Olivia Leroux, St. Francis Xavier University

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 56

argue that a larger government, with a better ability to oversee and provide for its different peoples, might have been better able to prevent the outbreak from occurring in the first place. While a large government, like the American government, may be slower to act in times of international crisis, they have also been able to provide a level of peace and stability on a domestic level, that is not available in most other countries.

All of this being said, I do believe there is a way in which a government can be both inconsistent and slow to act, but this comes down to distinguishing between the different duties and responsibilities governments have on a domestic and international level. A government that pulls out of international agreements that are supposed to last for years can be inconsistent. At the same time this government could take a few months to pass a healthcare bill that is desperately needed on the domestic level. On the international scale, a democracy has the ability to be inconsistent, and on a domestic level it is much more likely to be slow to act.

AB S T R A C T

The word feminism has been used, interpreted, and conceptualized in a variety of different ways which have misguided many. The word itself, commonly understood as derogatory, empowering, invalidating, or uplifting, has received mixed signals. Feminism is too broad and lacks a focused lens. In this short essay, I ask if the word feminism continues to actively serve gender-oppressed people and if feminism can actually move our world closer to gender equality. I argue that the word feminism should be discarded in the pursuit of gender equality as the word is too deeply rooted in Western feminism and has become known as an exclusive practice. This essay will draw on worldly examples of post-colonial feminists, current feminist discourse, and my knowledge and experiences as a feminist.

57

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 58

There was a time when I despised the thought of being called a feminist. It was a dirty word, one that implied you were a man-hater who thought them worthless and wished to oppress them. Reality struck me and I realized that I, in fact, was the one being discriminated against by men on the basis of my gender. Though with much resistance, I have become a feminist and wish not to remain one. While I believe in gender equality movements, I do not wish to exclude my genderqueer and culturally diverse peers, as feminism tends to do. Feminism is an ambiguous term that has not found a secure definition to contain its efforts. Women and genderqueer individuals, while seeking unity, have often spiraled into arguments about who is a ’real’ woman and the role of non-biological women in the movement. Feminism has also faced post-colonial critique as there are diverse conceptualizations of equality and the steps required to achieve this based on various cultural and religious influences.

I argue that the word feminism should be discarded as it is rooted within a particular Western context, which creates an overly exclusive group that turns away non-Western, non-white, lower-class women and genderqueer people. In this paper, woman and man will be terms used to express self-identified gender identities, both transgender and cisgender. I will conceptualize equality as the ability of gender-oppressed people to access the opportunities for agency experienced by their oppressors. Broadly, I define feminism as an ongoing battle against the patriarchy for gender equality, fought by women united by their gender. In the following section, I will demonstrate that because the word feminism is rooted in a particular Eurocentric context, it maintains that feminism is exclusionary. In the second section, I will further explain how feminism’s exclusivity further oppresses and delegitimizes certain gender-oppressed people. Finally, I will conclude with a discussion of the new humanist aspirations and vocabulary to replace feminism.

Language is ever-changing and vernacular vocabularies remain in flux. The difficulty with language is not the words we have at our disposal, but the meanings associated with the words we use. With words like feminism, which stem from specific political circumstances in the recent past, their meanings become adapted in ways that benefit specific groups in the public eye. One might think of the word decolonization, which was intended to strategically fight colonial governments who

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 59

oppress Indigenous peoples. However, this political tool soon became a word used by the Canadian government, which led to the distortion of the word’s original intention, this colonized decolonization. 1 The colonization of decolonization occurs when colonial states, such as Canada, use the word to describe Indigenous affirming actions within the state; this contradicts the colonial implications of the implementation of decolonial practices within such a state. Likewise, feminism has been a word used to describe unity amongst women fighting the patriarchy for gender equality. However, since its emergence, feminism has positioned itself within a Western, white, middle-class, cisgender context, making it highly exclusive and beneficial to few.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Second Wave feminism was critiqued as it left behind women of colour. Feminist academics, such as Kimberlé Crenshaw2 and Karen Brodkin-Sacks,3 have introduced the concept of intersectionality to reconcile the colonial feminist model with the interests and needs of diverse women. Intersectionality is a theory that dissects an individual’s various identities that influence their daily experience. Generally, key identities include race, gender, and class which affect how an individual is perceived and engaged with. Let us say there are four individuals, one black woman, one black man, one white woman, and one white man; we might observe how their identities change their experiences. The black woman and the white woman share womanhood, which disadvantages them in comparison to the black and white men. However, the racial difference also creates a division between the white individuals and the black individuals. In this way, the white man may experience the most opportunity, then the white woman, then the black man, then the black woman, solely based on their gender and race. Those who do not encounter as many opportunities often experience multiple forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism.

Though feminism has obtained an intersectional theory, the question becomes if feminism itself takes an intersectional approach. Mainstream, Western feminism continues to privilege Western voices, which often leaves behind critical identities, even in an intersectional approach. A feminist may consider the positionality of a Muslim woman in Pakistan by analyzing her race, gender, and class, though may miss key aspects of her identity such as her religion, cultural practices and norms,

1. Pictou, "Decolonizing Decolonization: An Indigenous Feminist Perspective on the Recognition and Rights Framework." 2. Crenshaw, "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color." 3. Brodkin Sacks, "Toward a Unified Theory of Class, Race, and Gender."

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 60

as well as her political climate. This may lead to the belief that her veiling is a result of female oppression as the feminist may come from a particular position that opposes the Muslim woman’s cultural and religious practices, or the feminist may not be educated on the Muslim woman’s positionality. Post-colonial author Lila Abu-Lughod’s work, Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving, 4 has offered critical reflections on the Eurocentric idea that veiling is a result of oppression by considering the cultural and religious agency that may be exerted by women who choose to veil themselves. This critique illuminates the values of mainstream feminism and Western feminists and how they become applied to women in a global context.

Post-colonial feminists, who often have non-Western backgrounds, are generally more considerate of the distinct historical contexts of a society which makes their practice more open. However, there is still the notion of the "white woman’s fight" that is perpetuated through the word feminism which deters many people of colour in a global context. For Nigerian poet Ifi Amadiume, the younger generations of African women are employing Western feminist narratives, which are not the narratives that have been upheld within their communities by older village women.5 Due to the lack of engagement with post-colonial narratives, the feminism that young women are engaging with idealizes women of the West while dismissing the feminist qualities of their traditional practices. This reflects an imbalance of priority; there are many countries who seek independence or the reintegration of traditional values and practices in post-colonial times, though Western feminism may imply that this begins with female empowerment rather than societal or cultural empowerment.

It appears to me that the word feminism is a tapestry woven with colonial thread which impacts the way that it is perceived and engaged with This ultimately leads to an exclusive group participating in mainstream feminism, with sub-categories emerging to combat this. Despite critique, mainstream feminism remains a political tool empowering white, middle-class, cisgender women, while actively excluding women in the post-colonial context. For those practicing post-colonial feminism, there is still a deeply embedded, negative understanding of feminism amongst grassroots people globally. In an article by Raksha Pande discussing women’s agency within arranged marriage, one woman named Khadija notes during an interview,

4. Abu-Lughod, "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others." 5. Amadiume, “African Women: Voicing Feminisms and Democratice Futures.”

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 61

You see I am not a modern feminist, I don’t regard men as adversaries, how can I? They are my brothers, my fathers, my uncles and my husband. I could not live with myself.. being against them.. it would be too much of a loss. But then again I know I can’t always live under their control . . . they are victims of culture too.. so I had to fight, manipulate, work. Your kind of feminism doesn’t work for me it . . . it is too airy fairy.. my feminism is a fit for purpose kind of thing. . . 6

This quote highlights the influence Western, colonial narratives have had on the general understanding of the word feminism, especially in academia. The variation of feminism that Khadija uses strategically steers feminism away from the colonial context, though reframes feminism altogether as tackling a cultural issue rather than a patriarchal issue. I am led to believe, then, that Khadija is not taking a feminist approach but a humanist approach.

If it is the case that the word feminism is used in an exclusive manner, it follows that not all gender-oppressed people would be accepted in the movement. Furthermore, if feminism cannot fight against all gender oppression, then the word itself shouldn’t be used to describe the movement. Based on the exclusive practices outlined in the previous section, feminism can often be a voice of authority that is non-representative of all women. The discourse that is currently active, such as the question “what is a woman,” has also created much inner conflict. When asking what a woman is, the debate between biological sex and self-identified gender becomes an argument about who deserves equal rights based on their reproductive organs when all human life deserves equal access to their fundamental rights.

