This whole issue is a tough one, that’s for sure.
I think that in any cause or movement, inclusiveness is the key to sustainable change. When a country is torn apart by civil war and faces a transition, making sure all voices are heard is key for the transition to be peaceful, democratic and long-lasting, otherwise old wounds and resentment will sooner or later resurface and be exploited for unsavoury ends. On a different level, I think the same applies to feminism. As simple as that may sound, it must be envisaged not in terms of against, but in terms of with. It is a difficult cognitive and discursive leap to make, though, especially when you have “factions” such as the one displayed in the documentary who so deliberately seek to disrupt and prevent dialogue. From my experience, this is only true of a tiny fraction of “feminists”. A disarmingly innocent confession: I have met none quite like these in my life.
Maybe I’m genuinely naïve, but what I didn’t quite like about the documentary was precisely its shock value and its aim to present a narrative of rupture. I am not sure that it accurately represents the reality that most people, inside and outside feminism, experience. The feminism that I’m most exposed to certainly pushes for an agenda which is justified by the data we have about the wage gap, about how few women there are in positions of power worldwide, but not only that; it’s justified also by the fact that, from the testimonies of my friends at least, women are constantly harassed in the street, whistled at, insulted, in a way that men are not (not mansplaining, not mansplaining) or nowhere near as much. But it doesn’t accuse men as a whole, it simply exhorts them to join the movement for a change in the very norms that pervade society, and I do think men should join. If they can ignore the tiny “against” fraction and think in terms of “with”, why not join?
One of the obstacles, I think, is that people too often conflate changes in mentalities with ideology. And this opens an avenue for the extremists on both sides. But it is not true that pushing for a change in mentalities needs to be ideological. Equality, in all of its dimensions, is not ideological. But among all the things that it is, there is no doubt that it is inclusive, and so must be sought for in as inclusive a way as possible – both of men, women, and those who identify with neither gender. Without this, I’m afraid there can be no long-lasting positive change. So let's be inclusive
I think that in any cause or movement, inclusiveness is the key to sustainable change. When a country is torn apart by civil war and faces a transition, making sure all voices are heard is key for the transition to be peaceful, democratic and long-lasting, otherwise old wounds and resentment will sooner or later resurface and be exploited for unsavoury ends. On a different level, I think the same applies to feminism. As simple as that may sound, it must be envisaged not in terms of against, but in terms of with. It is a difficult cognitive and discursive leap to make, though, especially when you have “factions” such as the one displayed in the documentary who so deliberately seek to disrupt and prevent dialogue. From my experience, this is only true of a tiny fraction of “feminists”. A disarmingly innocent confession: I have met none quite like these in my life.
Maybe I’m genuinely naïve, but what I didn’t quite like about the documentary was precisely its shock value and its aim to present a narrative of rupture. I am not sure that it accurately represents the reality that most people, inside and outside feminism, experience. The feminism that I’m most exposed to certainly pushes for an agenda which is justified by the data we have about the wage gap, about how few women there are in positions of power worldwide, but not only that; it’s justified also by the fact that, from the testimonies of my friends at least, women are constantly harassed in the street, whistled at, insulted, in a way that men are not (not mansplaining, not mansplaining) or nowhere near as much. But it doesn’t accuse men as a whole, it simply exhorts them to join the movement for a change in the very norms that pervade society, and I do think men should join. If they can ignore the tiny “against” fraction and think in terms of “with”, why not join?
One of the obstacles, I think, is that people too often conflate changes in mentalities with ideology. And this opens an avenue for the extremists on both sides. But it is not true that pushing for a change in mentalities needs to be ideological. Equality, in all of its dimensions, is not ideological. But among all the things that it is, there is no doubt that it is inclusive, and so must be sought for in as inclusive a way as possible – both of men, women, and those who identify with neither gender. Without this, I’m afraid there can be no long-lasting positive change. So let's be inclusive
