Last year, I wrote an article critiquing patriarchy and typical son-in-law behavior (The great Indian 'Son-In-Law' syndrome !) which was endorsed and appreciated, especially by women. Whenever I raised my opinion against vulgarization, male chauvinism, misogyny against women, they complimented that I was raised well by my parents and called me a feminist; but each time I got a bit uncomfortable in my skin.
I could bask in the glory of being pro-women activist and appear a gentleman or knight in shining armor etc, but my ideological rant is not against just men or patriarchy but against oppression and hate. If I criticize male chauvinism and patriarchy which is one extreme, I equally rebuke radical feminism which is another extreme because these are two sides of the same coin called prejudice.
This could be an unpopular opinion and many women who earlier liked me may start hating me from now and label me a male chauvinist pig but I DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED A FEMINIST
for two reasons, one for the etymology of the word and second for the way radical hate-mongering and irrational rebellion against everything status-quo is being masqueraded with a fake garb called feminism.
First, I cringe when somebody describes 'feminism' as equality of men and women. There is a simple English word called "egalitarianism" which actually means equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of gender, age, race etc.
What if I call myself masculinist and define masculism as equality of both genders. Isn't it an oxymoron ? Feminism or masculism may not be intrinsically wrong but getting away by defining either of them as equality is wrong. Both these terms reek of a strong affinity towards one gender and disinterest towards another, if not hatred.
Secondly, while the movement against gender discrimination is very much necessary in this age and time, the term 'feminism' is somewhat hijacked by a section of hatemongers who turned a serious reforming movement to "all men are trash" movement.
Here are the major disagreements I have with new-age radical feminists:
Misuse of the word 'MISOGYNY': Misogyny by definition is strong dislike or hatred towards women. But when two individuals fight or mistreat each other and one of them happens to be a woman, the word misogyny is loosely inserted into the narrative. That's why 'Arjun Reddy' or 'Kabir Singh' was vilified as misogynistic while the couple in love slap each other. The problem with the movie, if there is any, was only about glorifying hot-headed and uncouth acts of the protagonist. But I haven't heard anybody calling out Alia's character in 'Gully Boy' which was equally uncouth too.
Overrating Independence: When two people get married, they are bound to be dependent upon each other physically, mentally, sexually, financially and in other ways. The moment man or woman in a relationship wants to be 'independent' of the other, the relationship only spirals down to abyss. Women must seek independence only if they have stomach to tolerate her man being independent of her in any ways he wishes to. Instead replace the word 'independence' with 'responsible freedom' for both, it makes so much better sense. Anybody advocating independence of either a man or woman in a union is only ripping them apart.
It's not just Man's world: Have you ever lamented that most among successful people in business or powerful positions are men with negligible or no female representation ? If yes, did you ever try to reason why almost 99% of sanitation workers, defence staff and prisoners happen to be men too ? Be it achievements or struggles, men happen to be majority because of the simple logic that men and women are made differently.
Anthropologically, historically, biologically or physically men are made to be bread-winners, fighters, hunters, go-getters and workers whereas women are made to be nurturers, teachers, caregivers. That's why almost all daycare workers or teachers are women. That's how our DNA is wired.
As a man coming from a family of women achievers and being a hands-on dad myself, I don't intend to say that women aren't made to achieve at work or men can't raise kids. Everybody can do everything if they are committed and dedicated but some things come naturally to certain gender whereas the other gender has to fight against their natural instincts and that's science, even if you don't like.
Nitya Menen in one of her interviews said that few women in their fight for feminism and attempts to be more like men, turning more and more masculine and losing their femininity. That gives a message that femininity is weaker or inferior and one should be masculine to be happy. That's a dangerous and incorrect message.
Pay Discrimination: I do agree that pay discrimination occurs at some workplaces because misogynists do exist. But I was gobsmacked when the female lead of 'House of Cards' Robin Wright whined that she should have been paid on par with the male lead Kevin Spacey who was hundred times more popular, audience-grabber than the lady. The person who gets more audiences, fans to the artwork, and who puts in more effort, screen time, injuries etc should be paid more regardless of the gender. Same is the case with any business. Pay should be proportional to numbers they generate. IT IS NOT A MALE OR FEMALE ISSUE.
Fairness Products: Girls in my family don't use fairness creams or products and I personally find dusky women more attractive. But I could never comprehend the trend of shaming those who use fairness products and even worse attributing this to feminist revolution.
