OPINION

Feminism, it is often said, comes in diverse forms. This is quite true. What is not at all true is that all these forms are seriously or broadly discussed. In general, we see just one feminism. It’s the feminism of the Oscars, the popular news and of the lunches for business ladies that cost one-hundred bucks.

Now, this one well-represented feminism does have a name. And, as it’s the sacred eve of International Women’s Day, I feel I, a lady, can hit you with some feminist definitions. We call that big feminism, one focused on gaining success and power for individual women, liberal feminism.

Liberal feminism has never really been my thing. Sure, I’ve flirted with a bit of “I would be way more important if I were a man! Give me male privilege right now!” But then I am bothered by the knowledge that privilege of any kind is a rotten idea. It should not be a “privilege” to have a tolerable job that pays a person enough to survive in some comfort. It should not be a “privilege” to live without fear of harassment. Or fear of bombs, for that matter.

These “privileges” are rights. If we understand our basic rights as privileges, then we will get in a mess about who deserves what sort of thing. Which, if you ask me, is what got us into the mess of inequality in the first place. Rights are for everyone. They are not earned. Really, says this feminist, rights: you should just get ‘em.

When all feminism is largely understood to be the sort that advances privilege for “exceptional” women rather than equality for all folks, I gotta be boring. It is my obligation as a Boring Feminist.

If we met tomorrow and you asked me to describe my particular kind of feminism, I would probably say, “Marxist feminism”, and then you would, quite understandably, think of me as boring. And it is boring to describe categories of things. But, when all feminism is largely understood to be the sort that advances privilege for “exceptional” women rather than equality for all folks, I gotta be boring. It is my obligation as a Boring Feminist.

A boring Marxist feminist who is obliged to also give you a brief idea of other kinds of feminism. And not all of these are feminisms for the one per cent.

There’s one we call “intersectional”. If you are curious about this thinking, which is often associated with women of colour, local ladies Ruby Hamad and Celeste Liddle give good introduction. This hypothesis imagines inequality as a sort of moving 3D model. An individual may find themselves at the “intersections” of, say, race and gender and wealth inequality at a point in time. These forces are not separate, but all moving parts within the same puzzle cube.

Look. Intersectionality is difficult to explain well. But, if you want intersectionality explained badly, go ask a liberal feminist. These feminists can be hard to spot. However, they are often white with respectable jobs who appear on the telly to say, “speaking on behalf of all women”. Just to confuse you further, they might say, “I am very intersectional” while speaking at a ladies’ business lunch sponsored by a corporation. When they say “intersectional”, what they actually mean is, “I am really awesome and I win at compassion. I am very close with many oppressed persons and once, I met a poor woman.”

Oh. I nearly forgot! There is a brand-new way to test positive for liberal feminism! Ask a person if they think that actor Ashley Judd was “inspiring” when she recently wore a diamond with a feminist slogan etched into it on the Oscars red carpet. If they answer, “It is so important to have successful role models speak out for all of us through diamonds,” they are definitely a liberal. If inequality is acceptable to them and all they seek is “equal opportunity”, which means that some get privilege while others pay for it because they’re not innovative or qualified or sufficiently excellent, they’re a liberal.

Ashley Judd wore a custom made diamond ring to support Times Up on the Oscars red carpet. This isn't the only kind of feminism.

Source: Getty Images

A feminist might be an old-school radical if they believe that men are essentially evil and that women are born women and ergo always good. Still, not all radical feminism is a waste of your time. I have a soft-spot for some of this stuff, especially the bits that attempt to interrogate the intimate things that occur between women and men. The book Why I Am Not A Feminist makes some attempt to revive these old ideas for our current use. Again, not entirely my femmo bag, and I’d say that psychoanalytic feminism addresses questions of intimacy and the self that the radical ki…..okay. Now I am boring even the best feminist. One definition too many.

Feminism understood as “success for some of us, not all, especially not the dull ones who don’t think much of Hillary Clinton” is the definition most Western people understand.

But, hey. Feminism understood as “success for some of us, not all, especially not the dull ones who don’t think much of Hillary Clinton” is the definition most Western people understand. And, sure, it’s fine if these ladies want to appear at or attend nice networking lunches. Good luck to them and their financial prowess. But, their success and their money have bought much of the public patience of understanding feminism, and gender itself.

On International Women’s Day, I urge you to remember the other kinds of feminism. The other trans-national, intersectional, anti-war and Marxist origins of a day that once crossed many borders and was understood by all kinds of women as more than a nice catered lunch. This is a lunch that rejects all privilege. This is a lunch that can be attended free and by the ninety-nine percent.