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.