Recently, I came across an organisation called the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF). They are a men’s rights group registered in India as a non-profit, non-governmental organisation. In the FAQs section of their website, they have listed down their mission as follows,
“…to expose and create awareness about large scale violations of Civil Liberties and Human Rights in the name of women empowerment in India…”
In their perception, women’s empowerment initiatives lead to large scale violations of human rights. Sensing an inherent unfriendliness towards the feminist movement, I scrolled down to check if there are any direct mentions of the same.
I found the following question and response among others:
“What are SIIF’s views on feminists?“
“Most feminists are intellectually challenged individuals, with very less academic grounding. They are basically frustrated angry individuals, who think intolerance and hate will improve conditions of women in the world. In reality, the condition of women improves due to technology, which mostly men created. Feminists are also extremely ungrateful people, who never get satisfied with any improvement in condition of women.”
It is intriguing to note that an organisation which strives to work for the rights of men and is visibly hostile towards feminism, calls itself the Save Indian Family Foundation. Quite many advertisements seeking brides on matrimonial websites also specifically mention that a “non-feminist” woman is preferred, like the one below which has been doing the rounds on the internet:
This is indicative of the popular belief that feminism is about man hating and breaking families up. Feminists are perceived by a large number of people as individuals who refuse to cooperate with men out of sheer hatred. They are therefore not desired in families and quite many young feminists often choose not to identify themselves as feminists or feminist allies before their family members. Feminism is accused of being a man-hating, family breaking propaganda without any objective investigation into the merits of its criticism of male conduct or the oppressive structure of the institution of family itself.
Feminists are perceived by a large number of people as individuals who refuse to cooperate with men out of sheer hatred. They are therefore not desired in families and quite many young feminists often choose not to identify themselves as feminists or feminist allies before their family members. Feminism is accused of being a man-hating, family breaking propaganda without any objective investigation into the merits of its criticism of male conduct or the oppressive structure of the institution of family itself.
Is feminism really about mindless man hating and breaking families?
Feminism and the Narrative of Man Hating
Let us begin with the definition of feminism. Feminism is a theory of political, economic and social equality of all genders. Feminism began as a form of resistance against the social order that confined women to assigned gender roles such as birthing, caring and managing the household. It then grew into organised, multi-faceted negotiations for economic, civil and political rights that were denied to women. Today, feminism has expanded to include the concerns of the evolving spectrum of gender, sexuality and its inter-sectional dynamics.
Feminism is therefore, a movement for equality and collaborative participation among all. A movement for equality cannot be wrong in its intention, because equality is a progressive concept that will always be relevant in a civic society. Most of our political struggles are based on establishing equal treatment of their respective stakeholders. Despite being in the very same ideological space, feminism faces particularly strong resistance from all quarters. One of the most popular allegations against feminism is that it harbours and encourages a man hating conscience.
The semantics of the word ‘Feminism’ and its connection to the words ‘female’ or ‘femininity’ must not be confused to infer that feminism is about the glorification of women. The movement was not born to prosecute men at every opportunity that emerges. Any prosecution that ensues is not out of a pre-meditated will to malign the male community but out of a pressing, urgent need to push back against violence and oppression. Let us look at gender-based violence for perspective.
Rape, domestic abuse, assault, eve teasing, harassment, cyber bullying etc., are crimes that are committed majorly on women, children and trans gender persons, by cis-het men. This is not to diminish the gravity of the commission of such crimes on men, but to highlight that on a comparative scale it is women and trans individuals who have systemically and consistently been subjected to violations by men. If we follow the language of the offenders, we can see that such crimes are not crimes of lust alone. They stem from a deep-seated need to assert power and to subordinate the minds and bodies of women, children and trans individuals through violence. Centuries of conditioning has enabled this differential, superior conscience in men and these crimes are born out of a genuine patriarchal belief that men must be obeyed simply because they are men.
