Catherine Redfern answers in her 2003 piece ‘Feminists are Sexist’: Should feminists have to spend exactly half their time, energy, and resources working on behalf of men to be taken seriously? Catherine Redfern thinks not.
…sadly, this “improving women’s lives is sexist” attitude reflects part of the wider mainstream fear of feminism. It’s why people say things like ‘I’m not a feminist, I’m a humanist’ or ‘I’m not a feminist, I’m in favour of human rights’. It’s because there is a stigma attached to any activism that unashamedly benefits women, as a social group. It’s not seen as worthy enough, and fighting on behalf of women as a group is embarassing somehow. I’m just talking about plain, uncontroversial activism that improves the lives of women.
I do feel as though many of the people reading my blog simply don’t have a working understanding (or even a basic understanding) of the central tenets of feminism. There are lots of places to find out about this stuff, so it’s really in your interests to do a little research before you wade into a feminist debate. I mean, just banging on about ‘reverse sexism’ makes you look like a fool. The best place to start is with Feminism 101. I’m also quite fond of Thinking Girl’s brief overview of key terms in feminist thinking.
The bit about oppression is useful in dismissing this ‘reverse sexism’ bullshit:
Something else that is important to understand is that oppression is not discrimination. Oppression is about systems and relations of power, and exists in social structures and institutions. Oppression is wide-spread subjugation of one group while simultaneously privileging another group. This means that those groups who are subjected to oppression are not in a social position to oppress people belonging to the dominant group. There is no such thing as “reverse” sexism, racism, homophobia, (dis)ableism, classism, etc.
Basically, ‘sexism’ is an articulation or demonstration of power. So it’s something that people with power get to do. In the context of gender and sex, patriarchy (which organises our societies) robs women and girls of power. So when a woman* calls you or your friend out on your dodgy thinking or behaviour, she isn’t speaking from a position of power. She’s actually taking a bit of a risk, and she’s speaking against the grain. In this sense, feminism is activism because it is critiquing the dominant social order.
Conservative media and politicians might bang on about ‘political correctness’** and argue that feminists are oppressing them, but this is patently untrue. If you take a quick look at the stats, you’ll see that most property is owned by men, the highest wages are earned by men, women are more likely to be sexually assaulted, most positions of power (political, economic, industrial, religious…) are occupied by men. So, yeah, feminism. Not really fucking over the patriarchy just yet.
*This is why I think it means something quite different for men to speak out about sexism and misogyny. I’m not sure how I feel about the idea of ‘male feminists’. I much prefer the concept of ‘feminist allies’, because I think that one of the most important parts of emancipation and social power is being able to speak up for yourself – to represent your own ideas and self in public discourse. And while I love and adore and admire men who speak up for feminism and feminist projects, I think it means something quite different when a woman is standing up. The concept ‘feminist allies’ excites me. It tells me that men are ok with working with women; they don’t need to lead the charge.
This topic is quite fraught, and one that many feminists disagree about. So my opinion is just one among many. And of course, when you start talking about gender identity, transgender identity, and so on, this distinction between ‘men’ and ‘women’ stops being useful. I haven’t done a lot of thinking about this, though I SHOULD.
**I do recommend reading up about the history of the term ‘politically correct’. The Wikipedia page is surprisingly useful. Basically, the people who use the term ‘politically correct’ are usually people who don’t like the idea of feminism or socialism or other actions or movements which are interested in equity and social justice. Not too many feminists use the term. I don’t use it because it’s just not useful: it implies that there’s just one way of pursuing social justice, when of course feminism is about diversity and plurality of approaches and thinking.
