New APPS

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

Today is International Women’s Day, so here is a short post on what it means to be a feminist to me, to mark the date. Recently, a (male) friend asked me: “Why do you describe yourself as a ‘feminist’, and not as an ‘equalist’”? If feminism is about equality between women and men, why focus on the female side of the equation only? This question is of course related to the still somewhat widespread view that feminism is at heart a sexist doctrine: to promote the rights and wellbeing of women at the expense of the rights and wellbeing of men. Admittedly, the idea that it’s a zero-sum game is reminiscent of so-called second-wave feminism, in particular given the influence of Marxist ideas of class war. However, there is a wide range of alternative versions of feminism that focus on the rights and wellbeing of both men and women (as well as of those who do not identify as either), and move away from the zero-sum picture.

The much-watched TED talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, ‘We should all be feminists’ (bits of which were sampled in Beyoncé’s ‘Flawless’), offers precisely one such version, which I personally find very appealing. (After recently reading Americanah, I’ve been nurturing a crush on this woman; she is truly amazing.) The talk is worth watching in its entirety (also, it’s very funny!), and while she describes a number of situations that might be viewed as specific to their originating contexts (Nigeria in particular), the gist of it is entirely universal. It is towards the very end that Adichie provides her preferred definition of a feminist:

A feminist is a man or a woman* who says: yes, there is a problem with gender as it is today, and we must fix it. We must do better.

On this conception, a feminist is someone who is deeply moved by the pain and misery inflicted on both men and women (and others) by the culturally established ideals of masculinity and femininity. A feminist is someone who works towards freeing women and men (and equally importantly, those who do not identify as either) from the shackles of binary, rigid gender roles: men are strong, women are vulnerable. In this sense, feminism is different from mere equalism (whatever that means): equalism would be compatible with the idea that, as long as women and men have the same share of wellbeing, even if it’s a small share, then everything is fine. But everything is not fine if we can do better, for example by questioning the limiting, oppressive elements of both femininity and masculinity. (As it so happens, I have two daughters; but if I had a son, I’d fight just as much to free him from impossible and harmful ideals of masculinity.) 

Let me make the point more concrete: a ‘mere’ equalist might be content with equality of conditions between boys and girls with respect to genital cutting, for example. If genital cutting of non-consenting boys is tolerated, then the same should hold for non-consenting girls. A feminist, however (on this conception at least), may view the practice of genital cutting of non-consenting individuals as equally wrong for boys and girls (as well as intersex people), deriving from the same ideology that sexuality must be curbed and controlled.

But what’s in a name, after all? Should we look for a different name for the view described by Adichie, according to which the lives of both men and women would improve dramatically in one stroke if we could dissolve the rigid gender roles that still permeate so much of our lives? For now, there do not seem to be any viable alternatives, and so I, as Adichie, will happily continue to describe myself as a feminist, and will continue to work towards ‘fixing’ all this gender mess with whatever small contribution I can make.

UPDATE: Here is Gloria Steinem making similar points.

——————-

* Or indeed someone who does not identify as either.