Feminism and women’s rights have been judged through a utilitarian lens throughout the course of history. For instance, male arguments in favour of women’s education, more often than not, have something to do with a larger workforce and a greater national income. Women’s education is only as important as its utility within a capitalist framework. Those who argue against women’s education believe that the woman will be of more utility in the household.
Progress in the sphere of women’s rights is permissible only as long as it benefits patriarchal structures. The woman, for too long, has been viewed as an object of utility. Recent discussions on women’s desires, sexual needs, sexualities and pleasures – that serve no larger purpose than the happiness of the woman – have done a great job of detaching utilitarianism from this evaluation of feminism, but there is still a long way to go.
Last month, a group of students from my college conducted an informal debate hour on the relevance of feminism in the 21st century. To no one’s surprise, this severely under-planned debate turned into a space where cis-gendered, heterosexual male teenagers could explore mutual beliefs rooted in misogyny and express support for various forms of systemic gendered oppression.
One of the questions in this debate was, “What does feminism do for me – a cis-gendered, heterosexual, white male?” Proud and flattered by a very loud round of applause from his male peers, the student who posed this question received no conclusive answers, because there is only one conclusive answer: nothing. Feminism has to do nothing for a cis-gendered, heterosexual, white male. Farmers’ movements do not have to do anything for the industrialist class. Movements against racial oppression do not have to do anything for members of the oppressor race(s). Movements against caste-based discrimination do not have to do anything for the privileged caste(s). The benefit of the oppressor group is not, and does not have to be, the concern of any of these movements, and that should be a strikingly obvious and easily accepted fact.
In a world where male influencers like Andrew Tate hold greater sway over teenage male students than nuanced political discussion, the relevance of feminism has been questioned over and over again. Movements are of value only if you constantly re-evaluate their purpose, goals and importance, but it is important to ask yourself who gets to ask these questions. Do you, as someone who can access tangible and intangible forms of privilege solely because of your biological sex, have the right to question and evaluate a movement seeking to dismantle systems of oppression that your privilege forms the basis of? Does this movement owe you anything? Is feminism for you?
Feminism, as a movement, is for the equality of all genders. This means uplifting and empowering historically oppressed genders by destroying patriarchal structures. The primary focus of feminism has been, is, and will always be to respond to the needs, demands and interests of marginalised gender groups. In this process, feminism has also benefitted members of oppressor gender groups. For example, by attacking notions of masculinity that perpetrate violence against women, the feminist movement has also shed a light on men’s mental health issues. However, it is extremely important to note that this is not what feminism has to do in order to prove its relevance. This is a by-product – a good by-product – that happens to benefit genders that are not systemically oppressed as well.
Feminism does not owe it to men to initiate discourse about their struggles against systems built to preserve their privilege. Because of the nature of the movement, feminism does, at times, indirectly liberate men from gendered problems that they have, historically speaking, inflicted upon themselves. However, this will always remain a by-product of solutions for systemically oppressed genders. Men who benefit from the very structures that feminism attacks, therefore, do not need to understand the relevance of feminism.
Feminism’s focus is not on the oppressor group, and the oppressor group is not expected to embrace feminism as a movement that brings positive change for them as well. They simply do not have the right to question the importance of the movement from positions of privilege that are under attack. To ask feminism to take oppressive interests into account while striving for the liberation of the oppressed is not just counterintuitive, but also wrong. So, before you question the relevance or importance of feminism in today’s world, ask yourself: do I need to be uplifted? Does my gender group need to be empowered? Am I a victim of systemic oppression? Am I part of the oppressor group? While answering these questions, it is important to remember that feminism is intersectional.
The relevance of feminism cannot be measured in terms of how much it benefits oppressor groups. In fact, it should be the opposite. Dissatisfaction within oppressor groups is an indication of the movement’s success.