Indian Feminity of 21st Century Through Soap Operas

Discourse of  “feminity” throguh mass media brought forth the “feminine mystique” in the 50s and 60s America. Similar trend is observable in the history of television in India has proved that the woman — as girl, woman and aged person, is trapped within an anonymity that reflects the anonymity she encounters in real life. Television’s image of woman, either as a patriarchal construct, or as a socio-historically differentiated product, is almost always made subservient to voyeuristic and fetishistic impulses. A woman’s character is predominantly constructed as totally non-contradictory, homogenous and unchanging.

Hum Log (1983) was India’s first long-running soap opera for development. It was produced by the government to raise women’s status and reduce their maltreatment. The idea was the brainchild of the then Information and Broadcasting Minister, Mr Vasant Sathe, who during a visit to Mexico in 1982, was impressed by the authorities’ use of soap operas to spread developmental messages. After the trip, the idea for Hum Log (People like Us) was developed in collaboration with writer Manohar Shyam Joshi and filmmaker P. Kumar Vasudev. The soap attacked the dowry system, encouraged women to decide on the number of children they would have and promoted gender equality in the workplace. In an entertaining manner, Hum Log promoted equal status for women, family harmony and the small-family norm. An average of 50 million people watched each of the 156 episodes during the 17-month run in 1984 and 1985. It was the largest audience ever for a television programme in India. Hum Log was evaluated by researchers from the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California. Research on the opera’s effects on Indian television viewers indicated that ethnicity, geographical residence, gender and Hindi language fluency were significant determinants of beliefs about gender equality.

After Hum Log came Rajani (1985-1986) where the crusader was presented first as a person and then as a woman. Why was the crusader presented as a woman? The reasons may be (a) a woman offered more attractive visuals than a man; (b) women viewers would find easy identification; (c) the basic message Rajani spread among women viewers was that they could solve their own problems if only they pushed themselves to it; and (d) sponsors would be able to use the same actress’ image to advertise their consumer goods, which they did.

Udaan set forth Doordarshan’s discourses on the New Indian Woman. Doordarshan created new stereotypes of women who rise above adversity, achieve success in fulfilling their individual goals, and channelise their energies towards selfless social activism. Udaan had a tremendous impact on the viewers. They were deeply impressed with Kalyani’s idealism and self-confidence , and they admired her courage to fight corruption from within the system. Kalyani became a household name. It was one of the first serials to showcase the empowerment of women against all kinds of gender discrimination and their struggles on the home front, on the societal front and on the professional front.

When small screen entertainment was privatised and many channels came into existence, women characters approximating reality began to fade away in serials like Khandaan, Junoon, Swabhimaan and Tara, defining an alternative woman, who was sexually aggressive and promiscuous, conscious of her claims to the family business and property, yet martyred in the end as the ‘poor, victimised’ woman. Tara specially had an admirable female following whose approving comments usually centered on the phrase ‘woman power’. What this ‘power’ actually was raises its own question because the stereotypes offered by such soap operas such as Swabhimaan and Tara still focussed on sexuality and sex appeal.

In the 21st century, one would have expected women characters to be more progressively depicted than before. But this has not happened. We have been preview to regressive women, a return to the extended feudal family with property and inheritance disputes, illicit children, illegitimate relationships at times bordering on incest, and the focus on beauty, tonnes of gold and stone-crusted jewellery, faces made up so heavily that all women characters begin to look similar, creating ‘the homogenous woman’.

Thankfully, the focus in 2008-2009 has shifted from the Tulsis and the Parvatis of Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi and Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki to Balika Badhu. And there has been an instant positive offshoot. Saas-bahu soaps are passe. Every other daily soap being aired on various channels upholds a specific cause for the social and legal uplift of the girl child. Na Aana Is Desh Meri Laado is about infanticide. Agle Janam Mohe Bitiya Hi Kijo is about how low-caste poor families sell their young girls to ward off poverty. Girl-brides are killed with impunity and their murder is passed off as suicide. Laali’s angry questions about the sudden death of her best friend just before her gauna are hushed up. Not only the characters but even the locales shown in most soaps are quite authentic. Agle Janam… is being shot in Godewadi, a village that stands a kilometre away from Wai, very similar in its physical ambience to a Bihar village. Protagonist Laali, the eldest of three siblings, lives with her poor parents. Her father is a rat-catcher. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, there are still zamindars who hire them and pay them in lieu of the number of rats killed. Ratan Rajput, the girl who plays Laali, belongs to Patna, Bihar.

