The Development Diary (formerly Marxshalo)

I dedicate this post not to women, but to all the men I know, and all the men out there, who have always respected women (yet sometimes feel uncomfortable with feminism). 

As someone who openly calls herself a feminist, the most common conversations I have about feminism are not with women (surprisingly) but with men. Women don't seem interested in talking to one another about feminism. The reason is because, well, we all seem to be on the same page about it. Even women who don't call themselves feminists largely agree on most issues, especially those that hinder our collective well-being. Men, on the other hand, seem to be fascinated (mostly negatively, sometimes positively, but overall fascinated nonetheless) with the topic. I’m regularly approached by men I know personally that want to talk about this "mystical" international phenomenon that is feminism. Most of these men do respect women. They didn't need feminism to teach them to respect women. They treat their female peers as equals, and they believe it is genuinely unfair for women to be paid less etc. Which is why feminism offends them so much. Why are these women shaming me, and fighting me, over something I have not done? 

It took me a really long time to realize that these men - who think feminism is offensive or ‘extreme’ - are not offended because women's freedom frightens them.But when they meet a feminist like me, they feel the need to share their frustration with how this "feminist stuff" came along to shame men and make them feel bad. And, dear reader, I don't want you to jump to any conclusions about this post, but I want to apologize. I apologize to these men because feminists like me do make rash judgments about the cause of your frustration. However, I would like to shed light on the most common things these men share with me about their frustration with feminism: 

1. They should change the word "feminist". It's just too negative. 

2. I am nice to women. Why do women think that all of us are evil? 

3. If feminism is about equality, then why do these aggressive women want to be better than men and turn it into a competition? I feel they just want a reason to hate men. 

 And this, ladies, is the intricacy of patriarchal society. I have a reply to each and every one of these issues, just to put this debate to bed. 

1. Should we change a term, just because it carries too many negative connotations? I have two things to say to that. First, if feminism is about safeguarding the well-being of women and making sure that they are treated fairly, then the word feminism should always have the "fem" part. Because females are at the center of it. And no matter how many negative connotations it may have, it should be that way because otherwise, it would diminish the value of the subject you are protecting. Should we change the word "environmentalist"? Surely not, because the environment is at the center of it. No matter how much we hate "tree-huggers", removing the word environment from environmentalist will diminish the centrality of the environment to the cause. And thus, if feminism is about women then it should stay that way. For those of you who believe feminism should be about gender (ie. women, men, and all those in between) that's a separate discussion we can have. I support you, don't get me wrong, but I am trying to illustrate a point - I am for having something like "genderism"!  Which brings me to my second point. Negative connotations are not born with a word, but rather, humans create them. The word "feminist" was not created to mean something negative, but rather, over time it has evolved into one, due to people. Just like the words "Islam" or "muslim" were not created to mean (and are not) negative, but rather, over time has been given negative connotations (i.e. Islam is the religion of terrorism) by people who have racist attitudes. And therefore, I would like you to refrain from trying to say that we should get rid of the word feminist, since this perpetuates sexist attitudes. Feminists have the diversity of any other identity on this planet, and therefore, to want to change the word to suit your liking, just shows a closed minded approach to understanding others. Just like we should not change the word "Muslim" because some people equate it with terrorism, then we should not change the word feminist. 

2. I think one of the biggest misconceptions about feminism is that it believes "men to be evil". I think that when women shed light on rape statistics, or domestic violence, or anything similarly horrific, which is more likely to happen to women, our issue is not men. Our issue is what makes so many men okay with committing these crimes. What I mean by that is, if there are high numbers of men committing the crime of rape, there must be a reason more plausible than "all of them have mental health issues". And that reason, we believe, is structure. If we live in a society where the structure that glamorizes masculinity (or male violence and machismo), then more and more men are likely to do it. Thus, the structure of society is the issue. Not men - we don't think you are all evil. We think there is a high proportion of men who think violence is okay - and this leads to a threat to our safety. So, our belief in the widespread mistreatment of women is not about how many men mistreat us. Its about how prevalent that idea that "violence/disrespect is not such an issue", is. 