Feminism addresses these in various ways, and seeks to educate men and women about the problematic repercussions of gender privilege. But what catches the attention of most people among the numerous efforts of feminist initiatives are the instances of feminist anger and assertion. Angry feminists are immediately called “frustrated”,”intolerant”, “man hating” etc. We are so used to women internalizing their rage that when it is expressed, we refuse to look into the causes for it.
Feminism addresses these in various ways, and seeks to educate men and women about the problematic repercussions of gender privilege. But what catches the attention of most people among the numerous efforts of feminist initiatives are the instances of feminist anger and assertion. Angry feminists are immediately called “frustrated”,”intolerant”, “man hating” etc. We are so used to women internalizing their rage that when it is expressed, we refuse to look into the causes for it. Violence and entitlement cannot be remedied with education alone. They must be called out with the condemnation they deserve.
We cannot expect the oppressed to sound sweet at all times while struggling for self preservation. Anger and hatred are two different things and feminist anger is not misplaced hate. To construe their legitimate resistance as blanket hatred towards men is to trivialise the concerns of one half of humanity and to normalise the violent, sub-human treatment of them. Refusing to accept facts about male privilege and slandering feminists because they ask for accountability is thwarting essential dialogues for parity apart from being very unbecoming of responsible, mature, stakeholders of a civilised society.
Let me also say it out loud that there are quite many individuals who proclaim themselves to be man haters, while aligning themselves to feminist politics. The saying that a few, however loud or visible, are not representative of the whole, is true in this context also. Feminism, distilled down to its heart, is about equality. How different people choose to interpret it cannot be used as conclusive material to be dismissive of the core conscience of feminism.
Feminism and Family: The Vertical Power Hierarchy of Gender
As mentioned in the beginning of this article, the fact that a men’s rights organisation calls itself Save Indian Family Foundation is rather absurd to me. It looks almost as if families are being asked to be saved from feminist invasions. It is a very popular conviction that feminists are not “marriage material”.
What about feminism makes it unfavorable to the institution of family?
In her book Seeing Like A Feminist, author and feminist scholar Nivedita Menon quotes a 1984 Delhi High Court judgment where the honourable court held that, “letting fundamental rights into the family, is like letting a bull into a China shop”. She writes,
“The Judge was in fact, absolutely right. If you bring in Fundamental Rights into a family, and if every individual in the family is treated as a free and equal citizen, that family will collapse. Because the family, as it exists, is based on clearly-established hierarchies of gender and age, with gender trumping age; that is, an adult male is generally more powerful than an older female. Thus, the family is an institution, based on inequality; its function is to perpetuate particular forms of private property ownership and lineage…”
This is precisely the crux of the feminist criticism of family. Feminism does not have a problem with a family structure that is independent of vertical power hierarchies based on gender. As long as all members of the family are free of its restrictive, gendered commandments, it is an acceptable space of trust, friendship and mutuality. But, in our country, this is not the case. Save a few matrilineal families within which also the problem of concentration of power with a particular gender can be found, majority of the families are patriarchal.
Besides, despite being the oppressors in majority instances, to want everything to be about themselves without a reflective acceptance of the agonising effects of their own gender privilege is in itself indicative of the attention and importance men are used to in our society. The feminist movement has no obligation to cater to it because it is this very notion of gendered self-importance that the movement seeks to dismantle.
Starting from changing surnames, to the division of labour based on gender, the domestic space is one that is filled with discriminatory practices that we have been safeguarding in the name of culture and values. Women are expected to shape-shift so as to not disturb the convenience of the male members in the family. Therefore, when asked whether feminism has a problem with families, the answer is that feminism has a problem with the gendered power structure of families that invade the fundamental right to non-discrimination. As a movement that strives to establish equality among all, feminism is especially critical of the patriarchal family structure that deprives women and trans gender persons of their agency and individuality, apart from being grossly violent towards their bodies and minds, in some cases.
Also read: Misconstrued Feminism And The LawSikho Webinar
The unwillingness of feminists to agree with what is normalised as “family pressures” is not feminist rudeness. Such pressures are not as harmless as they seem because they come at the cost of the individuality of women and trans gender persons. In that sense, feminists are detrimental to families, because they refuse to be treated as lesser human beings in the domestic space. If a society considers such self-assertion offensive, and justifies its suppression, it is very telling of the pseudo egalitarian conscience of that society.
