The other day I was sent a link to a news article about research showing the world's population may be getting more stupiderer (*ahem*- yes that's intentional), which was on a somewhat poor quality "news" website.
My eyes were drawn to the "other articles" section of the page, with a big title "How I stopped being an angry feminist and started loving men". My eyes rolled instinctively, and I felt myself groan at what I anticipated would be an ill-informed anti-progressive sanctimonious self-enlightenment "my whole life changed" piece, but felt my finger dragging the mouse pointer to the link (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/how-i-stopped-being-an-angry-feminist-and-started-loving-men/story-fnet09p2-1226580988910), like passing a car crash and feeling your neck involuntarily to the horrors you know you subconsciously want to think.
I'm hearing echoes of Craig Reucassel, ala Shock Horror Aunty, in my head "people want to be outraged!" and nod in woeful agreement that, while not normally easily baited, this one indeed pulled me in.
While tempted to listen to my own advice to not fight stupid, as you'll only be dragged down to their level then beaten with experience, I haven't had a good rant in a while so....
Firstly, I think Sarah Beaulieu is doing as much harm to the cause of feminism as she seems to sanctimoniously claim she is doing for promoting "good men". The use of the terms "angry" and "feminist" in close conjunction perpetuates the harmful misnomer that all feminists are angry. Similarly, to suggest that you cannot be feminist and love men (or anyone perhaps she believes- if we feminists are such angry hateful people in general?).
Feminism is defined as: "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." (www.dictionary.reference.com)
Feminism is NOT:
- man-hating
- promoting the rights of women above and beyond or over men
- prioritising women's needs over others'
Unfortunately this is not widely understood, and there are some common cross-overs and confusions that occur by applying false logic which do a lot of harm to genuine equality and feminism, such as:
- women who have been hurt by a man (or men) and feel anger or hatred towards men, and self-associate with feminism as they see a cause which advocates that they should have had a right to exist free of violence.
However, the "I call myself a feminist therefore I am one (although I am hateful towards men)" is an association that spreads, similar to how the "I am a member of the priesthood and therefore am a good Catholic (although I rape children)" association tarnishes the image of the Catholic church. The actions of a few statistical outliers who choose to be more vocal, receive more attention and media, and perpetuate negative false associations.
I'm not going to get into the equally preachy self-as-an-example-which-proves-my-theory-of-everything "I am a feminist and I love men " blah blah because it won't achieve anything- one person's experience can be a record, but it does not attest to the broader ethical or moral standards of society, or even the average human experience.
Her basic premise is sound- to encourage harmony, but it is done so in the way of the patronising Mormon door-knocker "I want you to go to heaven, which is why I tell you everything about your life is wrong, try to force you into my way of seeing the world, and if all else fails I'll judge, pity and pray for you."
The way Beaulieu words the article could actually promote further hatred of women by promoting old negative stereotypes, and be counter-productive to her stated intentions of reducing violence against women and improving male-female interactions and relationships.
So, Sarah Beaulieu, I encourage you to think about the, likely unintentional consequences, but incredibly poorly thought out approach to how you advocate for causes in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment