What he managed to
capture was the fact western feminists do, in fact, focus on relative
trivialities within the western world whilst their fellow women in the Middle
East are being sold to men in markets. Yet he didn’t seem to acknowledge that
perhaps one aspect of western feminists obsession with writing about shoes
instead of Pakistan is a part of an endemic broader issue within society. He ignores
the point that perhaps this is something the entire west is guilty of. The
desensitization of the west to bigger issues isn’t the fault of feminism; it’s
the fault of the system we live under.
Furthermore, the
way in which Lowenstein attempts capture how women are ignoring bigger issues
is simply flawed. Firstly, he writes that the reason men don’t write about
feminism much is because they’re afraid of being attacked. Yet, he ignores the
fact that most feminists aren’t, if you would believe it, men. Within
mainstream society, the majority of men don’t even know it’s possible for them
to be feminists thus why would they care? Even within public life or the
scepter of journalistic life, the majority of men are still unlikely to
identify as feminists and therefore probably wouldn’t see it as the most
pressing issue to talk about. The most important part of this however is just
how infantilized such a comment is. When was the last time you saw a man who
wrote about feminism being threatened with rape? Yet female feminists don’t
seem to have a problem speaking out despite constant barrages of rape or death
threats. So, what’s the worst that could happen if a man writes about feminism?
Someone might disagree with him. In other words, to Lowenstein and any man
scared of writing about feminism because their views might be challenged – just
start writing more - we don’t actually bite.
He then makes the
point that mainstream western feminists supported Gillard whilst ignoring some
of her more horrible policies. Once again, such an issue is not just one for
western feminism. Gillard’s entire reign was covered in a thick layer of the
mainstream media focusing on her tripping over in heels rather than her asylum
seeker policies. In essence, the mainstream feminist response to Gillard’s time
in power was a hyperbolic reaction to the constant and continual barrage of
sexism that Gillard received. If the feminists weren’t responding to the
trivialities of her reign, then all we probably would have seen was the sexists
focusing on the trivialities of her reign. Furthermore, let’s not forget that
it’s not the job of prominent feminists to focus on governmental policy unless
it address’ women’s subordination – the mainstream political media are the ones
that were supposed to be doing that. Even so, most prominent feminists did call
Gillard out on certain policy that was inherently sexist. You might recall most
mainstream western feminists attacking Gillard over the fact that she allowed
for a continued tax on tampons and many mainstream feminists, in fact,
attacking her cutting of single parent benefits constantly and consistently
over their large Twitter channels. Of course, that’s not really the same has
having it published in the Daily Life or similar and we all have to permit
that, that is reprehensible.
Although, it’s now
deleted he also blamed feminists for anti-feminists. However, to disagree with
a feminist over how to address women’s subordination and then become an
anti-feminist is a bit like disagreeing with someone over how to address racism
and then joining the KKK. A part of what has been lost during this whole
conversation is that feminism isn’t a homogenous theory and no single person
who identifies as a feminist thinks that all feminists are right or that all
streams of feminisms are correct. That’s right there are several streams of
feminisms – although a lot of the responses to Lowenstein seem to inaccurately
imply otherwise. So, can we all, for the love of Sheezus, please stop tarring
all feminists with the same brush just because of one feminist’s views on
women’s subordination – doing that is just stupid.
Finally,
Lowenstein points to click-baiting and the general commercialization of
feminism as a guise for selling middle-class aspiration and capitalist ideals. There
is truth to this point in that the now mainstream concept of ‘breaking the
glass ceiling’ in some way perpetuates the myth that all women can be equal
under a capitalist system if they fight hard enough for it, which is, of
course, false. Such an ideology is consistently backed up by pop culture icons
like Beyonce or Lily Allen. However, are the mainstream liberal feminists at
fault here or are the people cutting their paychecks at fault? Generic Feminist
So and So™ writes
five articles a week about shoes because, in all likelihood, someone tells Generic
Feminist ™ to do that or at the very least is constricted
by writing something that will get at least 50, 000 hits per article. So, is
that a reflection on Generic Feminist So and So™ or the system we live in? For some reason
Lowenstein insists that it’s fault of Generic Feminist ™ and not the restrictions of writing about
feminism in a capitalist system.
In my opinion, the
fact that ‘feminism lite’ exists is not a reflection on feminism but a
reflection on capitalism and it’s important to keep that in perspective when
approaching this issue. ‘Feminism heavy’ exists, though, and we all need to do
what we can to throw more weight behind it. So, cheers, Lowenstein for starting
this debate.
Now let’s start
talking about things that matter:
