Is Feminism About Equal Rights for Men and Women, or Is It Anti-Male - Report Example

Is Feminism About Equal Rights for Men and Women, or Is It Anti-Male? Historically, the feminist movement was considered something “outside” of mainstream culture: something nice girls just didn’t do, or something Amazon women should champion, depending on your point of view. The movement has certainly had its share of shrieking voices, and at its core is a radical rethinking of how we’ve run our culture in the past. Over the last forty years, feminism became a much more moderate philosophy, and while there are still a few who wouldn’t mind “death to the patriarchs,” most voices are much softer, and much less anti-male. Mainstream women are now not afraid to declare themselves feminists, even though the movement has strayed far from its roots and gotten lost a few times along the way. The original mothers of feminism—Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and others—have left their legacies. They fought and won many battles, from the right to hold high political office all the way to the most private corners of home life. Many main battles have been won, and a formerly isolated and extremist philosophy is now regularly discussed and usually accepted. The current generation of feminists is fine-tuning the victory and attempting to create balance. Where We Stand “NOW” The National Organization of Women is the largest feminist organization, with more than 500,000 paying members and innumerable other supporters. Most of their work is woman-centric, such as abortion and reproductive rights, lesbian rights, stopping violence against women, and so on. However, the NOW organization uses gender-neutral or inclusive language frequently, as in when they champion the Paid Parental Leave Act or support the Health Equity and Accountability Act as “ensuring that everyone, regardless of their economic, racial and legal status or family circumstances, has health care” (NOW). What used to be considered a radical organization by mainstream culture is moving toward an inclusive fight for all, rather than an exclusive fight for women. As a culture, we’ve moved from being polarized into being more homogeneous, and each generation of women adjusts feminism to suit the cultural times. Modern feminists are often quick to point out that they aren’t “anti-male” just because they’re “anti-sexism.” Feminism has also moved from being “pro-woman” to being “pro-equal rights.” These redefinitions give modern women psychological permission to make change, and are an apology to the other half of the population. Change also becomes all-inclusive and can extend to other groups who are considered oppressed by the white patriarchy. Recently, there has been a rise in “men’s rights advocates,” but this is typically isolated to divorce and child custody cases as a backlash against the feminist gains in those areas. While it is true the divorce and custody system is now unbalanced in favor of women, this can’t be considered a “men’s movement” because it is not as broad and far-reaching as feminism has always been. Unfortunately, anyone who self-labels as a feminist or as a men’s rights advocate automatically sets herself/himself outside of the equal rights movement. Humans have always self-identified with something: religion, gender, career, hobbies, etc. We feel comfortable when we’re part of a group of likeminded people. But we almost never explore the deeper meaning of our groups, and so these identities lose their real meaning and create controversy. For instance, a political conservative such as Sarah Palin is a member of the group Feminists for Life, self-identifying as a feminist with the apparent contradiction of also being anti-choice. Examples like this illustrate that feminism is no longer the focused, driven philosophy it once was, but rather has gotten muddied with other philosophies and belief systems. Feminism As a Path Toward Acceptance and Equality Feminists originally fought against the perceived oppression of women. Basically, oppression is an absence of choice. Over the last 150 years, women have made great strides toward gaining more choices: the right to vote; the right to divorce and retain custody of children; the right to serve on active military duty. Women have also gained social choices: the right to not marry or not have children; the right to work in professions formerly denied by social convention; the right to be legitimized if they choose to stay home and raise families. Women now have many more socially acceptable choices than they did even forty years ago. It must be acknowledged that the original mothers of feminism were distinctly anti-male. Radical feminists in the 1970s were fighting the image that women were “objects” whose worth was measured in relation to what men found worthwhile. Women’s first measure of worth was as a breeder, according to their arguments. Radical feminists believed that women must take control of their reproductive rights, including the choice of whether or not to even be a mother (Hoagland 460); more moderate feminists saw mothering as a cause to be championed (Ruddick 445). Women were expected to create self-images and encouraged to ignore or change the prevailing culture, to break away from the concept that women belong to men and should get their self-image from men. Early feminists prided themselves on being labeled “revolutionary,” and it was true that their work needed to be done. A revolution in thinking had to occur to bring about open dialog and even the playing field for women. This put the revolutionary feminists squarely in “traditional” masculine roles: conquerors, vanquishers, aggressors, and dominators of perceived wrongs. In retrospect, this seems counter-productive and hypocritical, and is the basis for derision of the feminist movement in general. The very nature of radical feminism excludes more mainstream women, and certainly excludes men from the discussion. This leads to a serious imbalance in conclusions, because it’s impossible to come to an agreement with a group that’s not included in the discussion. It’s still almost heretical to say that women think, write, or act differently from men. Some feminists erase the biological or mental differences between men and women by encouraging women to explore traditionally masculine pursuits and ignore traditionally feminine pursuits. The facts of biology are thrown out of the discussion because they can be perverted into demonstrating that women are “less than” rather than “different from” men. (This argument also assumes that man or woman is a clearly defined thing that we can point to with authority.) When individuals or whole groups of people are marginalized as being “less than,” it becomes very easy for those who make the rules to dismiss all arguments, no matter their basis in logic or fact. This dismissal hinders both sides: feminists and men’s rights activists. Finding Balance Neither the extreme feminist nor the patriarchal view speaks to the reality of women. Both are black and white, mutually exclusive, and don’t allow for choice on the part of individuals. Now, in a reach for balance, feminism allows the female identity to include the “traditional” as well as the “radical.” Changing the perception that women were only good for having and raising babies directly resulted in freely-available birth control, women maintaining careers outside the home, the rise of the daycare center, and adjustments in divorce and custody law. A more equitable culture came out of all the shouting. These new freedoms became available to all, even though they started in the feminist movement. All kinds of “rights movements” borrow from each other in order to make changes in the prevailing system. They use similar methods (civil disobedience, protesting, working within the justice system, talking and teaching, etc.). Gains by one movement can be co-opted by another, or used as justification for movement-specific change. Blacks were technically given the right to vote after the Civil War (despite the unjust rules Southern states put in place). It wasn’t until 1925 that women were allowed suffrage, and not until the 1960s that the Constitution was finally amended to reflect true, blind equality. These suffrage movements overlapped and supported each other. It seems contradictory to ask if feminism is about equal rights for men and women. The term “feminist” itself automatically sets up a separation between men and women. In trying to define terms, we must look at things objectively: feminism is not inherently “anti-male,” but rather “anti-patriarchic structure” or “anti-sexism.” It defeats the purpose of working toward change if there is separation and “otherness” between the disagreeing parties. Feminists certainly worked hard for their bad reputation as man haters, but now it’s time to move on from negative history and recognize that our entire culture has become more moderate. It’s no longer acceptable to marginalize either side of a disagreement. Perhaps in another forty years, the idea of “women’s rights,” “black rights,” “gay rights,” and so on, will all fade and we will simply work together for “human rights.” Works Cited Hoagland, Sarah. “Lesbian Ethics.” Philosophy of Woman. Ed. Mary Briody Mahowald. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1994. 451-464. National Organization for Women. “Health Care Is a Human Right!” Accessed October 10, 2008. . Ruddick, Sara. “Maternal Thinking.” Philosophy of Woman. Ed. Mary Briody Mahowald. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1994. 442-451. Read More