A legitimate question that then arises, as is visible on the website of the SIFF, is why feminists do not speak about the atrocities on men, if they strive for equal treatment of all people?
The fact that it is mostly men who are at the receiving end of feminist criticism is incidental because it is men who have been running the society, holding positions of power and making important decisions for everyone since the beginning of civilization. When every institution hands more power to men, it is of course them who have to be held accountable for its abuse.
Therefore, the feminist movement strives to highlight the problems of women and trans gender persons because most feminists feel that focusing on men’s rights will shift the conversation from the majoritarian victimhood of women and trans individuals, and impair their progress. A lot of feminists take up men’s issues in ways that do not blame women for feminism to gain traction. The experiences of men do not occupy the centre stage of feminist concerns simply because they are more often the violators than the survivors.
Besides, despite being the oppressors in majority instances, to want everything to be about themselves without a reflective acceptance of the agonising effects of their own gender privilege is in itself indicative of the attention and importance men are used to in our society. The feminist movement has no obligation to cater to it because it is this very notion of gendered self-importance that the movement seeks to dismantle.
Perhaps the reason why the SIFF and a large part of our population consider feminism as a threat to men and families is because feminism teaches people to ask important questions. Feminists are inconvenient to the society because they upset normalcy, i.e the normalcy of a patriarchal society where it is unacceptable for women and trans gender persons to make their own choices or question male privilege. When we downgrade feminism and dismiss it off as noise, in effect we dismiss the idea of equality that we have ourselves vowed to uphold and practice.
Also read: Why Feminism Should Also Make Space For Conversations Around Why #IAmNotAFeminist
It is our collective admission of how hollow our promises of parity are and how dearly we want to cling on to gender discrimination. Reflective acceptance is sure difficult but any society that holds discriminatory practices and institutions sacrosanct must be reorganized no matter how ingrained they are into our past and psyche. When fair criticism is leveled against gendered practices and oppressive institutions, it is on us to come up with alternative community models that are founded on lateral, collaborative, equitable communion among the stakeholders.
Featured Image Source: Be Badass
If your f word doesn’t constitute man hating then I don’t know what is misandry really. I can show you some quick examples of feminist quotes.
Here is adversarial-feminist philosopher Sandra Harding on Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica:
“why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton’s laws as ‘Newton’s rape manual’ as it is to call them ‘Newton’s mechanics’?”[1]
I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it. ~Barbara Jordan, former Congresswoman
I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it’s OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys. Treena Shapiro
ANTI-FEMINISM CULTURE & ART
Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do. Popular Feminist Graffiti
Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release. Germaine Greer
I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. Linda Gordon
I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin
The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female
If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. Mary Daly
If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them. David Angier
Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience. Catherine Comins
I don’t need to elaborate more.
When the aim is equality, you MUST not use the words ‘for women’. Otherwise, it would, in itself be a contradiction.
Feminism, as a movement might have been something, but surely you must know that excess of anything is dangerous. The word I am looking for is ‘saturated’. Feminism is…saturated. The fact that you, being a girl, is writing this article and in fact freely using a profile picture is proof enough that women have travelled leaps and bounds from the days the movement started. And it is not despite males, but because of them. Males have always been the backbone of this movement and that’s a fact.
Exactly how much equality are we looking for in this ‘movement’ btw? How do you define and measure equality?
On one hand, feminism demands equality. On the other hand, it also demands gender biased rape and domestic violence laws which leave thousands of men every year on the brink of suicides. Feminism empowers legal terrorism of unsuspecting families. Feminism destroys families.
Saying otherwise is nothing but spreading propaganda.