Balika Vadhu is about child marriage and also touches upon the heart-rending tragedy of child-widows and on the complete subservience of women in extended, feudal families. But its message — of fighting child marriage, gets diffused in the maze of the patriarchal backdrop. The social cause takes a bad beating when the content is closely reviewed. At times, the titles, the setting, social relationships and ambience of these serials are so ambiguous that they make one question the integrity of the very cause they promote. They are rooted in the total submissiveness of women in the family. One wonders when and where the final awareness will come.

Bandini is another serial which is about a young girl married off to a man much older than her. Of late, a number of TV serials are focussing on issues linked to the girl child in an interesting manner. Viewership is huge and , therefore, they serve as an excellent medium not only to send out the intended message, but also to influence the audience to support girls.

The shifting of focus from bejewelled, zardozi-clad politicking saas-bahu serials to girl centric serials has come at the right time. Data gathered by ActionAid from interviews with a representative sample of more than 6,000 households shows that sex ratios have dropped. In Punjab among the upper caste Jat Sikh community, the ratio was merely 500 girls for every 1000 boys in the rural areas. In urban Punjab among Brahmins the ratio is a shocking 300. In Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, researchers recorded a growing preference for having just one child. Squeeze on family size is fuelling the trend of ‘disappearing’ daughters. For households wanting only one child, they want to make sure it is a son.

In some ways, though television has fostered the spread of the liberation movement through its vast amount of coverage of women through seemingly ‘progressive’ talk shows, discussions, debate and detailed news reports. But at the same time, it has done more harm than good to women’s potential as individuals by putting female conformity to convention and tradition on the forefront. Women and girls are subject to communication strategies that try to convince them to “role model” themselves after characters in scripts, rather than encourage them to see broader systems of gender dynamics or to engage in collective acts of resistance, to consumer culture, or to oppressive political systems. The very structure of many of these programmes involves the “partnership” of private industry with development institutions ostensibly acting in the public interest. This “partnership” limits the potential for communication messages to engage in more controversial subjects and strategies. The integration of commercial products, in the name of the “public good” in these projects, draws attention away from potentially more environmentally-sound and politically-responsive solutions.

Just be a Woman

Paul Samuelson once quipped that “women are just men with less money”. This aphorism is an an apt one-sentence summary of classical feminism.

The first generations of successful women insisted on being judged by the same standards as men. They had nothing but contempt for the notion of special treatment for “the sisters”, and instead insisted on getting ahead by dint of working harder and thinking smarter. Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the impish men around her. But I believe that women will never fulfill their potential if they play by men’s rules. It is not enough to smash the glass ceiling. You need to audit the entire building for “gender asbestos” – in other words, root out the inherent sexism built into corporate structures and processes.

It is undeniable that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Women excel at transformational and interactive management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.

Women being women is important for both feminism and business. I believe these “womanly” qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters. Even before the financial disaster struck the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favor of collaboration and networking, skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

Purdah Among Hindu Women

Married in a conservative family, I have always wondered at the numerous rules that a woman has to follow in my husband’s family. Here I must confess, though to my taste, his family is more conservative than the society that I come from, but they are one of the most radical families in their society. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not criticizing anyone. You see, first time I saw my mother-in-law, otherwise an independent woman who brought up three children singlehandedly, to do purdah in from of someone, I felt aghast. My head spun and said, "This is twenty-first century man!” Well I had no right to react that way, even if it was confined in my head. I must have realized that my mother-in-law was bound by custom she was brought up with, something she has been discoursed to do.

