I don’t like gender-based bifurcation of issues. Inequality, discrinmination, abuse
or any other problem needs to looked at as human maladies which need to be addressed and not divided into men’s and women’s issues. Unfortunately neofeminism ends up being no different from what it supposedly condemns – a male dominated society where women are constantly stifled. It ends up becoming just as immature and byzantine as chauvinism and neofeminists are more than glad to indulge in silly debates and conversations , which are in no way constructive.
What exactly do I mean by neofeminism? I will try and define it in the context of our milieu. It is the narrow, convenient, misinterpretation of feminism, by a small section of urban Indians. It is exclusive of a large cross-section of Indian women who are in real need of empowerment. These jokers think that raising your voice against Salaman Khan beating up plastic Aishwarya Rai is being liberal and forward thinking! Wonder how many of these jerks even heard of the Imrana case.
True feminism as I see it looks at empowerment of women as a whole rather than spin up pulp sentiments of the educated elite. It is an inclusive philosophy open to debate from men and women from all walks of life who are reasonable. Feminism and its ugly sister, i.e, neofeminism are as poles apart as Medha Pathkar and Shoba De.The philosophy of neo feminism is the philosophy of ‘cool’. It is a hopeless wannabe, which is more interested in wearing an attitude (remember the Weekender adds?) than highlighting any real issues. It is an insult to anyone with a genuine concern for women’s rights and human problems as a whole.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Neofeminism
I don’t like gender-based bifurcation of issues. Inequality, discrinmination, abuse
or any other problem needs to looked at as human maladies which need to be addressed and not divided into men’s and women’s issues. Unfortunately neofeminism ends up being no different from what it supposedly condemns – a male dominated society where women are constantly stifled. It ends up becoming just as immature and byzantine as chauvinism and neofeminists are more than glad to indulge in silly debates and conversations , which are in no way constructive.
What exactly do I mean by neofeminism? I will try and define it in the context of our milieu. It is the narrow, convenient, misinterpretation of feminism, by a small section of urban Indians. It is exclusive of a large cross-section of Indian women who are in real need of empowerment. These jokers think that raising your voice against Salaman Khan beating up plastic Aishwarya Rai is being liberal and forward thinking! Wonder how many of these jerks even heard of the Imrana case.
True feminism as I see it looks at empowerment of women as a whole rather than spin up pulp sentiments of the educated elite. It is an inclusive philosophy open to debate from men and women from all walks of life who are reasonable. Feminism and its ugly sister, i.e, neofeminism are as poles apart as Medha Pathkar and Shoba De.The philosophy of neo feminism is the philosophy of ‘cool’. It is a hopeless wannabe, which is more interested in wearing an attitude (remember the Weekender adds?) than highlighting any real issues. It is an insult to anyone with a genuine concern for women’s rights and human problems as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I do not agree with your idea that we need to see these issues as 'human maladies' and not problems specific to women simply because the word 'human' in any field, be it history, science or literature, has always stood for Man and his problems. There is sex-based discrimination in the world and it is imperative to recognize it as such.
While an ideal situation would be one in which all human beings are looked upon as individuals first without attributing badges of sex, colour, class, caste, gender etc, we cannot formulate solutions to present day problems with such an Utopia in mind.
As regards your views on neofeminism, I suggest you read this essay by Adrienne Rich titled 'The Anti-feminist' [your sis has it]. She calls feminists who are cushioned in privilege and don't care about the woman on the streets as 'anti-feminists'.
I am not defending the people whom you have chosen to call 'neofeminists', but I wish to say this: Feminism is a movement. And like all other movements, it makes its mistakes. It will continue to make blunders. It will believe in many more Utopias. It will shed a lot more blood. It will want to change the world and not know how to do it. It will have people in it who turn out to be its worst enemies. I only ask you to not shrug it away, to believe in its ideology despite its errors. It is a movement that may have achieved little, but that only means there is a lot of work left to do. Give it time.
Nice article, sir. Brownie, didn't you write something once about feminism in your blog ? I remember it was interesting to read, but dont remember what was in it :P
And Sid, while I agree that Medha Patkar and Shoba De are poles apart, I must say that I'm not a huge fan of either. Alright, Medha maybe, but that Arundathi really irritates me.
nice...lovely blog u got there...i loved this post...nice to know tat ppl even think abt all this stuff... oderwise its more of a selfish life tat each one is leading out here...
neways...
loved it...gr8 work!!
feminism or neo-feminism or human rights, are nice topics if you want to initiate a debate on your comments section!!
For me, it will be good entertainment :D
Sidd I have been a feminist all of my life !!
I am and forever will be opposed to extremes. Fundamentalism of all sorts are based on a core idea extrapolated and exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. Most feminists I've seen are undoubtedly very outspoken and intellectual, but at the same time extremely dominating, aggressive and imposing.
They seem to have a feeling of superiority, possibly triggered by the dominance of some sort of an insecurity. Such women from what I have seen seem to have major difficulties with their relationships. This is an interesting article by the way Sidd.
The male and female should have equal rights in all things. good one.
Reminds me of people who wear political symbols just as "fashion". But maybe it is the same thing with all movements and ideas (and even religions). And, to see it from the positive side, is it not more pleasant to discuss with a superficial pseudo-feminist than with a convinced chauvinist?
I understand what you mean about neofeminism being somewhat pretentious. But I honestly believe that there's room for feminism everywhere in the world. While Medha Patkar may stand for one thing and Shobaa De for another, each has her own audience. And they both count. One could say that Shabana Azmi proved nothing by shaving her head. One could also say that Gandhi proved nothing by fasting. So we can't even compare the two - they stand for different things inside the same sphere. And they're both probably necessary in the spheres.
Post a Comment