A Communal Notion
BBC4 recently concluded a series of three superb films by Vanessa Engle which attempted to chart the history and development of the feminist movement from about the 60s. The first episode, 'Libbers', consisted of interviews with some of the undisputed heroines of the field, including Germaine Greer and Marilyn French; the final instalment, 'Activists', portrayed a group of women currently trying to keep the feminist spirit alive in Britain. Taken as a pair, the films provided a thoroughly fascinating examination of how society has changed over the last few decades... and by that I certainly don't mean that it's become better.
The women shown in the first episode were intellectual powerhouses. By and large, they managed to obtain the very best education that society was willing to offer them at the time and they shaped themselves into real forces to be reckoned with. They had a sense of purpose which - although it unquestionably stemmed from personal experiences - somehow embraced a communal notion of womanhood rather than placing excessive emphasis on the individual. They were charismatic. They were fearless. And they were driven by the conviction that the injustices which they saw around them should and could be dealt with.
The women presented as the activists of today come across as a very different breed. Perhaps that's partly because it's now relatively easy to place the likes of Greer on a pedestal and hail them as genuine pioneers. Maybe the current state of gender politics persuades us to view the past through forgiving, almost sentimental lenses. Or maybe today's feminists are just a bit wet. One thing's for sure: they're not intellectuals. Heaven forbid! I mean, we don't want today's role models going anywhere near geek territory, right? The whole lot of them put together don't have as much charisma as Ms Greer can muster with one raised eyebrow. And ultimately, they seem more interested in belonging to a cosy club than in putting the world to rights.
Maybe I'm being overly harsh in my assessment, but for some reason I simply wasn't convinced by all their protests against pornography, prostitution and sexism. They became animated and excited when dicussing what types of salads to prepare for a meeting, but when they were rattling off lists of all the social issues which they considered important, it sounded like little more than lip service. Or maybe I was just bothered by the fact that I thought they were all making a huge, fundamental error: excluding men.
The feminists of the 60s and the 70s couldn't have been more in touch with the realities of the lives they were trying to expose and criticise. The 21st century variety seem to have ignored that a) many men are on their side and b) many men are suffering the same treatment that was reserved only for women a few decades ago. In a time when you can walk into your local branch of TK Maxx and be confronted with a poster of a completely naked, fully objectified man, any sort of movement that claims to hold human dignity as one of its core values cannot afford to sideline half the population. If feminism is to enjoy a meaningful resurgence, it needs to realise that men should now be seen as potential allies.
The women shown in the first episode were intellectual powerhouses. By and large, they managed to obtain the very best education that society was willing to offer them at the time and they shaped themselves into real forces to be reckoned with. They had a sense of purpose which - although it unquestionably stemmed from personal experiences - somehow embraced a communal notion of womanhood rather than placing excessive emphasis on the individual. They were charismatic. They were fearless. And they were driven by the conviction that the injustices which they saw around them should and could be dealt with.
The women presented as the activists of today come across as a very different breed. Perhaps that's partly because it's now relatively easy to place the likes of Greer on a pedestal and hail them as genuine pioneers. Maybe the current state of gender politics persuades us to view the past through forgiving, almost sentimental lenses. Or maybe today's feminists are just a bit wet. One thing's for sure: they're not intellectuals. Heaven forbid! I mean, we don't want today's role models going anywhere near geek territory, right? The whole lot of them put together don't have as much charisma as Ms Greer can muster with one raised eyebrow. And ultimately, they seem more interested in belonging to a cosy club than in putting the world to rights.
Maybe I'm being overly harsh in my assessment, but for some reason I simply wasn't convinced by all their protests against pornography, prostitution and sexism. They became animated and excited when dicussing what types of salads to prepare for a meeting, but when they were rattling off lists of all the social issues which they considered important, it sounded like little more than lip service. Or maybe I was just bothered by the fact that I thought they were all making a huge, fundamental error: excluding men.
The feminists of the 60s and the 70s couldn't have been more in touch with the realities of the lives they were trying to expose and criticise. The 21st century variety seem to have ignored that a) many men are on their side and b) many men are suffering the same treatment that was reserved only for women a few decades ago. In a time when you can walk into your local branch of TK Maxx and be confronted with a poster of a completely naked, fully objectified man, any sort of movement that claims to hold human dignity as one of its core values cannot afford to sideline half the population. If feminism is to enjoy a meaningful resurgence, it needs to realise that men should now be seen as potential allies.
Comments