Yes, purdah is still followed in Hindu families in northern parts of India. Though it was not originally a Hindu rule, but was adopted by the Hindu middle and upper class during the Mughal and British rule, in order to upgrade their position in the social hierarchy. The purdah (veil) system amongst Hindu women in some parts of Northern India originated during Mughal rule, to protect local women from Mughal invaders and now that India is a free country women should abandon the veil and get educated. So many classes amongst the Hindus adopted an Islamic tradition of purdah and Victorian tradition of chastity of women, to elevate their social position.

The origin of the purdah is not actually relevant. The point is that the purdah system exists only in parts of north India today, not in the west, south or the east. Even if some ‘medieval’ practices such as these did exist in these parts, it is clear that time diluted them … except in north India. Why? Obviously it is north India which bore the brunt of the attacks of various invaders throughout history and it is an indisputable fact that during war and foreign rule, women are often raped and kidnapped. That is why the system did not vanish in parts of north India, in fact it has become ingrained in some communities. Women are kept cloistered and denied an education.

Certainly, in the north-eastern parts of India and say Kerala, which were areas far far away from the invading armies, the status of women continued to improve. So really, it is a historical fact that the invading armies of the Turks, Arabs, the Mughals and the Victorian values the British brought in had something to do with the purdah system in north India.

But the question that is relevant today is why do women today still follow such custom? Evidently this is a very demeaning custom for women where their movement and expression are restricted due to the very use of a veil. From what I saw in my husband’s village and society, it is more of a custom that women want other women to follow. You see I was actually asked to do purdah in front of older men of the household as a sign of respect, whereas I do not have to follow the custom while I’m in front of my father-in-law. My sister-in-law must have a scarf or dupatta over her head when in front of her in-laws. My mother-in-law does purdah from elders from her village. this is so because they have been brought up to do it and have been constructed to do it. I, on the other hand, though not constructed to do it, was asked to do it, and did it out of respect for my mother-in-law. This is a custom perpetrated on women by other women and the cycle continues.

Though the severity of the tradition has reduced greatly, still there are instances where incidents like honor killing, female infanticide,  and sati still catch media attention. Women are subjugated and still they want to climb up. But social change works at a snail’s pace, and therefore, the observers must be patient.

All things said and done, one must not forget that this custom is a foreign custom that had crept into the Indian or rather Hindu society and the concept of Victorian chastity has been imbibed from the British themselves. Though we gained independence six decades ago, we are still chained to the ideologies the firangis brought to the country.

Are We Happy?

Am I happy? What a stupid question. Do you mean happy as in content? Joyful? Hopeful? Relieved? Counting my blessings? Intent on absorbing work? Depending on your definition–and when you ask me, and who you are–I could give a dozen different answers. If you really want to know how I feel about my life, you would have to get to know me and ask me a whole lot of particular questions, which could not necessarily be boiled down to a single answer, and could certainly not be used to compare my happiness with someone else’s–because how can anyone know if what I mean by happiness is what that other person means? Keats was happy when he wrote "Ode to a Nightingale," Eichmann was happy when he met his daily quota of murdered Jews, and I am happy to be living this year in Kolkata. Only a pollster (or an economist) would conflate these things. In fact, only a pollster would think that people tell pollsters the truth.

But why let quibbles stand in the way of a chance to attack feminism? According to The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, an analysis of General Social Survey data by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, women are less happy than they used to be, are less happy than men and become increasingly unhappy as they get older. These results, he claims, are independent of whether women are rich or poor, married or single, work or stay home.  They believe that “Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men.” Therefore it can be said that though women now have the liberty to choose whichever life they’d like, many are struggling in their pursuit of a happy life.  Maureen Dowd concurs that the problem is that women have too many choices – a paradox, indeed. Dowd and many others are late to the party, actually: Ross Douthat devoted his New York Times column to the subject back in May. His culprit? Increased acceptance of single motherhood. Bring back “social stigma” – for women’s own good.

