Reimagining Feminism. When was your first realisation of…
Tags: Womanism, Feminism, Women Of Color, Liberation, Lessons Learned

Somalia Women protesting the imprisonment of Angela Davis (Mogadishu, Somalia. 1972).

When was your first realisation of gender inequity?

The feminist movement has been the main driver in unlearning my internalised misogyny. Now, I believe my biological difference is not a tool to deny me a life I love. Nonetheless, many women feel that the movement does not reflect them. I hear the concerns, but minor misconceptions should not invalidate the potential of the liberatory movement. I hope to illustrate all the previous liberatory efforts were to eliminate suffering and pleading for our place in this world.

‘Has identification been meaningful enough to inspire revolt?’ — Lola Olufemi (Feminism, interrupted)

Historically women have been an afterthought in creating policies that directly influenced their status in society. The feminist ideology intends to work towards an improvement of material conditions for all women. It is in opposition to how the world continuously decides who is deserving of equality based on merit and contribution. Why are external factors a prerequisite to granting rights? The ideal would be to ensure all women live a quality life, with no deductions.

At the forefront of the liberatory movement were groups of people who had set aims and agitated till their appeals were acknowledged. They opposed the status quo, and some may view their practices as radical. Radicals were not appeasing the people who uphold the system and seeking their permission to eliminate oppression and forcefully attained what is rightfully ours. Meanwhile, I had many questions. Why are we still defining feminism? What should we have accomplished by now? Why are we still platforming women to lead the movement solely to make it more palatable and marketable? Why have words with radical meanings been used as taglines for marketing purposes — presenting them as feel-good sentiments alone — hence forgetting real people would benefit from real change beyond marketing ploys.

Inclusion is not an afterthought

Mainstream feminism, also known as Girl Boss feminism, has caused people to not align with it. It is not inclusive and automatically limits the number of people engaged in its politics. Girl Boss feminism has deterred the chances of unifying women. For instance, the people are not okay with a demographic of women accepting lofty positions when other women are still battling for adequate working conditions in the same city. The excitement over a woman owning capital does not liberate the masses but is satisfaction with representation, which should not be an aspiration within a liberatory movement. If it involves exploiting, then it is a win for the select few and leaves many women in the same predicament. Hence, why wait for women of the bourgeois class to free us. We need to revert to believing in the power the people have. I mean to trust, in due time, our communities have the potential to have all we demand. Why do we have to gain support from a percentage that has manufactured the conditions we live within? I find this laughable and a slap in the face.

Likewise, I feel we are not ambitious enough. I would rather have the dreams of liberation be fully encompassing and seem unattainable than settle for sprinkles of reform. The reforms we have are in motion to maintain peace in communities without eliminating harmful social structures. Reforms create a false sense of progression, which I believe has caused people to ask about the necessity of liberation movements. A simple example is to look at gender dynamics as it displays how relegated women still are in society.

It is essential to look beyond our intimate interactions and look at societal constructs. For instance, the working-class continue to struggle to gain access to quality reproductive healthcare because of their lack of funds. The movement will demand equal healthcare resources for all women. We will make it possible for all women to be autonomous over their health plans and their bodies. Plus, it is past time we stop reproducing the conditions that lead people to risk their lives when it could be made accessible to them. Next, low-cost childcare services for women to diminish barriers to progression in the workplace. As well, we can examine how to eliminate limiting practices that stifle women. Still, the issues mentioned here are not the entirety. I want us to commit to tackling issues about women of all classes. Instead of campaigning for one problem per season, before the momentum dies down, then there would be a non-prioritisation of issues so many are worked on simultaneously. These types of small scale changes will directly impact lives and eventually create a wide-scale shift. Yet, we should aim to work towards eradication as I wish for long-term transformations.

The question of the accessibility of theory

What has led to the assumption that theory was written solely by white men? Audre Lorde, Angela Davis, Stella Dadzie, and James Baldwin — to name drop a few of the great — have provided readable texts on liberation. Instead of spending time contemplating what could work — or not — through your thoughts alone, seek insight from those before you. And, I believe this will prevent us from being satisfied with the small-scale liberties afforded to us.

I believe being caught up in the discourse of the inaccessibility of theory will not make you understand it any better (I read many texts with a dictionary open on the PC monitor). The issue with trying to ensure theory is accessible is that the message can get watered down. I understand the concerns of alienating communities due to academic jargon. However, this condones the lack of urgency to study radical texts. Honestly, dedication and time on a matter that is of priority — if an effective change is to happen — is required from the collective. Huey P. Newton did not complete high school and had low literacy levels, but dedicated time to studying the histories of the revolutionaries before him as a tool to organise the people. He exemplifies that it would be considerably hard to revolutionize without an organised approach, so you have to study what tactics have been ineffective to adjust for long-term change. And, we will not be able to push for the change we require solely on passion. The aim is to tear down complex layers of oppressive structures that have stifled the people. These structures are perfectly placed in our lives to maintain the chaos, and any commitments we make to potentially dismantle the systems we despise demands a level of critical thinking.

We must prioritize to make sure all women are eventually free. Many women are struggling to feed their children, afford to house, and feel a sense of security in their neighbourhoods — resulting in many women dying from preventable circumstances. Lastly, not all women desire equivalent freedoms. Therefore, making it essential to remain heavily informed on the shared and different struggles faced by people.

*Everything I mention is to my current understanding from reading literature and may be subject to change.