So, it's been a while since my last post... (mumbling something about too much house-cleaning) The main reason for this being the fact that I didn't have a topic I reeeeeeally wanted to start a discussion on. And now I do.
Now, one thing I should note from the get-go: I don't know how much I can label myself as a feminist, but if the definition is that I believe that all people, no matter what gender they ascribe themselves to belonging, inherently deserve to be treated equally, then I think it reasonable to call myself that.
So, having watched Emma Watson's speech at the UN, urging for men to join the fight for gender equality, my heart swelled with pride and I just clapped wildly to my computer monitor, which would have looked really awkward but whatever.
I was just about to donate half my money to her campaign, when I found writer Mia McKenzie's own take on the speech. You might want to read it before continuing reading this post, as it will make following my train of thought a little easier.
Mia McKenzie writes firstly that it is absurd to suggest that men would need a formal invitation to "join the fight for feminism", as if it were a question of men just not having been asked. Instead, McKenzie writes, men are and have been simply unwilling to join the fight, because men obviously gain more from gender inequality, as many statistics on total income differences between men and women show. Telling men they should care for women's rights because inequality hurts them, too is as problematic as urging white people to end racism because it hurts them as well, because:
"Firstly, because even if that’s true, it does nothing to create solidarity. I have never met a white person who decided to take on anti-racism work because of the negative effects of racism on white people. Literally, never. And I don’t think I’ve ever met a man who genuinely supports feminist ideals because of the ways they benefit men first. If I did know people like this, I wouldn’t like them. I’d question why the often brutal oppression of people of color and women and especially women of color wasn't enough to get them interested, but having an epiphany about the ways men and/or white people are kinda also hurt by these constructs because “something something society and also men should be able to cry, too” made them jump right on board"
I'm mostly on board with McKenzie's writing, and she does raise very important issues with idolizing Emma Watson's role as a "game-changing" feminist, which I will come back to later. But I want to pause here to share my thoughts on what McKenzie just wrote. She goes on to say that the struggle for equality for women (and for those not ascribing to the male-female paradigm) cannot be compared to the issues men face with, for instance, not dealing with their feelings properly, because the evils of the former simply outweigh those of the latter.
The fact that women and queer people still get the shorter end of the stick in today's society is obviously true. No one could deny that with a straight face. But at the same time, McKenzie omits one important statistic that Watson brings up, namely that suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 - 49 years in the U.K. Worldwide, young men die of suicide more often that women of the same age group, mostly due to psychological problems and loss of cohesion between peers, and the number is increasing. Failing to mention this fact is missing half the point of what Emma Watson was trying to say: men (and people who feel they don't fit into the definition of one) do suffer from living in a gender-based society - not as much as women, true enough, but it is still human suffering which should also be dealt with and not scoffed at offhandedly.
Also, it is possible to put issues like differences in pay, rape, domestic abuse and sexual harassment into statistical form: they are events that can be marked down. But it is a different story to put down into statistical form the feeling of shame and guilt of not being able to express yourself the way you want to because you're afraid of being ostracized, bullied or beaten the shit out of. It is possible, mind you, but more problematic than the former examples. My point being, just because something isn't on a statistical graph doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I realize I am dancing on a knife's edge here, and am at a risk of having my argument look like an MRM rant (a movement that I deeply despise). So, in order to prevent that, I'll rephrase the above: I have nothing to complain about. Really. I am a young, white, European male studying in a university. I have never had to struggle with issues like harassment, rape, sexual abuse or other misogynistic elements of society. My point is simply this: in bringing up the problems of one group and downplaying those of the other, McKenzie effectively throws out the baby with the bathwater in this point of her argument. Feminism should (in my viewpoint) be about bringing true equality between all people of all types of sexuality (and races while we're at it), and recognizing the problems that the structures of today's society are causing to all people everywhere.
I want to briefly go over the other point that McKenzie brings up in her article, namely the problem of hailing Emma Watson as a forerunner of feminism. Firstly I want to say that I very much admire Emma Watson for her passion and her efforts to bring about change in our culture, and I think it a good thing that more and more young, up-and-coming actors are facing this issue and doing something about it.
There is, however, a problem in this, and it is specifically the fact that the up-and-coming stars who advocate for these issues are white, middle or upper-class, heterosexual, well-educated, able-bodied, stock-photo Pepsodent-smiling Walmart-shopping Louis-Vuitton -buying white, so so white people. Both McKenzie and the blogger That Black Girl raise this issue in their posts. TBG writes:
"mainstream feminism, of which celebrity feminism is a derivation, has an intersectionality problem: it advocates for women but consistently fails to recognise that women are not just white, middle-class, cisgender, western, and/or able-bodied. it fails to include narratives of sex workers and migrants and women who may be living at the margins as a result of their stigmatised identities."
So indeed, I think Emma Watson is brave for speaking out in public, even more so after the recent celebrity nude photo scandal (which was also targeted at her but that's another story). At the same time, though, I must admit that I think the message would be more game-changing, more inclusive, and therefore more universal and further-reaching if someone, say, actress Lupita Nyong'o would have delivered this speech. Or how about a similar speech from someone like Neil Patrick Harris, or, dare I say it, Asa Akira? Now there's some controversy for you!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some Harry Potter movies to watch.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti