2.12.11

Feminism is for Everybody: Navigating Feminism and the Politics of Difference

The evidence is overwhelming. We are more enlightened now, and men – most men, anyway – behave much better. That is bad news for the grievance industry, which must stretch its definitions of assault and abuse to ridiculous extremes to keep its numbers up. It can’t acknowledge the good news, because it has too much at stake. – Margaret Wente


To be clear from the beginning, I believe that a so-called ‘grievance industry’ within the feminist movement does exist. It exists just as it does within any movement, be it feminist, anti-racist, socialist, or otherwise. Analogous to war profiteering, these industries arise as a result of the booming profitability of conflict. Like never before, there are massive monetary returns from social conflict. This trend is, in part, a consequence of the careful inclusion of resistance movements into the dominant system of difference that weaves through all social institutions in a liberal democracy.

The creation of vast employment opportunities for otherwise strong feminist voices ensures the protection of the system. It creates a sort of brain drain, by which women are effectively pulled towards economic positions that are usually limited to a focus on band-aid responses within the system rather than taking up a more fundamental struggle toward the genuine abolition of the politics of difference that generates oppression against women in the first place. It is crucial that these forms of exploitation and corruption by intra-group members are continuously brought to the attention of the general public so that we are able to discern and separate the messages of those working with and for the system from those that aim to displace the system and create true, ongoing social change. 

The extrapolation of the idea of a ‘ grievance industry’ to all feminists is at the very least contemptuous of the feminist movement and, at its worst, a very dangerous form of violence in and of itself.  Violence against women continues to be problematic and extends beyond traditional notions of physical violence. Contrary to Wente's view of social progress, we are not more enlightened now and one of the primary reasons for this is that much of what passes as feminism today exists only in the hollow structural reproduction of the status quo. Because of this, there is still a very basic ignorance of the meaning of feminism. Perhaps the most basic step toward rectifying such ignorance is to acknowledge the diversity in the feminist movement. It is imprudent to discuss feminism as though it were a homogenous body of thought that shares uniform social goals. In order to demonstrate this point I will briefly contrast the divergent approaches of two of these strands of feminism: liberal feminism and radical feminism. 

On the one hand, liberal feminism, the dominant form of feminism in the West, strives for equality of opportunity within a liberal democracy that assumes equality of conditions for all people. Freedom then, is merely the freedom of movement within this system. Wente falls into the umbrella of liberal feminism, as she contends that because there is statistical evidence to support increased freedom of movement for women within the liberal system, there is no more need for further change.  Victory for Wente is ironically the silencing of feminism as women are assimilated into a preexisting value system.

The problem with liberal feminism is that the current system of social relations is at its core a patriarchal system, founded on the value systems of privileged white males. If we look closely at the alleged advancements of liberal feminism, it becomes clear that advancement often means inclusion into a preauthorized patriarchical system. To claim a moral victory once women have access to the same employment opportunities as men in the absence of a glass ceiling is an absurdity and runs counterintuitive to the aim of true liberation.  Liberal feminists have essentially fought their way into a more intricate system of domination that allocates success to women only in so far as they are willing to maintain the basic functions of the system. Emma Goldman was spot-on when she said, “Now, woman is confronted with the necessity of emancipating herself from emancipation, if she really desires to be free.” Over a century later, this assertion holds true.

Radical feminists tend to understand the oppression of women as structured into the very fabric of our society, in our social institutions, our social relations, and into the social agent. Radical feminism is intrinsically tied to the politics of difference. It is not a response to a conflict between men and women but is rather one dimension of a greater movement against a system that structures social relations by unequally distributing power to particular identity markers. The dominant social structures do not just claim a central position for men over women but also for white skin, for the upper-class, for Christians, for heterosexuals, etc. All other social identity markers are pushed to the periphery and forced to assimilate to the values of the dominant social structures in order to ascertain social mobility. The compartmentalization of resistance movements into particular identity markers then, is a superficial one. The struggle for freedom is an inclusive struggle by its very nature.  Although it takes place on many plains, it is a unified struggle toward liberation from the politics of difference.

As bell hooks succinctly states, “feminism is for everybody.” Exclusionary movements are very dangerous and if men are not engaged in the feminist movement, if Euro-Canadians are not engaged in Aboriginal movements, if heterosexuals are not engaged in gay and LGBT movements, these movements will fail us all. At the same time that movements require inclusive spaces, the onus is also on people as agents of change to stand up for one another. There is a lot of truth to the axiom, ‘When one of us is oppressed, we are all oppressed.” I am a feminist because of the inherent interconnections of identity politics.

The task cannot be to change the rules of the boys club to allow entry for women but rather to radically decentre patriachical social structures and replace them with a system centred at the intersection of social differences. Not equal opportunity to succeed in this society but rather equal opportunity to affect this society. The very basis of all social relations is negotiation. Equal footing in the processes of negotiating our individual and collective identities is not just a step toward liberation, it is liberation. There is intrinsic value to the natural and social differences in humans.  We need diversity so that we can learn, challenge, negotiate, change, and grow with one another.