Originally posted by: Bhatakti_atma
I agree that this argument is often put forth for both Hijabis and housewives and there is largely this belief that such women have no choice because of the patriarchal conditioning. All I am saying is that feminism has come a long way and it is no longer just the white, middle class, heterosexual dominated movement. Of course it is still not as accommodating as it is presented. Hence the segmentation and need for Black Feminism, Third World Feminism and so on and so forth.
I don't know what it is like in your country or your part of the world but for us here the focus is on intersectionality. Of course again there are roadblocks to it. India has a highly stratified social structure in terms of religion, caste, class, ethnicity,etc. So if the stance of the feminist discourse is not intersectional it is largely meaningless. In the present scenario when there have been blatant violent and brutal attacks on the Muslims, there has been much solidarity and sympathy expressed by these feminist groups and organizations and they have indeed made efforts to make sure a voice is given to the marginalized and they are included and made to feel equal.
My point of diversion is this gross generalization that most strands of feminism demean and devalue and in a way stigmatize the domestic labour women engage in. Intersectional feminism does not ridicule or blame these women. These new strands are vibrant and accepting and are hence called 'choice feminism'. Of course there can be an abyss between theory and practice but its evolving and in the right direction.
Agree with the unbalanced dichotomy point. Nonetheless, i still stick to my stance that like all movements and struggles and people are given chance to revise and better themselves, we should extend the same for Feminism. We should appreciate its advances while highlighting its lacunas. We don't have to demonize or discredit an entire movement that is struggling in this patriarchal, unequal setting.
When i said i can suggest you texts to prove my point, I in no way mean to say that you you don't have enough information or you haven't read enough. I wouldn't take offence if someone offers me suggestions in the academic world. Giving or taking suggestions is quite normal because there can always be stuff that people have not read. There is extensive literature available. Most people here must have read more than me. I am a student myself and learning. Anyway, learning new things has no link with studentship. One does not have to be mean when having a fruitful discussion. 'It went over your head' has a rude undertone. But you might not have meant it that way since it is difficult to judge tones over texts. Also, I never said that your argument states that gender socialization is false. My earlier post was not an attack. I don't do that. Idk if you felt that way. If so my apologies. When i was emphasizing on those socialization points I was actually agreeing with you.
Anyway you and I may not agree on certain points but having a good discussions is always enjoyable. Thanks for that. ❤️😃
I agree that this argument is often put forth for both Hijabis and housewives and there is largely this belief that such women have no choice because of the patriarchal conditioning. All I am saying is that feminism has come a long way and it is no longer just the white, middle class, heterosexual dominated movement. Of course it is still not as accommodating as it is presented. Hence the segmentation and need for Black Feminism, Third World Feminism and so on and so forth.
I broadly agree with this, and it's in line with the crux of my argument. What I initially took issue with was the idea that feminism is by and large inclusive and non-judgemental; or that there are no alternatives to supporting the movement.
As I previously said, there are attempts within the movement to move towards intersectionality however thus far these have largely fallen flat. Which is why we still have segmented branches (i.e. 'third world' feminism).
Feminism in the subcontinent is less problematic and its capacity to force much needed changes far outweigh its fallacies. Feminism is just beginning to gain ground in this region, and cannot be compared to third/fourth wave feminism in the west. I would argue that feminism in the subcontinent is in fact in its first (at a push second) generation, and bares strong similitude to second wave feminism (in the west). Which isn't to say there weren't grass-root feminists in the region in the 19th/20th century; rather that these women largely worked alone or in small groups and were never able to gain enough support to bring about a movement.Then you had people like Chandra Mohanty, Gayatri Spivak et al. who 'spoke back' to western feminism; their focus was never to build a movement on home territory. Their work interrogated 'first world' feminism and so in essence was rooted in racial politics and inexplicably linked to white feminism.
So by and large, feminism in the subcontinent is needed, and its push to challenge sexual violence, racist violence (which is always played out on women's bodies), and encourage female education and financial independence (essentially female autonomy), outweigh its pitfalls. However, to maintain perspective and momentum its prejudices, classism, racialism etc. must consistently be challenged as well.
Feminism in the west is a different story. It's conflated into unquestioned inclusiveness which is in fact detrimental to women's rights. For example were I live women are a protected category and by law political parties must have female representatives who can bring women's issues to the table. It is now being said that anyone who says they identify as a woman can occupy the female rep role. Women's toilets in Universities are being converted to unisex toilets; anyone identifying as a woman is allowed in an all woman's refugee camp; anyone identifying as a woman can compete in women's sports, or take up women's scholarships. These are all highly problematic issues, in essence women are being pushed out of their spaces. The groundwork we made in the 60s-80s is being lost, and any female who dares to speak out is de-platformed. There have actually been instances of women being fired because they have chosen to raise their voice.
My point of diversion is this gross generalization that most strands of feminism demean and devalue and in a way stigmatize the domestic labour women engage in. Intersectional feminism does not ridicule or blame these women. These new strands are vibrant and accepting and are hence called 'choice feminism'. Of course there can be an abyss between theory and practice but its evolving and in the right direction.
This is not true for western feminism; and intersectional feminism as a whole is problematic in that it espouses some excellent ideals but fails to live up to them (see what I've written above). I don't even think it holds much truth for South-Asian feminism within which there is a deep class schism (which feeds into the domestic/professional; and religion divide). Yes, we have a select few South-Asian feminists who are passionate about inclusivity and equality; but again the movement at large does not live up to these ideals.
I never said an individual cannot choose to support feminism whilst being aware and critical of its failures (conversely critiquing it is not discrediting or demonising it). What I said was this idea that feminism should be supported by right; or that people should not choose to rescind or withhold support from a movement they find problematic because it does some good is incongruous. It suggests that there are no alternatives to feminism. There are. One being people choosing to support and fight for women's rights outside the umbrella of the movement, or indeed any movement. Another being Humanism...
Health and Fitness
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Cricket
