Radical Feminism

I'm just taking a day off from revision for my final paper. In the midst of keeping myself updated with the latest news, i found an old article instead written back in July 2007 by a well known feminist/activist. Having such high expectation for this reputable activist who champions human rights, press freedom and efforts against moral policing, i ended up being appalled at the article. The full article can be read here. Here are some of the excerpts:

"A recent gender analysis research of classroom and school processes done by another friend, Maria Chin Abdullah, bears out the underachievement of boys. This study was done in four schools in a northern state, two rural and two urban.

The most outstanding feature of her findings is the drive and ambition of girls compared with boys. Most girls want to go to university, get a PhD, have a career, be a professional. They have clear goals, a career path and know what they need to do to achieve their aspirations.

But none of the boys in the two rural schools she studied want to go to university. At best, they aim to be soldiers and teachers. Most want to get out of school and work immediately. It is only in an elite all-boys boarding school that the boys show similar drive and ambition as girls.

And yet all the boys are socialised to believe that they would grow up to be leaders in the family and society, and to be providers and protectors of their wives, children and parents. But their lack of drive and sense of responsibility place a heavy burden on their shoulders, which alienate them further from the school system."

First of all, i would like to reassure that i support the noble cause of feminism to bring gender equality. In fact, i support all efforts to reduce disparity between different gender, races, countries and classes. However, i have to differ with such generalization of male's characteristics in this article. To start with, I have to acknowledge the fact that this survey was done on a few schools and the writer was giving her views on the males and females within these samples, which means that she might not generalize males as a whole. It's not the findings that i wish to dispute. It's the perception of the findings. It's hard for me to believe that none of the boys in these schools are ambitious enough. I would have bought a statement where majority of boys in a particular school have low desire to succeed in life, but claiming none of the boys in this school want to go to university? That's pure nonsense.

By generalizing that boys have low ambition and are fully dependent on their parents, one also implies that females are more superior than males. It's evident that throughout this article, the writer tries to show that most of the females possess more qualities needed to succeed in life compared to males. The writer also persistently praised the qualities in girls while pointing at the flaws among boys. I disagree with such claim that all boys are lazy and short sighted as much as i object someone generalizing beautiful girls as not intelligent,having no intention of getting a degree, hoping that they will one day marry a rich guy and be able to share the wealth of their spouse. Besides that, if one is deluded to allege that all boys are so lagging behind and not smart, how could the exact same group also be regarded as the future oppressors and barriers to women's success? To be honest, i have never found someone who could show the true meaning of generalization until today. Thank you dear writer for giving such a perfect example of this word.

Despite having many kind-hearted and honest activists on the right platform of feminism, we cannot deny the existence of the few radical feminists. They believe in female superiority as much as as the Nazis believe in Aryans supremacy. Sometimes, it left me wondering whether they want to get rid of a patriarchal society or are they trying to replace it with a matriarchal one. Putting all the blames pertaining to gender inequality on men and failing to recognize the different experiences and problems faced by various groups of women, will not contribute towards settling this issue, but instead prolong it.

As Rosemarie Tong put it in 1998: " Far from believing that the liberated women must exhibit both masculine and feminine traits and behaviour, these radical- cultural feminists expressed the view that it is better to be female/feminine than it is to be male/masculine. Thus women should not try to be like men."
Taken to the extreme, some radical feminists even believe that true feminists should reject men's assistance in their struggle to achieve the rights they seek and be fully independent of men. If that's the case, only lesbians can be true feminists since only they can be fully independent of men.

It's hardly surprising how the few deluded feminists can instead be the true sexists by believing in gender superiority. Now dear friends, just look in the mirror and ask yourselves this. Do I believe in gender equality or the simple fact that women are better than men? If it's the latter , congratulations my friend! You are the lucky few who made it to the 'Deluded Feminists Club'.