The movement seeks to ACHIEVE equality of all the genders. But unfortunately, the world is extremely biased against women. So until and unless, that equality has been achieved, this movement will always be primarily “for womxn”. Of cpurse all the genders have a space for the expression of there experiences. Feminists have always been talking about how the extremely toxic patriarchal setup is detrimental for the emotional well-being of men who are asked to completely ignore their vulnerabilities in the name of being mentally strong. This is just an example. Feminists have been and will keep on working to destroy the patriarchal societal structures which essential continue to maintain the rigid dichotomy between both the genders and other genders are not even accepted. So while feminism is primarily “for women”, people from all genders have space to express themselves as the very basis of this movement is to achieve gender fluidity. So, it is not contradictory at all.
And what excess are you talking about? I don’t want to make assumptions here but it seems as if you have never been to a rural area. Go and try to observe the extremely inhumane conditions women are forced to live in where they are completely stripped off of their individuality and agency. My mother could never work and be a financially independent woman because my father and her family never allowed her to despite her being excellent at academics. She was always subjected to physical and mental violence, just because she happens to be a woman. And I see this everywhere around me. In my village, in my tier-2 city where I currently live. A woman is raped every 24 minutes in India. Let that sink in. And these are just official figures, I, having lived in a rural set up for the most of my life know that it is far from reality. There is just no concept of consent here. Boys just pick girls and do whatever they please. And these girls don’t even realize at times what happened to them. Indians consume the most number of Child porn and rape porn. And let me remind you, 65-70% of the Indian population lives in rural areas.
These issues of physical violence aside, women are treated with bias even in professional spaces. There continues to be a massive pay gap between men and women for the same job. And not to forget the issue of harassment- explicit and subtle. So which equality are you talking about? Let alone equality, let these women first be treated with basic respect and human dignity. So when you ask about gender-neutral laws, you completely sideline the actual realities and seek to see the world through your own utopian lenses. Of couse gender-neutral laws are needed, but the same cannot be used to appropriate a movement which aims to make this massively unjust and unequal society a safe and equal society for women, For which, we still have miles to go. Please stop living in your own utopian world. Feminism is not just for tier 1 metro cities and elite women, it is also for upliftment of rural women. If you still believe this is all just a propaganda, then you are an extremely deluded individual who just believes in whatever nonsensical arguments he is fed through social media. Read some feminist literature first or else continue living in your delusional world.
I am still confused on how the understanding of the term Feminism is in this country. I believe that feminism will in turn help men and liberate them from the burden of being the sole bread earner of the family. They will be able to pursue their passions and get successful in the field they like. They will share the economic responsibility of the family instead of being the only one to take up that load. Won’t that reduce their mental pressure of first find a good job, then a good house, then enough bank balance to keep the family happy and pay for the school fees of children in the ever growing costliness.
The next point of gender biased laws, people should first understand the basis of forming such laws. Women had no agency and still do not have as much access as much as men. So basically providing reservations in everything is kind of an insult that we cannot reach that position with our handwork and capabilities. But since not every Indian has accepted the idea of gender equality in the country, it is impossible to eliminate the reservation yet as it has not served its purpose.
The next of practicing misandry, the plea for justice for the rape victims is demanded by feminists. But the public, which includes every ideology adhering crowd, demanded for hanging of the rapists. My concern is, if women have already achieved the equality parameters, then why are rapes happening even now in the closed walls of homes and quarantine centers? Even if one rape case is found in the country from the most urban to the most remote place in the country, women have not yet achieved equality.
This is one of the best ones I have ever read… Answers so many questions I have been asked for being a feminist.
Feminism is good for men especially…..I want this country to be a feminist country where 90% of women should be given power and authority. Only then our country can become a developed country. Feminism is the only way to success.
Feminism is really great for society and in general for all of us. It also takes the issue of men and women equally. I don’t know without feminism we would have been living under the patriarchal system. Feminism is the only way to success.
