.” I responded suggesting that this may not be true. Insecure people, I said, tend to be just as insecure about their bodies – nobody wants to flaunt what they don’t think they got. Her response was striking to me… and I couldn’t at the time really express my ideas about it- I had to think a while. “You are assuming that if a woman has it, she’ll want to flaunt it – a very male point of view.”
Now firstly, I think there’s a bit of a hidden insult in that response… I am a male, it’s pretty much impossible for me to not have a male point of view. Rationality only requires me to recognize this bias, and consider alternates – not to be free of bias – that’s a goal nobody can ever even start to achieve. That however, was not the core aspect for me. Much worse is that the generalization in the statement is entirely false.
In fact, this discussion details one of the major disagreements in the feminist movement today. And because feminism is an -ism – it is ideological rather than rational. It set a goal (noble enough – equal treatment) but then became so obsessed with routing out perceived inequality that all men became the enemy, unless they stopped being men – leading to the so-called “male identity crisis” of the 90′s and the metrosexual movement (while studies show that the vast majority of women find metrosexual men distinctly unattractive).
Feminism has long ceased to be a noble cause exactly because it degenerated into an ideology. Now I would say exactly the same thing about any -ism including capitalism or communisim. The moment your ideology becomes so important that you can see no grounds for exceptions – that you cannot choose the rational best-approach on a case-by-case basis it becomes harmful, regardless how noble it may have started out.
The disagreement in feminist circles came to a head last year when a group of Welsh women, inspired by the true-life movie Calendar Girls made a nude calendar. Their calendar made money, and they wanted to donate this to feminist charities… but the first charity they offered it to refused the donation!
The feminist charity said: “This isn’t feminism. We want less focus on women’s bodies, and more on their brains. There are too much female nudity out there already and we can’t support a campaign built on adding to it.”
Yet for those Welsh women what they were doing was an act of liberation – shackling of a repressive social attitude, ignoring it and taking pride in their bodies.
So who is right ? The Welsh women who feel they shouldn’t have to hide their bodies or the organisation thinking that the evolutionary predisposition of straight men to enjoy a women’s figure makes them incapable of appreciating her mind ?
To me, there is no debate- those women felt liberated by their actions. They rebelled against something they experienced as sex-based discrimination in their culture – they made themselves more equal. Could it be that they did it at the price of all other women being less equal now ?
Actually, I don’t think so – this is where ideology becomes so narrow-minded as to ruin people’s perspective (that’s what ideology means). Right now among the most sexualy unequal societies in the world are those practising strict Sharia law. The women in those societies could make a very strong argument that never being allowed to leave the house without a Hajib on, that never getting the sun on their faces “lest they inspire the lusts of men” is a far worse form of discrimination than having a man ogling you in a pub.
No wonder most women no longer want to be associated with the feminist movement. None of them want to be discriminated against, but when some women tell you that men thinking you are good-looking is always and without exception discriminatory is so obviously irrational and removes something that they find such joy in – that they only logical conclusion they can come to is that these must be a jealous minority of women who never get ogled.
That stereotype is completely false to. The feminists aren’t (at least probably most of them aren’t) just jealous, ugly old women… they are just blinded by their ideology. What would rational equality be in terms of display of the human body then ?
To me, it’s very simple and has nothing to do with the gender of the person on display. Anybody should be allowed to flaunt however much or little they personally and individually want to, whenever they want to, to whomever they want to… but nobody should ever HAVE to flaunt anything.
Physical flirtation is as much an aspect of our humanity and sexuality as kissing is. It is appopriate in some contexts, and inappropriate in others and we have a right to demand that these appropriate behaviours be respected. A boss that abuses her position of power to sexually intimidate or take advantage of an employee is doing wrong, and that’s why this is illegal. The sex of the boss and employee is irrelevent (any other point of view would make it impossible for a gay, female manager to sexually harrass a female employee for example – well nobody is perfect, and being gay doesn’t by default make you any better at respecting other people’s sexual rights, neither does being female or anything else – that is a matter of personal responsibility and choice).
In my culture, it is still common practise to greet all relatives and close friends of the opposite sex with a kiss (this practise seems to be dying out in the current generation, being replaced by hugs instead- but even those youngsters will still kiss-greet their older aunts). There is nothing sexual about this kiss, it’s a light peck on the lips that implies affection only. In that context, it’s appropriate behavior. Running up to a random stranger of the opposite sex, introducing yourself and then kissing them would not be.
