Eddie, Butler

Feminism is a tricky position to take. Judith Butler shares with us the problem of feminism and its crippling assumption that “the women” are what feminism seeks to aid and strengthen. She is concerned with that non-existent unifying “woman” which feminism enlists as their cause. A good part of this problem is actually brought about by the victories of feminism.

If feminism’s founding cause was to remove the unfair exclusion and oppression of the female population in society, they have succeeded in one significant way – it is now generally agreed to be wrong to publically object female equality. Supporting a group that seeks to maintain male dominance is now considered as ridiculous as supporting neo-Nazism or a coalition for pro-child molestation. Feminism has slain the evil demon. Yet the crumbling of the misogynistic underworld brought about a strange consequence: there is no longer a clear opponent for feminism. With the demon dead, its familiars rain upon the world as splinters and shards. Shadows of female oppression is numerous enough to appear anywhere, sharp enough to sting but never big enough to fuel their unified cause. Now, there is no clean group of victims to call “the women,” and this is the problem Butler speaks of. People often see feminists with fear and distaste, likely due to the perception that the feminists are struggling to find their fight and trying too hard to stay angry.

Staying angry may be more real of a cause than modern feminists would admit. Consider that feminism is supposed to bring about equality between women and men, yet by design, feminism maintains and reinforces difference. Is not feminism highly unwelcoming and exclusionary? It looms like a giant fortress, manned (or womanned?) by females and their supporters, and ready to punish all that stands in their way. Feminists remain partitioned behind the boundaries of a political group, so even if the two sexes are equal in every possible way, their insistence of them being the females and the others being the non-female will always provoke conflict. Butler speaks of ‘postfeminism,’ but it is more of a re-feminism. It should be called Feminism 2.0, where she wishes to patch it up and update it to accommodate modern needs and features. But I feel that feminism will provide no end to conflict. It serves to wrestle its enemies, break what limbs or tentacles latch onto their progression and grow to become the mighty force with walls too thick to penetrate. The walls are already quite think now.

So I suggest adopting the goal to ultimately eliminate the need for feminism. Militant protests and punishment only stops mistakes, but does not solve the causes. We should move towards political and social maturity through minimizing the separation of male and female. Women should not get “extra care” because they do not need that handicap. A feminist’s job well done is when people do not need to worry that they are disregarding the dignity of women, and keep their eyes on treating anyone and everyone as a proper human being. Sure, it’s idealistic, but why waste our time discussing feminism if all it does is keep the fights going?