Using a single statistic as a peg for your pet theory is a game we all can play. But before you leap in with your own, consider this: the actual differences, some present as enormous, are tiny. Mark Liberman sets it out on Language Log, in 1972-74, 31.9 percent of men said they were very happy, 53 percent said they were pretty happy and 15.1 percent said they were not too happy; among women, the corresponding figures were 37 percent, 49.4 percent and 13.6 percent. For 2004, 2006 and 2008, 29.8 percent of men said they were very happy, 56.1 percent were pretty happy and 14 percent were not too happy; for women it was 31.2, 54.9 and 13.9. In other words, women today self-report a bit less manic joy than three decades ago, as do men, and a bit more modified rapture. But women still say they are happier than do men, contrary to journalistic rumor; and, most important, both in the 1970s and the 2000s, more than eight in ten women and men said they were very or fairly happy. The percentage of “not too happy” men has declined by 1.1 percent, and the percentage of such women has increased by a great big 0.3 percent. Three additional women in a thousand: that’s what the fuss over “women’s unhappiness” is all about.

There are plenty of possible reasons why more people in recent years would report slightly less happiness than thirty years ago. Perhaps people are more lonely – all those hours in front of screens. Perhaps it’s the stressed-out economy, or over-the-top consumerism, or increased inequality, or less leisure time. Or maybe the definition of happiness has changed since 1972 – or are simply becoming a bit more honest. After all, somebody is taking all those legal and illegal mood-elevating drugs, and going to all those therapists, and buying all those books about how to cheer up. From the information given, there is no way to tell. Nor is it possible to say, simply by looking at the self-reports of men and women over time, what role feminism plays, if any. After all, women moving into higher education and the workforce is not the only thing that has happened in the past thirty years. If you want to play ridiculous numbers games, it could be that feminist gains have made women 10 percent happier, but something else – the fraying of the safety net, the turbo-charged misogyny of pop culture, reading too many self-help books –has canceled it out. You just can’t say. You can, however, safely dismiss those who pooh-pooh the argument that women’s “second shift” at home is to blame because men are doing more. OK, but last time I looked, more was not half. As Dr. Johnson said in another context, If you’re going to calculate, calculate.

But how happy were women, really, in that golden pre-feminist era? Culture critic Caryl Rivers pointed out in 1973, studies showing that married women had the highest levels of psychiatric problems, including depression and anxiety, prompted sociologist Jessie Bernard to declare marriage a “health hazard for women.” If that’s no longer true, why not give feminism some credit?

As for those still sky-high levels of good cheer, I’m skeptical. People answering yes to a pollster’s question about happiness is like saying, “Fine, thanks” when someone asks, “How are you?” If it actually represents a truthful and considered answer, either people have entirely given up following the news or the Prozac is working.

Is this feminism?

The media went hysterical over Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president. She may have appeared to the public as an independent, capable professional woman, but to a particular elite she couldn’t possibly be a real feminist or even a serious candidate. And that raises questions about what is – and what is not – feminism.

Feminism grew out of the 1960s to address sexual inequality. Women then earned decorative degrees and went to work once.  A single job and then she went back home to raise three children with her husband. Well, come to think of it, that happens even today! But that is not the argument. This happened then.

The early feminists had a common and compelling argument, which went something like this: Women should receive equal pay for equal work, and not be considered mere appendages of their husbands. Childrearing – if properly practiced as a joint enterprise – did not preclude women from pursuing careers. A woman’s worth was not to be necessarily judged by having either too many or too few children, given the privacy of such decisions and the co-responsibility of male partners.

In such an ideal gender-blind workplace, women were not to be defined by their husband’s or father’s success or failure. The beauty of women’s liberation was that it was not hierarchical but included the unmarried woman who drove a combine on her own farm, the corporate attorney and the homemaker who chose to home-school her children.

Women in the workplace did not look for special favors. And they surely did not wish to deny innately feminine differences. Instead, they asked only that men should not establish arbitrary rules of the game that favored their male gender.

Soon radical changes in American attitudes about birth control, abortion, dating, marriage and health care became, for some, part and parcel of women’s liberation. But in its essence feminism still was about equality of opportunity, and so included women of all political and religious beliefs.