3. So, we all know the stereotypes about feminists - that they are aggressive, man hating, sweaty, macho lesbians. With regards to the stereotype of man-hating refer to point (2) above. With regards to "aggressive", "sweaty", "macho" and "lesbian", I don't understand what is wrong with those things. Of course, with aggressive I don't mean violent. I mean confrontational (but of course sexists always have to chose the more negatively understood word). But if a woman was a "sweaty, confrontational, macho, lesbian" who happens to believe in her safety and equality, isn't that her right as a human? Shall we ban all black people who happen to be sweaty and confrontational from joining the fight against racism? Shall we stop all human beings who happen to be macho from fighting for other human causes like discrimination against those who suffer from disability? I don't understand. I think the main issue is gender constructs of identity, where you want a woman to be as feminine as possible whilst politely asking for equal pay, because it makes you feel more comfortable. Surely, that is in itself a sexist attitude, because it confines those who want to challenge the norm to something you are more comfortable with. Not to mention, finally, that not all feminists are confrontational, macho, lesbians or sweaty. Not that this matters, but just to illustrate the diversity. 

What is it about the United Nations that whenever there is a war-zone or disaster, it's bases, camps and offices are run down? 

This question comes to me as I sit in a well furbished office of the United Nations. I won't tell you where exactly, as, naturally, that's quite risky. Anyway, so here I am writing up this post, and sipping on my morning tea. My morning at the United Nations includes answering e-mails that come at me from all over the world, making a to-do list of today's tasks and just getting on with it in general. And, in most relevance to this post, I check world news. In this process of scouring social media and mainstream media in my investigation of today's world affairs, I sometimes see things that make me shift a little in my seat. Such as this particular morning, when on Facebook an acquaintance of mine post pictures taken in the West Bank including IDF soldiers shooting tear gas at Palestinian refugees/civilians. I noticed in the corner of one of the pictures a United Nations sign post above what seems to be a UN office/mission/base. And it is, obviously, run down and old. And while naturally this leads you to thinking: oh, yeah, they don't have money... oh, yeah, they are living in a war zone... Well, that might be true. But I would like to investigate further. 

An interesting thing is that, when a disaster or emergency happens, the United Nations is the first "respond-er". This means that the supplies that they are providing are "fresh", and have only just been newly allocated to this emergency. And it's not like the UN barely has any resources;  we get donations from all over the world, in the billions. Yet every UNHCR camp is run down and rough. Its like they can't imagine a refugee camp as anything but rags.  And have they not learnt from around 100 years of displacement? Refugees rarely return home. That's why its such a misery. Yet the United Nations continues to pretend that these shanty towns they create are temporary, thus the justification for how run-down they look. I really do hope that every refugee is only a refugee temporarily, yet we have done little to acknowledge how our innate reactions to refugees perpetuate unfairness. Can we not create refugee camps with safer/warmer tents, better facilities, more hygienic surroundings?  The United Nations implicitly believes a refugee to be devoid of agency or power, and thus creates a shelter to suit that "image". Shanty towns made of rags, with little hope, so modest, so as to say: "I promise I won't hassle you", to the communities that are hosting them. They also scream: "help me, help me, I am a withering refugee... please give these NGOs your money". It's interesting because, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there was a guy who came up with this crazy invention in partnership with the United Nations. Its basically this digital head-gear that you wear, and it will transport you into a refugee camp and show you what life is like there. Its meant to make people more sensitive towards refugee plight and thus make you more willing to give a helping hand. While this may seem like this is pretty cool, its like they never want to change the ways refugees are portrayed, and thus make them seem so in need of agencies like the United Nations. (Also, we could have used the money to make this high-tech gadget on maybe better camp facilities?). Of course they are in need of protection and help, don't get me wrong. But my grandmother was a refugee, never have I felt that she needed anyone. And she certainly was not happy to settle in a shanty town. You know what else is interesting? The agency I work for is trying to find "new" ways to help refugees living in urban settings, because refugees these days refuse to reside in camps. 

International Criminal Court has opened a preliminary investigation into the situation in Palestine, following Palestine’s joining the court. But prosecutions related to this summer’s Gaza war a long way off: Since the court began operating in 2002, it has opened 21 cases in nine situations but to date only two people have been convicted. This interactive map tracks all the ICC's cases globally.