It bugs me when my kids think the term feminism is a negative. Wanting everyone to be equal is all well and good, but equalist just ain't gonna have the same ring. Nor is it descriptive. Nor is it the most appropriate term available.
Take the recent transition from gay marriage to marriage equality, for comparison. The point where the media starts referring to it as the latter instead of the former--
(Let us forget the limitation in the term gay marriage, because calling it (prior to Obergefell v. Hodges) gay trans bi all-inclusive marriage just doesn't roll off the tongue as readily.)
--is when, arguably... officially, equality exists. The problem before you get to that point is that one side of the debate thinks the other side is encroaching on its tradition, trying to tear down what it already has, rather than just attaining the same for itself. The same is true with gender equality, with feminism. Men are on top. Women are not. The patriarchy is held in place by tradition, by practice, by the sheer will of constantly reified heteronormative, paternalistic beliefs.
Equality can be attained two ways--if we simplify things. Tear down men to the level of women or raise women up. So equalist could mean that you want either one of those. Feminism, on the other hand, implies the raising up of women. However frightened some men may be, feminism does not imply the tearing down of men. It just doesn't.
We can call it equality when we've got it. As I told my son earlier today, it would be great if feminism and feminist were just words for a history class. Because we don't need them anymore. But, we just are not there yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment