Warning: Don’t be fooled when Feminazism dresses up as Feminism

Yesterday, I had a conversation with an old schoolmate of mine and it was eye-opening in a frustrating way. What started out as small talk eventually became a heated debate as the topic shifted to gender equality and this is one I’m extremely vocal about and will fight you on, no matter who you are, friend or foe.

Feminism is so often misunderstood and it’s time we put that to bed. When I heard this schoolmate of mine say, “There’s a very thin line between feminism and feminazism.” I did just that and if I’m viewed as being a ‘feminazi’ to speak unabashedly about this issue, that’s alright. Because it needs to be said.

Feminism is gender equality yet what has sprouted from this most necessary and important movement is a pejoratively popularised branch called Feminazism which, on the other hand, is more radical and typified by the media as the promotion of women’s rights over men’s.  Feminism and feminazism are not the same thing, and to me, the line is very clear. It is a bright red divisor, between a land of equal opportunity and that of inequality.

Simply put,  if patriarchal society were an hourglass where the top glass bulb representing men, provides for and supersedes the second glass bulb representing women, then feminazism is the movement trying to invert that hour glass. Feminism, however, wants to break it… not only for women, but men too. That’s also often overlooked.

When this guy began ranting about ungrateful girls using feminism to get whatever they want, saying that women expect too much from men, in terms of paying for dinner and it’s not fair, it sounded to me as if he was likening feminism to a gift card cashed in by women for privilege. And the very example he gave was perfect to highlight how feminism impacts all genders.

There’s always two sides to the story and I understand why men may feel less than enthused when they have to pay the bill when out on a date. They feel the need to be the chivalrous gentleman and pay for the entire meal because of gender stereotypes such as ‘a man must provide or it is seen as sign of weakness’. And yes, I will not deny that women take advantage of that. But there are also men who refuse when a woman wants to pay, because of the same societal standard.  See how it swings both way? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The main problem men seem to have with feminazism charading as feminism is how it is being misused. To that, I have to say this: Of course there are always those who will take advantage of their rights and privileges. Yet we cannot generalise beyond such circumstances. Feminism is much bigger than going out to dinner and debating over who should pay for it. It’s everywhere, both subtle and blatant, whether you’re in tune to that or not.

Do you know what Feminism is?

If I were to ask a single question and determine whether or not someone could be my friend based on the answer, it really is quite simple…

Do you understand what feminism means?

Sadly the word is a very misunderstood one but as Emma Watson rightly said in her UN speech for the HeforShe Campaign, it is not the word that matters but rather the idea behind it. So the better question to be asked is actually…

Do you understand what feminism is?

I sincerely hope you do because whether you are a man or woman, boy or girl, feminism should matter to you because…

Feminism is not synonymous to man-hating or believing in superiority over men but rather gender equality. It means affording equal rights to both men and women. It’s justice.

Perhaps you’re a feminist and you don’t even know it. 

Maybe we could be friends but we don’t know it.

Isn’t that a shame?

http://dailypost.wordpress.com/dp_prompt/litmus-test/

Is ‘The Arraignment of Men’ Biased?

Taking Sister Juana Ines De La Cruz’s poem ‘The Arraignment of Men’ out of its historical context and reading it in the 21st century, yes, I feel that it’s especially biased.

Whether or not the poem is biased can be seen clearly in the title itself. The use of the word arraignment is clearly accusatory, painting an image of a courtroom where the perpetrators are men and the victims are women.  This is of course not the case. In fact, this is an example of a text contributing to the misunderstanding of the term feminism which is not the hatred of men but rather the fight for gender equality.

Women do not have the desire to take power from men but rather be afforded the same rights and opportunities as men, which they should be given. Virginia Woolf makes this very point eloquently in ‘A Room of One’s Own’, the feminist bible, when she uses Shakespeare’s imaginary sister Judith as an example to demonstrate how her talent would not have been nurtured like William Shakespeare merely because she was a woman. However, Woolf never pointed a finger, blaming men for this sad truth but instead sought to spread awareness to one and all on the reality of the situation. This is because women, not just men, condition young girls to believe they must behave in a certain way because they are ‘girls’. So this social construction is built by men and women alike hence everyone is responsible for gender equality. That is why the poem is unjust in holding only men accountable for the ‘witless laws’ imposed upon women. They are not the only ones who are guilty as the poet points out:

Then why stare ye, if we prove
That the guilt lies at your gate?

Another piece of criticism I have is that throughout the poem, Sister Juana Ines De La Cruz strengthens the differences between men and women to the point where those readers who do not see such distinctions or discrimination start thinking of everyone as either a  man or woman instead of as individuals and more importantly, as human beings. This is not a beneficial effect on the reader for the poem is effectively perpetuating gender stereotypes and generalising men negatively while arguing that women are innocent which is like a binary opposite. Literature becomes dangerous when generalisation occurs within the text and that is what occurs when one is biased in their writing.

The constant stream of negative adjectives used to describe men such as perverse, ruthless and crass, saying that they ‘set the snare’ and demonstrate ‘unexampled care’ leads to a collective negative connotation surrounding the word men which is unfortunate and makes less male readers connect to the poem in the process and even sparks disagreement in the minds of some female readers.

The poem also lacks tact in the way the poet is attempting to make her point for it is a direct attack against those of the male gender illustrated in the first stanza:

Males perverse, schooled to condemn
Women by your witless laws,
Though forsooth you are prime cause
Of that which you blame in them:

In contrast, Anne Bradstreet in her poem ‘In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth’ illustrates the power of the queen while simultaneously constructing power for her own self through her knowledge reflecting in the poem which is a difficult feat. Rather than fighting for her rights and power, she is appropriating it in a subtle manner, demonstrating her strength and finesse in writing in a heavily patriarchal society. Like Woolf, she too does not bluntly blame men like Sister Juana Ines De La Cruz does in ‘Arraignment of Men’.

If anything, I’ve learned the dangers of bias and drawing dividing lines from reading this poem and applying it to the world we live in today.

The Controversial Axe Ad Campaign

As part of my advertising course this semester, or what my uni prefers to call it-integrated marketing communication-I’ve been asked to write about a controversial ad. The first ones that popped up in my head were the Axe ads that frequently annoy me when appearing on my television screen. So this post is more like my essay on why the popular ad campaign is indeed controversial in the message it sends to the public.

---

Deoderant advertisements reek of falsely represented sex appeal with women throwing themselves on men sporting whatever brand is being advertised but what makes the Axe ads a league apart from the rest? Well it’s the fact that these ads made Axe the #1 male antiperspirant.

How? Well, there’s a process…apparently.

According to a Business Insider article, Unilever first identified six key groups of men:

1.The Predator

Think of Barney Stinson, stalking women like a tiger would a gazelle in the wild. With his cunning and trickery, he wouldn’t need the help of Axe.

2. Natural Talent

He’s got the looks, intelligence and all the qualities women look for. So he wouldn’t need the deo either.

3. Marriage Material

Those boys who you’d love to bring home and introduce to your parents, a stable and settle-down type of man. Doesn’t need Axe either.

4. Always the Friend

Those guys who are constantly friend-zoned  and sometimes make too much of a big deal about it. Maybe he needs Axe.

5. The Enthusiastic Novice

He doesn’t really know what he’s doing  but boy is he excited to play the field, unaware  how he might not be anywhere close to doing so. Doesn’t know he might need Axe.

6. The Insecure Novice

He doesn’t really know what he’s doing  either and he’s anything but enthusiastic about it.

By a process of elimination and examination, it was decided that the key demographic for the ad campaign would be ‘The Insecure Novice’ because he needs the most help with women.

This is the major factor behind Axe’s marketing success. Sadly, the reasons for which it is so popular or attractive to men is exactly what is wrong with the ad campaign.