That old definition of feminism is now dead. It has been replaced by a new creed that is far more restrictive — as the controversy over Sarah Palin attests. Out of the recent media frenzy, four general truths emerged about the new feminism:

First, there is a particular class and professional bent to the practitioners of feminism. Sarah Palin has as many kids as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she has as much of a prior political record as the once-heralded Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who was named to the Democratic ticket by Walter Mondale in 1984 – and arguably has as much as, or more executive experience than, Barack Obama. Somehow all that got lost in the endless sneering stories about her blue-collar conservatism, small Alaskan town, five children, snowmobiling husband and Idaho college degree.

Second, feminism now often equates to a condescending liberalism. Emancipated women who, like Palin, do not believe in abortion or are devout Christians are at best considered unsophisticated dupes. At worse, they are caricatured as conservative interlopers, piggybacking on the hard work of leftwing women whose progressive ideas alone have allowed the Palins of the world the choices that otherwise they would not now enjoy.

Apparently these feminists believe that without the ideas of Gloria Steinem on abortion, a moose-hunting PTA mom would not have made governor. The Democrat’s vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said Palin’s election, given her politics, would be “a backward step for women.”

Third, hypocrisy abounds. Many female critics of Palin, in Washington and New York politics and media, found their careers enhanced through the political influence of their powerful fathers, their advantageous marriages to male power players and the inherited advantages of capital. The irony is that a Palin – like a Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher – made her own way without the help of money or influence.

Fourth, most Americans still believe in the old feminism but not this new doctrinaire liberal brand. Consequently, a struggling John McCain suddenly has shot ahead of Obama in the polls. Apparently millions of Americans like Palin’s underdog feminist saga and her can-do pluckiness. Many are offended by haughty liberal media elites sneering at someone that, politics aside, they should be praising – for her substantial achievements, her inspirational personal story and her Obama-like charisma.

The question is ‘what is feminism today? is it this?’

Barbie – A symbol of womanhood?

‘How better to ensure a constant supply of decorative women than to train little girls…than by giving them a sample, in the form of a Barbie-type doll…as a constant reminder of the look and attitude they are expected to achieve.’

The Barbie doll is the ultimate symbol of our oppression, the bane of our existence! It has long been my conviction that those who would keep women in their places invented a toy, a doff, which embodied the look of their “ideal woman,” the perfect “arm charm.” She was tall, extremely thin, with body proportions that occur extremely rarely in actual women’s bodies, with thighs that never rub together, “big” hair, feet deformed from constantly wearing high heeled shoes, and outfits and accessories that glorify and promote self-absorption, primping, exhibitionism and materialistic behavior.

When I see these dolls, I think of those stereotypical bubble-headed blondes that many apparently successful, mostly middle-aged men seem to prefer: a decoration to accessorize their custom-made suits and fancy cars. There seems to be little expectation that their companions could possibly engage in any meaningful thought or conversation; they would look up to those men and give and stroke their egos simply by their very presence.

An Islamic version of Barbie, Razanne, has become very popular in the Muslim world. This new Muslim lifestyle doll is marketed over the internet as a role model for Muslim girls living in the West. While the doll is presented as an alternative to hedonistic Barbie, it bears a striking resemblance to her and participates in the same consumer culture. In contrast to Barbie, Razanne’s sexuality is downplayed and she has a headscarf (hijab) and full-length coat (jilbab) for outdoor use, which are designed to encourage modesty and emphasize her Muslim identity whilst at the same time allowing space for following the latest fashions for indoor wear. The doll participates in the creation of a normative visual stereotype of women and creates a similar presentation of Barbie.

What better way to ensure a constant supply of these decorative, non-feminist, non-activist women than to train little girls to emulate this look and attitude from a very early age? And how better to train these young arm charms than by giving them a sample, in the form of a Barbie-type doll and all her attendant accessories, to serve as a constant reminder of the look and attitude they are expected to achieve.

