Tori Amos once sang, "Blood in the cherry zone when they pit [hu]man against feminist."
Despite the varying definitions and meanings of feminism, egalitarianism fuels the heart of the movement, a reality that should not be easily dismissed in assessing the necessity of feminism in our modern world. It remains crucial everywhere, especially in the Western world, for the equality myth — continually perpetuated by the faulty framing of progress and advancement — still weaves itself into the mainstream narrative and claims legitimacy. The assumption that tomorrow brings any more perks than a new day can lead to apathy and ignorance, which are destructive and hinder social justice initiatives. Instead of looking forward to a brighter day that is not guaranteed, we can get our umbrellas out and deal with today's rain — that is to say, focus on problems that persist and those that have arisen.
Just as an idealized conception of modernity destabilizes the conviction in the continual need for change, the myth of feminism's exclusivity, reflected in the label and for which it is often criticized, furthers the division and weakens the movement. However, the roots of the movement which were planted in fighting women's oppression on all levels of social life cannot be ignored when seeking to trivialize the movement. The name "feminism" thus arose from the preliminary struggles for women's equal footing with men; it does not aim to purport that men deserve less than equality. Furthermore, a static representation that does not take into account the passage of time and the evolution of feminism serves only to erroneously reject an essential subset of egalitarianism. Of course, I do not intend to romanticize feminism, which rightfully has been criticized throughout the years for its lack of representation and concern for certain groups, such as women of color, women with disabilities and transwomen, but I hope to offer a more contemporary framing that can offer an actual positive portrait of an oft−slighted perspective.
Though the term at a superficial level excludes men, I believe in feminism's ideals and do not feel the need to stay on the periphery. Personally, I subscribe to a concept of feminism that fits neatly into the egalitarian model; my feminism just focuses more so on gender, with the ultimate goal of freeing all genders from inequality. The existence of gender variation should be recognized and legitimized with the freedom of gender expression. Our laws and societies need to combat gender inequality in order to improve the quality of life for all genders — that includes men, just in case you were wondering. In working toward such a goal, feminism often overlaps and interconnects with other social justice movements because of the plurality of identity, as several categories — such as sexuality, disability, age, class and race — all figure into who we are. These intersections inevitably connect us on the level of our complex humanity, a commonality which renders the demands for equality for all in all arenas of society just and expected.
Remember the multiplicity of feminism and its egalitarian roots the next time a sigh, an eye−roll or some other gesture of dismissal is about to manifest in response to any form of feminist discourse, be it scholarly, social, political, etc. Appropriating every single aspect of feminism, especially when many interpretations exist, is unnecessary in having a respectful regard toward its humane goals. Finally, in terms of the power of language and the resultant framing of our understanding of the world, I eagerly await the point at which those subscribing to a pro−feminist philosophy and those with a feminist identity can coincide and have these separate identities intersect.
--
Elisha Sum is a junior majoring in English and French. He can be reached at Elisha.Sum@tufts.edu.