That may seem obvious – but the thing is that obvious things become invisible to us when we wear the blinders of ideology. Once feminists began their crusade against one type of mysoginist society, they became like any soldiers, completely blinded to the humanity of their enemy. The enemy was the patriarchy of their time, but it came to be “all men”. That’s why feminists had to redefine the word sexism from what it says in the dictionary it means, so that only men could ever practise it and only women could ever be victims. Their arguments for doing so are spurious at best and overlook much obvious evidence that outright proves it wrong. They claim that sexism can only occur (or at least matter) when it’s discrimination by the one in power, and since men have the power – women can never be sexist.
They had to make this definition because the (much denied but blatantly visible) male-hatred that came to permeate their war (as it does all wars) couldn’t be justified otherwise. But what if a female manager sexually harrasses a male employee ? Is she not being sexist ? She has the power in that relationship, she’s abusing it.
I can categorically state the vast majority of small business owners I know are female – female entrepeneurship has truly taken off in my city in the last decade. This is a positive thing. But those women are now bosses. If they abuse their position – they are being sexist, that they are women doesn’t change anything about this.
There are many examples of inequality in our society. Some of it however, is rationaly justified. Radical feminist Gloria Steinhem has actually demanded that firemen-testing must remove physical-fitness tests because men have a natural advantage there and thus a 50% percent representation is impossible. That a firewoman who can’t carry an unconscious person through a building won’t be able to do her job does not deter her. She is so obsessed with the ideology that equality means 50% female workforce, that she is unable to accept any realities that could stop this in any case.
Yet she’s never complained about the lack of representation of women as garbage collectors, or of men as preschool teachers (a profession that is incredibly biassed against men, in a society that tends to have a very sexist assumption that men with a love for children must be paedophiles – that’s what ideological propaganda can do for you).
The debate as it currently stands is, ultimately, between second-wave and third-wave feminism. Third wave feminism tends to embrace sex-positivity, while second-wave saw sex as a method of maintaining inequality. The reality is though that the vast majority of contemporary women vehemently deny being feminists even as they hapilly embrace the ideals of third-wave feminism. This is a positive move – it shows a society moving from ideology to idealism. Idealism has no place for blinders, idealism is about pursuing something noble. It’s not in contrast to realism, realism is recognition of the gaps between present reality and the ideal. Practical idealism is the process by which one tries to change that reality into the ideal, and for the vast majority of women today- this is no longer a battle for acceptance to be fought with activism. It’s a matter of living true to their ideals and themselves. It’s a matter of embracing their rights not so much as women but as individuals. Ultimately, that’s beyond equality, that’s freedom… think of it as the upgrade pack.
Sadly, politics is usually 50 years behind reality and it’s no different here. Those feminists in politics, and those politicians who listen to them are stil reacting to second-wave feminist ideas, blind to the faillures of it. Because third-wave feminism is no longer combatative, it isn’t being heard – and those who had spent a lifetime in combat, have no capacity left to recognize the humanity of their perceived enemy – and regard their daughters who do as weaklings who had given up the fight… not realising that the fight is over.
We have new battles to fight now. We have to fight barbaric practises like circumsition and genital mutilation (and for a start recognize that it is no less barbaric if done to a man). We have to fight true cultural inequalities like those in extreme Sharia law. But this is no longer a fight between genders. The war of the sexes is over, it has to be. This is a fight for individual freedom and humanity – a fight we need to be fighting side-by-side. Equality is not the goal anymore, it’s the measure. We can measure how much individual freedom we have attained – by how equal we have become.
This is a fight that all who believe in individual freedom needs to fight together, against all prejudice and discrimination. Racism, homophobia, sexism, no matter who does it, no matter why – we must speak out against it as one voice. The war of the sexes is over… the war for our humanity has just begun- and that is why boobquake was one of the best and most powerful pieces of activism I have ever witnessed. Women responding to a mysoginist, sexist claim. A claim that demeans them and denies them sexual freedom… not with futile rage or anger but by mocking it and showing it up for the absolute trash it is… and having fun in the process, without ever pressuring anybody to do anything they wouldn’t have done anyway.
Bravo boobquake ladies. You get it.
We all have our parts to play. I do my bit as a writer, and maybe I’ll change a mind or two. That’s not huge, but I think it’s a good start, in fact I think it’s more than enough… because every time a person has an orgasm because that person wanted one, by themselves or with a partner (or partners) of their own choice… that is freedom. Not just orgasms of course, though it’s an effective measuring tool (and of course, a very fun one), but in all things. Getting a fair chance to try and achieve the career you want, and going for it.
In fact… the true activism of our time, the most important thing we all can do – is to live our lives. Our lives, not the lives scripted for us by old authority figures – and encourage (without pressuring) everyone around us to do the same even if just by our example.