By Mohamed Sheriffdeen
Photos by April Alayon

The popular perception of Western feminists is of militant misandrists — chips firmly lodged in shoulders — perpetually decrying societal repression both real and imagined. Perhaps this is an unfair designation, and most feminists might claim that those doing the designating are closeted misogynists. They may be right, but it’s hard to identify with a movement that tries to encapsulate an enormous range of issues within a very narrow us-versus-them mindset while actively romanticizing, even fetishizing, historical inequality and gender warfare.

But how does one define feminism? It seems like a straightforward enough answer to an arbitrary question, but the way we answer it pigeonholes the ongoing march to equality into separate camps: feminism as a definition of an individual’s quality versus feminism as an evaluation of an individual’s worth. Let me explain.

Mary Berry, a judge on The Great British Bakeoff, made her name as a food writer, publishing over seventy books in a wildly successful career spanning four decades. She is, by all accounts, an ideal pin-up for feminism: a self-made woman who has gained international fame and respect as an authority in her field without having to make personal sacrifices (Berry has been married for almost fifty years and is a mother of three). But she doesn’t buy into feminism, labeling it a ‘dirty word’. Berry specifically knocked the idea of protracted maternal leave, believing it affects small businesses from employing women with or planning to start families. She’s not anti-female mind you, claiming she “would always stand up for women,” but she doesn’t want “women’s rights and all that sort of thing.”

Feminists have lined up to castigate Berry in the press as an antique who took advantage of rights won by suffragettes before slamming the door behind her. Others, like veteran broadcaster Joan Bakewell, strangely went into damage-control-mode on Berry’s behalf. “When I read that, I felt that Mary belonged in a completely different world,” Bakewell noted before trying to reclaim Berry’s allegiance to the feminist flag: “I think Mary would expect to be paid a decent wage for the job she does. . . as much as a man. So to that extent she is a feminist without realizing it.”

In a moment of reflection, Barbara Ellen of The Guardian pointedly inquired whether feminists sport a bizarre form of sensitivity or neediness that drives a desire to claim every successful woman as one of their sisterhood; but then regressed and concluded it best to treat every successful anti-feminist woman with the same disdain they treat the movement. Two steps forward, one step back, as though success and feminism are mutually inclusive. It is no longer sufficient for women to attain success on the same level as a man; they are required to exceed them in the public sphere to be considered a proper feminist while their efforts in the private sphere are labeled irrelevant. And God help them if they’re not on board with the movement.

This infighting is set in relief by feminist movements in the Middle East and India. A month ago, a nineteen-year-old Tunisian woman posed topless online with the statement “my body is my own and not the source of anyone’s honour” provocatively writ across her chest. Her actions inspired a number of others to similarly protest the aggressively paternalistic Arab governments that claim absolute morality by way of religious interpretation and attempt to “own” and oppress women. While flawed, this idea of controlled nudity is an absolute expression of freedom, transcending womanhood. A person has the right to govern themselves, their bodies, careers and actions without fear of persecution, assault, or belittlement; their quality unrelated to gender.

Feminism is no outdated concept. Gender driven inequality and violence are international pandemics akin to sectarian aggression and terrorism. Unequal access to literacy and professional opportunities has hamstrung women globally, condemning innumerable lives to endless subservience. The need for a united voice, the so-called ‘sisterhood,’ is integral to women realizing their full potential.

This is where the functional definition of feminism fails. While modern feminism has retreated from its more radical roots, wherein sects called for the systematic eradication of female-male relationships and proselytized societal upheaval. The core tenets of feminism have always been emancipation of women from dependency and establishment of equality. But equality is seemingly no longer satisfactory.

Feminists cannot agree on who is a true feminist nor what constitutes true feminism; instead of focusing their efforts on eliminating qualifiers and perceived inadequacies associated with one gender or the other, ultra-feminists (irrespective of the degree of radicalism) demand a certain type of woman.

In an article for Slate, author Hannah Rosin bemoaned the anxiousness of angry young feminists to sharpen their pitchforks as she recounted memories of book signings around the country: “I can feel it when they [the audience] save their applause…for when I mention a sin committed against the women of America. Or when a well-prepared member of the crowd…reads back to me [statistics] about the tiny percentage of female CEOs, as if I’d never heard them before.” Even more incredulous was the hypersensitivity over the obituary run in The New York Times for Yvonne Bell, which led off with, “She made a mean beef stroganoff.” Critics of the obit lambasted the paper for highlighting Bell’s domestic abilities, as though sharing an endearing personal trait somehow minimized her extraordinary accomplishments.

Modern radical feminism dwells in a loop. Despite envisioning a utopia populated and managed solely by women, it constructs a hierarchy where domestic achievements are considered lesser than professional accomplishments. Despite reaching out to men to achieve acceptance and a status as equals, it identifies men as enemies, reinforcing divisions. It feeds on its own identity crisis, while sullying its own name.

The popular movement Who Needs Feminism? wisely elected not to define the term itself, instead focusing on eliminative negative connotations associated with it. This is probably feminism’s best bet as the weight of unfocused internal arguments, demanded allegiance and petty divisions may yet sink the entire enterprise, rendering the movement irrelevant.

But then again, I’m a man. What do I know?