You say feminism is a good thing for society but many females uses these law which is there to protect them use them to harm innocent people. For women there are 40 law but for men how many;there are none. If a female falsely accused someone then their social life is over before the court’s judgement the society labels them as guilty they lose their jobs and than even if they are declared as not guilty the time that has gone does not rewind itself back. The female goes Scot free of anything is this gender-equality in India. In India only man abuses females can’t female abuse men. There was a study of peoples reaction against a men using violence against female in public and vice-versa. In the study it was found that if a men using violence against a female the whole passerby people came to the rescue for the female, but when the female used violence against the men the passerby people only watched it as a natural thing. They didn’t even came to rescue the men. From this we can say in society they think ever case of violence is done by the men, in this case if even the law think the same what would men do. It is not the fault that men would think that feminism is a threat to them. It is not that india needs feminism but gender-equality.
This writeup does not answer the issue raised in the first para. Here and there and no where. Knowledge of English is no substitute for knowledge. Where from did trans-gender enter in this argument?
The article starts with what the author considers SIFF defines feminism as, and I quote:
“Most feminists are intellectually challenged individuals, with very less academic grounding. They are basically frustrated angry individuals, who think intolerance and hate will improve conditions of women in the world. In reality, the condition of women improves due to technology, which mostly men created. Feminists are also extremely ungrateful people, who never get satisfied with any improvement in condition of women.”
And to which the author’s response is, — which must tell a lot about the IQ levels of the author —
“It is intriguing to note that an organisation which strives to work for the rights of men and is visibly hostile towards feminism”
Well, why should it even be intriguing, imagine if I beleive a pig is hostile to me then is it not natural that I would also want to be hostile to the same pig, why didnt it never occur to this author that it is not even an argument to begin, that is to say that :
“SIFF is hostile to feminists because they believe feminists are hostile to men”, now even after this if you didnt understand why it is such a pathetic argument, let me make it simple
Imagine if I say, ” X is hostile to Y becasue X believes that Y is hostile towards X”, is there anything left to be argued about it.
This article is suggesting that X should not be hostile to Y even if X believes Y is hostile towards X. And that is how pointless this whole article is.
A better way of arguing is knowing or asking why X is hostile to Y, and then deconstructing all the reasons mentioned by X as baseless and pointless.
But instead the article just puts her own “figments of imagination”. as the reasons why X is hostile to Y, when in reality X was never even asked for the reasons or the author has never even cared to know from X as to why X is hostile to Y.
These “figments of imagination” are further adding fuel to the fire that is already at an expoding stage and if this is not hostility towards men then what else is it and that is what exactly feminism and this author is all about, spreading one’s own “figments of imagination” as some kind of social cause.
If we have accepted “mankind” to represent the human race, why can people accept “feminism” to represent human rights?
You are clearly taking some quotes by women and making it look as if feminism is bad. If you want a fair match, let’s take a look at the other side of the coin too. Kindly read at some of the amny things men said over the years. Tell me this seems okay to you.
“The words and works of God are quite clear, thay women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.” – Martin Luther
“They have the right to work wherever they want – as long as they have dinner read when you get home.” – John Wayne
“Nature intended women to be our slaves. They are our property.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
“It’s the law of nature that woman should be held under the dominance of man.” – Confucius
The list doesn’t end so soon. Now wouldn’t you consider it better that feminists fight against men who actually say things like these and then they get away with it? Why blame feminism? If the men think females are “their property”, do all the members in the family even respect everyone in it? And if not, is that family even worth saving?
What is feminist’s take on women going against their own kind? I have noticed that in many domestic feuds, its women against women. Men in these cases are just pawns to the power game between women.
And what about rights of elderly people? They too need a life of dignity.
I think so… Most of the faminist think so.. they say the believe in equality but in reality they love to live lifelong with alemony. Believe me I can find a very good similarly between these faminist and the communist (of China) both were correct 100 years back but no significance today, because world has changed. So important is to change the system and provide support Only who are still backword. When I see a shameless IPS lady officer says in FB that lady Doctor earning 1 lac/month is suffering DV and his husband should pay maintenance, the biggest question come why our govt spend so much to educate this IPS or the Doctor? If still they are insecure then I am sure only option left is to build a “Great Wall of Gender” to separate both the species
Your line “you being a girl FREELY USING A PROFILE PICTURE is proof enough that women have travelled leaps and bounds” clearly shows your sick mentality.