The question “what is a woman?” in feminism ignores the effects of patriarchy on non-binary, gender-fluid, and transgender individuals as well as cisgender men. Frequently, non-binary and gender-fluid individuals are misgendered based on their appearance and are included or excluded from feminist discourse depending on their biological sex and gendered experiences. This misgendering and emphasis on biological sex invalidates the oppression they may face as gender non-conforming people in a gendered society. Discourses regarding transgender women and their legitimacy include voices who argue for self-identification or those who believe in fictionalization. Self-identification is a theory that affirms an individual’s choice to identify as they please and be accepted in the gendered spaces they identify

6. Pande, “‘I Arranged my Own Marriage’: Arranged Marriages and Post-Colonial Feminism,” p. 180.

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 62

with7 while fictionalization affords transgender women the ability to identify as woman though would provide them with distinct safeguarding systems from those of cisgender women.8 Regardless of the outcomes of these discussions, they actively serve to dehumanize and other transgender individuals as they argue the validity of their identities. In arguing about how transgender people should identify, the feminist discourse loses focus of the goal which is to end gender oppression for all peoples, and ultimately forgets that transgender peoples are gender-oppressed, even by cisgender women.

Feminism has also actively excluded cisgender men from the conversation of oppression. Patriarchy not only places biological males in a position to oppress other genders for their own gain but places a social script on them to be considered ’real’ men.9 This manifests as toxic masculinity, where men are expected to act as a leader, hide their emotions, to be heterosexual, to express themselves in a masculine way. Patriarchal ideas of masculinity and femininity are rooted in the division of social roles based on biological sex and form the narrative that these are universal biological traits that distinguish our gendered expressions. This maintains that there is a visible and expressive difference between men and women, which also discourages genderqueer identities.

It also seems that in excluding cisgender men from feminist discourse, there becomes a lack of incentive for men to support and encourage feminism. Let us say Suzanna wants to gain support for her cause to provide each employee at her place of work with a bonus this year because only select employees have received them in the past. She should not turn away the support of other employees who have received bonuses last year because if she does, she others them and risks losing their interest in helping her cause. In the same way, if Suzanna were looking to gain participants for her feminist rally, she should not choose to exclude men because they may be powerful tools in helping her rally gain the attention it deserves. Furthermore, men may develop a view that feminist motives are elitist and unnecessary which would cause more resistance. This exclusionary practice creates a ‘girls club’ in the likeness of the men’s ‘boys club.’10 If the goal of feminism is to fight the ‘boys club,’ it seems that making a ‘girls club’ has only upheld the patriarchal system. As women create a group based on likeness, as men have done in the patriarchy, they need

7. Edmunds and Warburton, “Amia Srinivasan on ‘What is a Woman?’” 8. Edmunds and Warburton, “Kathleen Stock on ‘What is a Woman?’” 9. Butler, "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory." 10. A ‘boys club’ refers to an elite group of men who live a privileged life within the patriarchy.

Discarding the Word “Feminism” 63

to continue exclusionary practices to maintain the purity of the group which turns away others who are also fighting for gender equality, such as transgender men and women.

Based on the exclusionary practices of feminism outlined above, gender oppressed peoples, or those affected negatively by the patriarchy, are not always welcome in feminist discourse, making it unsuitable to remain within our vocabularies. Instead, activists should be seeking to discard the word feminism to refresh the vocabulary surrounding gender equality efforts.

If we are to discard the word feminism, it does not mean that the feminist movement was simply an oppressive movement. Feminism has encouraged many women to join forces and resist patriarchal oppression. However, feminist issues are not simply women’s issues; feminist issues are human rights issues. There became a need for feminism because women lacked access to the same human rights men could access. Today, all gender-oppressed peoples lack equal access to their rights as human beings, fostering the need for distinct rights to counteract sexism. The manifestation of gender equality is a humanist aspiration that must include all gender-oppressed peoples if patriarchy is to be dismantled. Feminism, in its current state, does not have the capacity to achieve this aspiration; a new name for the gender equality movement would break the exclusionary chains that hold feminism back and would provide opportunites for more people to come together in opposition of patriarchy.