Again this is an anthropology matter because historically men are judged based on their success, ability to provide security and women are judged based on looks. Hence men and women sub-consciously strive to be / look successful and beautiful respectively.
'Fair & lovely' kind of companies thrive despite criticism because sizeable section of women think that lighter skin makes them look beautiful and if that makes them confident, it is their choice and you can't ridicule them for not following your set of beliefs. Even if you believe such women are manipulated by the society to feel so, you advocating fair skin is not beautiful is manipulation too. Their skin, their choice, period. And don't bring misogyny or victimhood into this because men seldom advertise or advocate fairness creams or any make-up items to women.
Body shaming: When Vidya Balan was criticized for her weight, multiple articles spawned calling misogyny and body shaming. Movies and entertainment are show businesses and actresses (and actors) make-up to look good and presentable because looks are important for their line of work. Nobody must criticize looks of a female politician, teacher or an administrator because their KPIs (key performance indicators) are different. For actors and actresses, their presentability along with performance is the most important KPI and evaluating them based on their looks is not body shaming.
Even otherwise, describing a woman as fat is not always body-shaming unless it's used out of context and in a disparaging tone. It is like describing a man as short or tall. It's physical imagery and not always a cause to revolt.
Supporting women without merit: I know women who vote only for a woman contestant, support only women in any argument or fight and call that women empowerment. It's not. Actually it's gender discrimination if a woman is supported solely on basis on her gender instead of merits and demerits in the context. If a women loses an election and that's attributed to collective misogyny of the entire society, it's not a solution but a problem in itself.
India is an intrinsically and unfortunately patriarchal and male chauvinistic country and support, empowerment of women is a necessity. I always thought #MeToo is an important movement which needs to be sustained and endorsed as long as possible because it brought forward the menace which most men suppressed in the bud.
Men need to be taught a lesson that consent means everything and objectification of women needs to be demolished. The #MeToo movement also unfortunately resulted in innocent victims when con-women exploited the sympathy to their favor. But this is collateral damage. In any war, some innocent civilians die during attempts to annihilate enemy.
But this support to women in need is being diluted by a bunch of angry, radical and fake feminists who reduced a much needed movement to 'all men are trash' movement. Such women want the privileges of women, power of men but responsibilities of neither.
Presence of some scoundrels doesn't make entire gender a bunch of misogynist trash. Indian men, in particular must be lauded for their commitment to families because males of any species (including humans) aren't made to stick with families unlike mothers who are natural protectors of their offsprings. If a man is responsible enough to raise, nurture and show love and care to his family, he is acting against his natural instincts. Calling him trash just because he happens to be a man is loathsome and repulsive.
I know such radical feminists who claim that men like me who don't accept that all men as trash were actually a major part of the problem. Whoa ! To my surprise I found hundreds of articles on "all men are trash" and almost all articles engage in wordplay to suggest it's final, non-negotiable and anybody who counters that argument was a male chauvinist pig himself.
but I rarely bother being judged or hated upon. If that makes me trash, so be it.
I could bask in the glory of being pro-women activist and appear a gentleman or knight in shining armor etc, but my ideological rant is not against just men or patriarchy but against oppression and hate. If I criticize male chauvinism and patriarchy which is one extreme, I equally rebuke radical feminism which is another extreme because these are two sides of the same coin called prejudice.
This could be an unpopular opinion and many women who earlier liked me may start hating me from now and label me a male chauvinist pig but I DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED A FEMINIST
for two reasons, one for the etymology of the word and second for the way radical hate-mongering and irrational rebellion against everything status-quo is being masqueraded with a fake garb called feminism.
First, I cringe when somebody describes 'feminism' as equality of men and women. There is a simple English word called "egalitarianism" which actually means equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of gender, age, race etc.
What if I call myself masculinist and define masculism as equality of both genders. Isn't it an oxymoron ? Feminism or masculism may not be intrinsically wrong but getting away by defining either of them as equality is wrong. Both these terms reek of a strong affinity towards one gender and disinterest towards another, if not hatred.
Secondly, while the movement against gender discrimination is very much necessary in this age and time, the term 'feminism' is somewhat hijacked by a section of hatemongers who turned a serious reforming movement to "all men are trash" movement.
Here are the major disagreements I have with new-age radical feminists:
Misuse of the word 'MISOGYNY': Misogyny by definition is strong dislike or hatred towards women. But when two individuals fight or mistreat each other and one of them happens to be a woman, the word misogyny is loosely inserted into the narrative. That's why 'Arjun Reddy' or 'Kabir Singh' was vilified as misogynistic while the couple in love slap each other. The problem with the movie, if there is any, was only about glorifying hot-headed and uncouth acts of the protagonist. But I haven't heard anybody calling out Alia's character in 'Gully Boy' which was equally uncouth too.