Fashion Feminism

Be it Paris Fashion Week or Lakme Fashion Week, the shows are always lauded by the media for their services to humanity. Their motivations in dressing us seem more philanthropic than commercial. They want to help women in the competition for love and promotion.

You can’t get on, we are told, without knowing how to dress. This ability is regarded as a basic skill. Millions of us have acquired it, fearing what might happen if we don’t. Our high streets are catwalks, full of people working their looks. The British have finally worked out how to dress and it’s seen as a cause for national celebration. There are no countervailing forces – no one urging caution. The anti-fashion feminists have dropped their opposition. Their analysis of the dark side of dressing up has been mothballed. Everyone now asserts a woman’s right to self-adornment.
My mother says that in her youth, the woman of fashion was a pitiable figure. The books on my mother’s shelves  anatomised the precarious psychic position of the woman of fashion. Simone de Beauvoir baulked at describing her as victim of false consciousness. According to de Beauvoir, her fleeting sense of stability is founded on a misidentification with “the character she represents but is not”.

“It is this identification with something unreal, fixed, perfect . . . that gratifies her; she strives to identify herself with this figure and thus seem herself to be stabilized, justified in her splendor.”

It works for a while. Unfortunately, accidents will happen. Her dress might tear or, even worse, go out of vogue. She may see someone unworthy in a cheap rip-off of the same design. These disasters always strike; the moment of triumph never lasts.

This analysis reads like ancient history. When did we stop believing that fashion was bad for our psychic health? By my reckoning, the change came during the mid-1990s, when media implored their readers to stop fearing the consequences of submitting to our sartorial cravings. They portrayed that a dress obsession was psychically healthy, as long the garments in question were gorgeous “must-haves”.

These early fashion savants were ironists. Their paeans to Ghost dresses and sexy knickers read like a Loaded writer’s paeans to sexy women. The comic exaggeration makes it clear that the writer is identifying as someone who should know better.

However, pretty soon, the inverted commas fell away. Overwhelmed with longing for their must-haves, the savants were unable to sustain the pretence of knowingness. It wasn’t a joke; clothes really were more beneficial to women than feminism or modern medicine. So all self confessed puritans became busy finding their inner shallow fashion bimbos…

It was tricky at first – the language of fashion was quite complicated and difficult for the novice to decipher. Thank goodness for Sex and the City – a television primer on how to get date-ready in under ten hours. The program proposed fashion as the locus of female power. Natasha Walter agreed. A chapter in her book The New Feminism (1999) suggested that hot-pants were a route to “girl power”.

Savants such as Walter were desperate to prove that fashion was a suitable pursuit for women of their ilk, yet none has made a plausible case for taking them seriously. Their publications focus on making clothes matter more than politics or gardening. All cite the supposed taboo against intelligent women writing about clothes.

Personally I used to be one of those who believed looking good is important. But off late I have lost the knack of not looking good. So whenever I went to the parties with my husband in the well manicured officer’s mess ground, i deliberately  used to put on my most expensive sari and shoes and look my best even though carelessly so.

But today (I can’t say what prompted my change of mind) I feel differently. I realized that the smugness I exude when I think that my shoes are the best in the room isn’t confidence, but something brittle and transient. I reflected on the role that fashion had played in my own psychic downfall. Unarguably, my preoccupation with fashion had kept me away from more nourishing pursuits, or prevented me from enjoying them. In my Pilates class, I was too busy thinking about what everyone else was wearing to follow the teacher’s instructions. Most importantly, fashion marooned me in a world of absolutes wherein everything was gorgeous or vile. The woman of fashion is gorgeous, then vile to herself. She is always fleeing vileness, yet is never able to establish herself decisively in the camp of gorgeousness.

A truly thoughtful dresser would be able to rationalise the experience of appearing in an ill-judged ensemble.  Looking bad liberates us from the belief that we are, in some essential sense, un-presentable. Fashion is a pharmakon, remedy and poison to its adherents. We would do well not to underestimate its role in the present
epidemic of female misery.

Is Feminism Men’s Creation?

