I examine my paradoxical and serendipitous relationship to feminism.
To make it plain, the drive behind my feminism has nothing to do with identity politics, at least not in any conventional sense. I'm not an feminist in order to belong anywhere. Nor am I one because I've staked out moral ground that I wish to defend against any other people whatsoever.
The only ground that I wish to defend is that which already lies very far beyond the boundaries of normal civilisation. I stake my life for that, and that alone -- that I have the right to leave normal civilisation and explore its peripheries.
My feminism, it should be clear, is based solely on my affection for the extremes of experience, for without an encounter with these extremes I start to feel as if I were no longer alive.
I defend my right not to be stereotyped -- because that robs me of transcendence, and forces me back within the boundaries of ordinary society to conform to psychologically debilitating norms. To accept the necessity of such a return would turn me into my opposite.
I am a feminist for pragmatic reasons -- because if I let patriarchal men and women get away with routine stereotyping practices that kill the spirit, it will not be too long before that stereotyping is, once more, turned against me.
I am a feminist because that is the only way to live with honour.
3 comments:
Are there any efforts in feminism that attempt to define a full and wholesome world outlook that replaces its opposites, that is robust and not one-sided, that provide society with an all-time ideology of the sexes, that lays to rest the wars between the sexs, etc. In Africa, we have a mixture of societies with some being patrilineal and some being matrilineal. Those that are patrilineal are actually structured matrilineally, e.g., seniority among men in any family are determined matrilineally, which elevates the female gender above that of the male gender (which also applies to African royal families). There seems to be a complex hidden wisdom in African societies, which has the potential to offer unitifying ideology among the sexes and yet modern feminism has not yet tapped into this wisdom(?).
What you have just said does not align with the choice of the term "feminism". How different if feminism, as you explained it here, to critical theory? Is it just another branch of critical theory?
My own rambling thoughts are .... Some gender roles are naturally determined, like motherhood and fatherhood. All man-made roles are not supposed to be gender-based and hence I personally am not inclined to behave in a gender-oriented manner when performing any man-made role! All men were borne and hence have a natural instinct of tenderness and love towards the female gender unless they have a mental condition that fall within the precincts of insanity!
Yes, there is a critial theory aspect to feminism. Well picked.
Actually the popular use of the term is based on culture wars and connotations that come in that aftermath. It would be unwise to make too much of that. Better to choose an intellectual form of feminism.
Post a Comment