Overrating Independence: When two people get married, they are bound to be dependent upon each other physically, mentally, sexually, financially and in other ways. The moment man or woman in a relationship wants to be 'independent' of the other, the relationship only spirals down to abyss. Women must seek independence only if they have stomach to tolerate her man being independent of her in any ways he wishes to. Instead replace the word 'independence' with 'responsible freedom' for both, it makes so much better sense. Anybody advocating independence of either a man or woman in a union is only ripping them apart.
It's not just Man's world: Have you ever lamented that most among successful people in business or powerful positions are men with negligible or no female representation ? If yes, did you ever try to reason why almost 99% of sanitation workers, defence staff and prisoners happen to be men too ? Be it achievements or struggles, men happen to be majority because of the simple logic that men and women are made differently.
Anthropologically, historically, biologically or physically men are made to be bread-winners, fighters, hunters, go-getters and workers whereas women are made to be nurturers, teachers, caregivers. That's why almost all daycare workers or teachers are women. That's how our DNA is wired.
As a man coming from a family of women achievers and being a hands-on dad myself, I don't intend to say that women aren't made to achieve at work or men can't raise kids. Everybody can do everything if they are committed and dedicated but some things come naturally to certain gender whereas the other gender has to fight against their natural instincts and that's science, even if you don't like.
Nitya Menen in one of her interviews said that few women in their fight for feminism and attempts to be more like men, turning more and more masculine and losing their femininity. That gives a message that femininity is weaker or inferior and one should be masculine to be happy. That's a dangerous and incorrect message.
Pay Discrimination: I do agree that pay discrimination occurs at some workplaces because misogynists do exist. But I was gobsmacked when the female lead of 'House of Cards' Robin Wright whined that she should have been paid on par with the male lead Kevin Spacey who was hundred times more popular, audience-grabber than the lady. The person who gets more audiences, fans to the artwork, and who puts in more effort, screen time, injuries etc should be paid more regardless of the gender. Same is the case with any business. Pay should be proportional to numbers they generate. IT IS NOT A MALE OR FEMALE ISSUE.
Fairness Products: Girls in my family don't use fairness creams or products and I personally find dusky women more attractive. But I could never comprehend the trend of shaming those who use fairness products and even worse attributing this to feminist revolution.
Again this is an anthropology matter because historically men are judged based on their success, ability to provide security and women are judged based on looks. Hence men and women sub-consciously strive to be / look successful and beautiful respectively.
'Fair & lovely' kind of companies thrive despite criticism because sizeable section of women think that lighter skin makes them look beautiful and if that makes them confident, it is their choice and you can't ridicule them for not following your set of beliefs. Even if you believe such women are manipulated by the society to feel so, you advocating fair skin is not beautiful is manipulation too. Their skin, their choice, period. And don't bring misogyny or victimhood into this because men seldom advertise or advocate fairness creams or any make-up items to women.
Body shaming: When Vidya Balan was criticized for her weight, multiple articles spawned calling misogyny and body shaming. Movies and entertainment are show businesses and actresses (and actors) make-up to look good and presentable because looks are important for their line of work. Nobody must criticize looks of a female politician, teacher or an administrator because their KPIs (key performance indicators) are different. For actors and actresses, their presentability along with performance is the most important KPI and evaluating them based on their looks is not body shaming.
Even otherwise, describing a woman as fat is not always body-shaming unless it's used out of context and in a disparaging tone. It is like describing a man as short or tall. It's physical imagery and not always a cause to revolt.
Supporting women without merit: I know women who vote only for a woman contestant, support only women in any argument or fight and call that women empowerment. It's not. Actually it's gender discrimination if a woman is supported solely on basis on her gender instead of merits and demerits in the context. If a women loses an election and that's attributed to collective misogyny of the entire society, it's not a solution but a problem in itself.
CONCLUSION
India is an intrinsically and unfortunately patriarchal and male chauvinistic country and support, empowerment of women is a necessity. I always thought #MeToo is an important movement which needs to be sustained and endorsed as long as possible because it brought forward the menace which most men suppressed in the bud.
Men need to be taught a lesson that consent means everything and objectification of women needs to be demolished. The #MeToo movement also unfortunately resulted in innocent victims when con-women exploited the sympathy to their favor. But this is collateral damage. In any war, some innocent civilians die during attempts to annihilate enemy.
