Aditi Sharif:

A few months ago, I scrolled through my news feed on Facebook on Father’s Day and found some warm wishes given by some lovely, independent women for their respected fathers. Surprisingly, I found a recurrent and common message and that was;  despite facing so many challenges, they didn’t turn into a feminist just because of their fathers. Though I was a little surprised then, I had to acknowledge the fact that many conscious, smart, and educated women  choose not to associate their identities with Feminism. That’s why, we often face statements like; ‘I am not a feminist, but I support……..’. These attitudes simply remind us of the stereotypical notion of feminism, an ideology as well as a movement practiced by a group of elite women, whose primary objective is to establish a society of exclusively women. Obviously, the patriarchal ideologies that relentlessly work to shape our mentalities tend to reinforce the stereotypical notions of feminism. However, It will be wise to acknowledge the ‘failure’ of Bangladeshi feminists to create an inclusive space for women belonging to different classes , religions, backgrounds. In this regard, a significant question has appeared and that is; how can we create a space of feminism, where women regardless of their diverse backgrounds, can feel comfortable? 

To solve the issue, let’s look at the ideas of Bell Hooks. Gloria Jean Watkins , popularly known by her pen name ‘Bell Hooks’, wrote numerous renowned books on Multicultural Feminism (Wikipedia, n.d.). In ‘feminist theory; from margin to center’(1984), she tried to redefine feminism to make it more diversified and inclusive. Being a black woman from a working class background, she had to constantly struggle with the underlying power structures of Feminism that led to rethink about ‘Mainstream Feminism’ prevalent in the USA and she started with the definition of Feminism. 

Hooks (1984) found it really problematic that no universal definition could be utilized for conceptualizing Feminism. With some references, she proved that the lack of a common definition could lead to the apathy towards the overall movement. As well as, it also indicates that unity among women can nearly be impossible (Hooks, 1984 ).  However, she recognized that one of the most popular definitions in the USA was to regard it as a movement to bring social equality among women just like men. I think that this particular conceptualization is also famous in our country. Most of the people in our country, who work on the rights on women, tend to talk a lot about equality. Here, Hooks questioned; ‘Does any common perception of equality exist that can be shared by all women, regardless of their diverse backgrounds? According to her, a simplistic explanation of equality that is stressed on only gender identity can’t convey the experiences and opinions of women belonging the coloured, poor,   and working class backgrounds. Basically, they are engaged in some sorts of reforms within this static , inequal ‘system of domination’ and they don’t have any wish to revolt against it. Even, some of their particular reforms ended up in reinforcing capitalism and they don’t necessarily liberate all women socially and economically. For this reason, women belonging to the lower ladder of this socially stratified society don’t want to associate this liberal notion of Feminism (Hooks, 1984 ).

Apart from this, a large number of women don’t want to call themselves feminists. Partly, it often happens in case of women who have certain ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. For example; Bell Hooks mentioned the isolation and suppression black women had to face in the sphere of Feminism (Hooks, 1984 ).  It is unfortunately true in many other countries like Bangladesh. Therefore, many women don’t find feminism supportive and appreciating. Besides, according to Bell Hooks,  another significant reason can be some women constantly affiliate it with Lesbianism and radical movements of establishing women-centric societies, which are against their value systems (Hooks, 1984 ). From my observation, I have seen numerous confident women in Bangladesh who are conscious about their own rights don’t want to call themselves Feminists for this reason.

Now, what would be the solutions of these problems? Hooks suggested to redefine that movement in a new light. Rather than focusing on attaining social equality like men, feminism should be considered as a movement against sexist oppression. Moreover, it should focus on women’s experiences having considered the diverse backgrounds of women.  She also proposed a specific linguistic reformation. As many women fear to embrace feminism like an identity or lifestyle, we should use the word ‘feminism’ instead of expressing themselves as ‘feminists’. She also wanted to restrict feminism into a movement because she noticed the dominance of western white women in theory construction. For her, considering it a social movement can destroy intellectual supremacy.

Individually, I don’t agree with some portions of Bell Hook’s arguments as I believe that participating more in theory construction can break the intellectual superiority of western world. However, it has to be acknowledged that feminism is often limited to a group of women in our country. That’s why, we should reconsider the scopes of feminism and in that process, Bell Hooks can guide us to some extent.  

References

Hooks, B. (1984 ). feminist theory: from margin to center . Boston : South End Press.

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved from Bell Hooks : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

About the writer:

Aditi Sharif is an Anthropologist, currently working as a Research Assistant at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh(ULAB). Apart from this, she also works as a volunteer writer at Women Chapter International.