Here are reasons why its content can be seen as a source of controversy:

• Ultimately, the ad campaign plays on men’s sexual fantasy of being able to attract not only a single woman but rather several at a time. Men and women are objectified, represented as prizes to be gained which is against all feminist movements and beliefs, propagating backward ideals of men and women representation and the dynamics of their interaction. While we are attempting to fight for equal rights for men and women, it is inappropriate to show men and women as primal beings who are incapable of thinking beyond their sexual urges.
• Deodorant is primarily for the purpose of acting as an antiperspirant for good hygiene and perhaps fragrance, not designed for attracting women. Young boys and adolescents, who are more easily susceptible to media influences, may be led to believe that using an excessive amount of Axe will actually help them with the ladies which is ultimately misleading. It builds the need to buy deodorant for other purposes than its intention, thus enabling the creation of false necessity. Fantasies represented in the ads are far from being realised in real life and lays false hope in its occurrence.
• Since the target audience and consumer are men who don’t seem to be able to interact with women effectively, those who use Axe sometimes tend to be deemed ‘losers’ and the antiperspirant has gained a reputation as the ‘deo of losers’ in turn. This supports social constructions that men or women need to find a partner in order to be considered normal or ‘cool’, denigrating the option of people who are single and independent.

Take a look at the ads yourself:

Hats off to Kalki Koechlin

The Bollywood actress’ monologue at the India Today Conclave is stunning and honest at the same time, a feat that is difficult to accomplish. Kalki’s solo act is one that should be seen by everyone-men and women.

Humour rings through as she says, ” Five husbands! That can’t be fun, God knows I have enough trouble with one!” She also speaks of the pretention at celebrity galas, double standards and the unfair oppression of women’s voices and opinions. Dubbed by the actress as “Just another rant”, it will certainly touch you and make you think.

I particularly related to the following snippet from her monologue:

“Sometimes I just want an oversized T shirt, boxer shorts, unkempt hair and unibrows.

I want armpit hair long enough to plait,

I want a clean face without a trace of make up

I want to look the way I do when I wake up.

I am starving to be me.”

Let me know in the comments if you liked it and which parts really went to heart!

To be or not to be…a Feminist?

I’m saddened to hear that Shailene Woodley, a young and upcoming Hollywood actress, doesn’t want to be considered a feminist. Why? Because she loves men and does not believe that women overtaking men’s power would benefit the world in any way.

Adding to the thought, she said in her TIME magazine interview, “We have to have a fine balance.” How sad that she is describing the very core of feminism but doesn’t even know it i.e gender equality. However, she is not the only female role model who has made this mistake, joining in with likes of Kelly Clarkson and Katy Perry.

Granted that the media and society itself propagate the concept with a negative connotation, many are unfortunately misinformed and uneducated as to what feminism or being a feminist really is.

Being a feminist does not mean burning your bras to prove a point (first of all, bras are very expensive) and it most certainly does not mean hating men or anything remotely masculine. In fact, men are feminists too. If you’re wondering how that is, then you really need to understand the movement and what it aims to establish.

I believe that author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie defined the term best saying, “Feminist: A person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.”

For those who may be confused which side of the coin they fall on

I don’t want to point the finger at men for in reality, women are just as responsible to rectify gender inequality. If you esteem to sit and complain about male hegemony, then it accomplishes nothing. Young girls need to be taught to have their own opinions, not further anyone else’s, man or woman. It is wrong for men to assume that women are vessels to bear children and meant to do household work. There is no shame in managing a household, it is in fact a full-time job, one that is without pay or vacation days I’m afraid. It’s upsetting how women can be taken for granted so easily.

On the other hand, while discussing fairness to both genders, I feel it is important that we acknowledge that men are not monsters harbouring ill intentions. Not all, anyway. Women should not insinuate that all men are insensitive pigs or sexual sharks because the matter of the fact is that that is simply not true. It is unfair to generalise in the case of both men and women. While women are subjected to unfair stereotypes, men are too. Men are victims of rape as well and their trauma is no less than that of a woman’s.

I think the more we point out differences among men and women, the worse it is. After all, we are human beings. In fact, psychologist Carl Jung, the male psyche consists of a female component called the anima while the female psyche consists of a male component called the animus.  So in truth, we all have our masculine and feminine sides. So why can’t we just embrace them?

I’m so sick and tired of being told to do something simply because I’m a girl or hearing a boy being told to ‘man up’.  I would just like everyone to be. Till then though…

 

Be a feminist.

It’s not the right choice but it’s a good choice.