But this support to women in need is being diluted by a bunch of angry, radical and fake feminists who reduced a much needed movement to 'all men are trash' movement. Such women want the privileges of women, power of men but responsibilities of neither.
Presence of some scoundrels doesn't make entire gender a bunch of misogynist trash. Indian men, in particular must be lauded for their commitment to families because males of any species (including humans) aren't made to stick with families unlike mothers who are natural protectors of their offsprings. If a man is responsible enough to raise, nurture and show love and care to his family, he is acting against his natural instincts. Calling him trash just because he happens to be a man is loathsome and repulsive.
I know such radical feminists who claim that men like me who don't accept that all men as trash were actually a major part of the problem. Whoa ! To my surprise I found hundreds of articles on "all men are trash" and almost all articles engage in wordplay to suggest it's final, non-negotiable and anybody who counters that argument was a male chauvinist pig himself.
but I rarely bother being judged or hated upon. If that makes me trash, so be it.
4 comments:
I don't hate you... and well put
Something tells me, you expected me here. ;-p
Long post alert!
Very well written, Sharath, and I agree with all your points. Except your main argument, your take on the etymology of the word “feminism”. Feminism, by definition, does not take any other meaning other than its dictionary meaning of “state of being feminine” (that’s the original meaning) or “advocacy of women’s rights”. And the latter is not a modern word, like most of us presume it is; it is dated way back into 1800s, and it has brought about revolutionary changes in women’s lives at that time and helped galvanize women’s position in the society as we the elite and privileged tier of the society know it now. (I am not even going into the topic of the status of the underprivileged and majority of women who are yet to reach this level…it is still a long fight for them).
The word never meant and never will mean women’s dominance above men. Comparing feminism with “masculism” is so off beam from many perspectives. For one, one of the meanings of masculism is advocacy of “patriarchy” or “dominance over women”. By contrast, you will not find such a definition for feminism anywhere. The nature and purpose of struggles under feminism have evolved since the 19th century, but not the essence of it.
Then why not “egalitarianism” like you suggested? Well, take this situation for example: she is a well-qualified, sincere, hardworking, competent employee of a company, which her boss too would not disagree, for he appreciates and recognizes her genuinely. However, when it’s time for that promotion, the position goes to a male employee of equal competence, performance, and qualification. When she confronts her boss, he explains to her his reasoning behind the decision, in the most compassionate manner possible: that she is a newly married woman, and he “assumed” she would expand her family soon, he “assumed” she will find it difficult to manage her career and personal life, and he “decided” that she should be protected from all the hassles of a management position, because he “reasoned that it is best for her”. Now here, assumptions and decisions are made for her by someone without considering her opinion, she’s being patronized, but after all she loses her chance. And what is the reason? Not competence. The issue is totally a missed opportunity for a woman just because of her biological configuration. In this situation, if you suggest she should fight for “egalitarianism”, then you are asking her to ignore the fact that she was denied the opportunity because she is a woman; you are shifting the focus from the core of the issue, diluting it, and making it a general equal rights fight. No, it is not equal rights fight here. Here, the terminology is not “egalitarianism”, but only “feminism”, in its purest form. Not the convoluted, twisted form that both men and women rampantly use nowadays. “Feminism” used in the damaging manner is definitely cringe worthy: for example, a male friends says “oohh! you are the feminist type, huh!”, when I offer to pay the bill. Or a healthy woman on the bus goes “Step aside, make way for me, and give me that privileged seat of mine. I am a feminist”. These are the kind of people ruining it for us.
Would you call Children’s rights, LGBT rights, or any other movements an egalitarian rights movement? It dilutes the sole purpose.
I have male friends and relatives who do not have any qualms about being called a feminist. That’s because they know what it means, ardently believe in its rationale, and do not fall for the egotistic altered term that people use, irrespective of the gender, to demean the opposite sex. You and I, we both agree that it’s the doings of the hatemongers! Then, don’t we also have the responsibility to let them not disgrace the word? If your intention is untainted, then the label “feminist” should not bother you at all; on the contrary, you should be proud of it. Trust me, your kind is still very rare; in spite of everything, much of the society is deep-rooted misogynists, either subtly or clearly. Well, that’s my opinion. This is a never-ending debate topic, anyway.
Hey, and no, I don’t hate you yet ;-D
@Prasi: As you said, it's never ending debate because definitions and interpretations are subjective..and yeah you better not hate me if you want to be alive ;)
Post a Comment