Do men participate and believe in women’s rights and freedom? Some believe so. With her recent book Men and Feminism, Shira Tarrant has penned an introductory tome explaining the relevance of feminism to men’s lives. The book documents how men’s promotion of women’s full citizenship can be found throughout history. Tarrant traces such support back as far as the philosophical work of Plato’s The Republic and Qasim Amin’s The Liberation of  Women. And while her application of the label “feminist” may be anachronistic, her point that male support of women’s subjugation has never been universal is well taken.

And yet the idea of a male feminist as either mythic or oxymoronic persists today. The reasoning seems to be that
since feminism is a struggle about women gaining rights, there is no legitimate role for men in that struggle.

Feminist theorists such as bell hooks, Alice Jardin, Aaronette M. White and Rubaiyat Hossain have written about the many ways feminism benefits men in addition to women. Those benefits include increased societal acceptance
of people who do not conform to rigid gender binaries, prioritizing fatherhood in the lives of children and decreasing the emotional stress of being the sole or primary financial provider for one’s family – which, in turn, can positively affect mental and physical health.

Today, an increasing number of feminist men are speaking for themselves about why and how they support gender equality. The Coexist Initiative (Kenya), Men for Change (Canada), Samyak (India) and the Men’s Resource Centre of Saskatoon work to move feminism forward around the globe. But the challenge of undoing institutionalized male
privilege is complicated, and because institutional privilege is largely invisible to those who have it, men must be  rigorous in their attempts at self-reflection.

From the White Ribbon Campaign (Canada) to Men Can Stop Rape (U.S.), to Program H (Brazil), anti-violence work is perhaps that most common form of male feminist activism. Perhaps the most oft-cited example of male feminism since its inception in 1991, on the second anniversary of The Montreal Massacre, the White Ribbon Campaign has become the largest male-led effort worldwide to educate boys and men about gender violence. In Canada, the  organization coordinates an annual national public awareness campaign that begins on the International Day for the
Eradication of Violence Against Women (November 26) and ends twelve days later on Canada’s National Day of
Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women (December 6) while supporting locally organized events throughout the year.

Physical and sexual violence has prompted many feminist men to lead violence prevention work around the world, particularly with other men. By modeling anti-sexist behavior, men teach each other to see the ways one’s gender is socially constructed and works to shape one’s thoughts, actions and sense of entitlement.

I believe that including boys and men in feminist advocacy does make a difference. But the task of enacting social change is at times fraught with complications, especially if men’s strategies to combat sexism do not involve  analyzing and disassembling their own power, empowering women, or both. For example, anti-violence programs run by men for men can unexpectedly reinforce men’s position of social authority and undermine the legitimacy of women’s voices by subtly conveying through the structure of the program that violence against women is  unacceptable only because another man says it is.

it must be understood that what women need to do is to shift the dialogue without changing the underlying power dynamic. Therefore, an ideal program model is one co-facilitated by men and women in order to model the type of egalitarian behavior one wishes to promote.

however, there is always the danger of invoking the privilege the men historically enjoy which may marginalize women’s voices in their own movement, inadvertently reinforcing patriarchal values. Ignoring these issues also prevents male feminists from acknowledging any benefits they receive from institutional sexism. Many women
have called men to task for enacting their male privilege, only to hear a defensive denial in response. This isn’t necessarily a response specific to men; it is a response that arises in all people with privilege.White anti-racist activists also fail, at times, to recognize their privilege, even when people of color point out ways in which they hold on to their power.

Overall, gender inequality is a historic inheritance that an increasing number of men are disavowing. Men’s involvement in the women’s rights movement can help create better, more equitable models for future generations of boys and girls. Full social, political and economic equality may still be a long way away, but the movement is more effective working in concert with male feminist allies.

Therefore one may contend that the issues of gender inequity, of structural sexism, of misogyny and the objectifying of women as commerce and property – these issues will not be deconstructed merely by women talking with girls. Men must take responsibility as well for this work. And we should not be commended for it. It is what  evolved, ethical, moral men should be expected to do