It is my hope that there can be a movement that truly can truly embody equality and contribute meaningful work to the humanist aspirations that are rapidly growing. This movement would leave behind ideas of gender and move towards ideas of equal access to choice, opportunities, and rights. Perhaps the movement would actively fight patriarchy without engaging in patriarchal practices and could map out a post-gender world where people are free to express themselves as they choose. In any case, a new vocabulary would foster diversity, inclusivity, and acceptance; it would represent the powerful and compassionate movement that feminism was meant to be.

Abu-Lughod, Lila. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others." American Anthropologist 104, no. 3 (2002): 783-90. Amadiume, Ifi. “African women: Voicing Feminisms and Democratice Futures.” Macalester International.10, no. 9 (2001). Available at: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=macin tl Butler, Judith. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory." Theatre Journal (Washington, D.C.) 40, no. 4 (1988): 519-31. Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color." Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (1991): 1241-299. Edmunds, David and Warburton, Nigel. “Amia Srinivasan on ‘What is a Woman?’” Philosophy Bites Podcast (2017). Available at: https://content.libsyn.com/p/2/d/e/2deea7699d55cadd/Amia_Srinivasan_on_What_is_a_ Woman__2.mp3?c_id=13738608&cs_id=13738608&response-contenttype=audio%2Fmpeg&Expires=1647038044&Signature=LHbgDN2z0y6vDVuv2Xaa1Ki dVXR1D61qx4JE7Wy46ay5WfwLtJJGDppectzwlsmRkBT1BNKmEVMZzcGMRbCBaghXTHsiDAPEOmIa95E45dGlONmLfm6X2gyRgOVpJZYlXsK8SqFN2s4lipQ1uXqZt FMMLWNQXuFUBDaa5hA67ZvwkT2hbE3tzIquwvCdxqrHm4zvVulciUQINZU3ZpDI Ea-UX8IA71J4T8AAFXls2p9dtmujqowG44J8IqwcuwAOaBx5Bg8LrhxRd9t~MwCNAgaEGHBcY5I~uiE CvY8CzKMnzxP6xPgObJmE44YWgzYZuHtMbzuWuKR3AGCj00mg__&Key-PairId=K1YS7LZGUP96OI Edmunds, David and Warburton, Nigel. “Kathleen Stock on ‘What is a Woman?’” Philosophy Bites Podcast (2019). Available at: https://content.libsyn.com/p/f/5/d/f5d20193097ed4d3/Kathleen_Stock_on_What_is_a_W oman_.mp3?c_id=43029653&cs_id=43029653&response-contenttype=audio%2Fmpeg&Expires=1647039103&Signature=IBtNd5wwiEzuSdPVNyXxuCF924-GiD8uMtvq3r9tnVvHvII3XOFQaZBu0t8eH7SaPmK4dcAcRwyon5zKv8l~jFY51cHoV6BRsktsKVvQZuIeWvMjOwUvm4devD1gotXbBmarxyhhl23VPzF2JFNrp6RGLx77xeU~LczkDDN~RxvQ0frJLCr4dQToAYF hcZ2I8TLj1gvaI-fm7cKjEuI7ZdZ-afCB0cZSjVnqgprQKuI7zwDTGEKtH8dbInt3SFpLhfKk~-H5SgBg5v6RyJ9dIlx3zkk4ECKSoPHiLO4oSI8gDLmRhZ3YB34PGqGTPwwjXTcs-sEUZtOYPEdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K1YS7LZGUP96OI Pande, Raksha. “’I Arranged my Own Marriage’: Arranged Marriages and Post-Colonial Feminism.” A Journal of Feminist Geography 22, no. 2 (2015): 172-187. Pictou, Sherry. "Decolonizing Decolonization: An Indigenous Feminist Perspective on the Recognition and Rights Framework." The South Atlantic Quarterly 119, no. 2 (2020): 371-91. Sacks, Karen Brodkin. "Toward a Unified Theory of Class, Race, and Gender." American Ethnologist 16, no. 3 (1989): 534-50.