By Sage Gerard
Saying that feminism will liberate women everywhere is like saying that Taco Bell will end world hunger.
Both statements need to be substantiated at great expense, but even then one wonders if a better service is available.
Feminism is understood to be a set of ideologies that extend from a gender egalitarian sentiment. The obvious hypocrisy of gynocentrism in the core of feminism aside, an informed activist would do well to view feminism both in terms of its reputation and its institution.
For the purposes of this article, I assume that an ideology has a reputation and a set of governing powers that enable some level of physical, socioeconomic and political control over the behavior of systems and people. I informally refer to the sum total of these powers as an institution for illustrative purposes.
Few feminists defend feminism’s reputation by correcting the institution. Instead, most are content to defend feminism’s reputation without substantiating claims with actions that contribute to an equitable civilization.
Feminism, like other ideologies I could mention, is a bunch of firefighters boasting the features of their fire engine while a city burns.
What makes being an activist so psychologically taxing is that you have watch people burning along with their buildings admiring the useless firefighters. A useful firefighting activist would try to evacuate the city. Sadly, we live in a world where those efforts bring not thanks, but accusations of hating firefighters from barbecued mouths. Meanwhile, the firefighters approach the human-shaped bundles of pain to ask for money to support Waterism’s efforts to put out fires. And those firefighters get paid.
Let’s come back to a discussion on feminism in particular. How does feminism sustain a wonderful reputation despite the fact it is composed largely of violent psychopaths, hysterical crusaders, obsequious men, and insufferable pundits?
The answer is that feminism is a marvel of marketing that salespeople want to emulate. Through sheer repetition of talking points, sabotaged scholarship, and relentless censorship, feminism has successfully conditioned people into habitual thinking. Just as a magnate exploits human beings as creatures of habit, a dogma exploits heuristic thought.
Even if it seems against all logic, people will tolerate a shoddy service with a bountiful brand. Maybe this is because many confuse believing in something with accomplishing something? After hearing the insufferable sound of applause on talk shows hosted by inoperative pundits, I cringe when a talking head says something like “let’s start an equalist movement,” as if they have a plan to accompany the dumb nominalization. Even if I agree with the sentiment, I find that those kind of statements are made solely by politicians, not activists.
Feminism brands itself as a movement of equality, liberty, security, wonder, diversity, love, or whatever else makes the gullible buy in both financially and mentally. And what makes feminism so remarkable is how it managed to lead people to not question the service.
For those of you reading this, take the time to distinguish between feminism as a brand and feminism as an institution, and ask yourself which is more representative of the effectiveness of the movement.
Is feminism the way to gender equity, or are there other humanitarian perspectives we have yet to harness? More importantly, will they actually lead to change?