‘Conflict Theory’ was first developed by Karl Marx to explain that society is in a perpetual state of conflict between different groups fighting over resources, status and power. This phenomenon can be seen throughout history where the oppressors have subjugated people on the basis or race, sex, class, and sexuality, among other things. We only have to look at black women, oppressed on multiple fonts, to understand how evident the ill-treatment is. They face racism from a system run by white people, sexism and homophobia from a patriarchal society, and classism by an unjust system that itself limits their economic standing. So when The Combahee River Collective say, “We might use our position at the bottom to make a clear leap into revolutionary action.  If black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression”, they mean that only when black women are free from oppressions, we can be assured that all systems of oppression have been destroyed. Black women are disproportionately disadvantaged by every single one of these systems, and hence strive to revolt against all of them. Unlike other demographics, let’s say well-to-do white women, black women can’t just exist peacefully when sexism topples if racism and classism still exists.

The Combahee River collective emphasizes the importance of ‘identity politics’. They claim that the revolution against oppression that stems from the struggles of one’s identity (racial, gender, sexual or class) is more substantial than the one’s we fight for others. This sentiment can be seen echoed in Paris is Burning, where we can see how gay, black men created a space for themselves where they can be unabashedly themselves and partake in every joy society denied them. This was their way of rebelling against the system that wouldn’t accept them, let alone represent them (in executive positions in the workplace, as models and actors and other privileges heterosexual people and white people enjoyed). Their politics, their movement is in response to their identity as members of the LGBTQIA+, as people of color, as members of the working class.

Capitalism, an economic model, seems to have no bearings on social constructs like gender and race at first glance. However, one must remember that these people, of different race and gender comprise the members of the capitalist system. We have the groups that own the resources and the group that work to produce these resources. In a system like ours, people of color and women vary rarely own these resources due to the barriers set up by people in power. Generational wealth, historical policies that limit the ownership of property and systematic racism have given an unfair advantage to white men. Others are left to work from them; women of color are often the on the bottom of the totem pole. Capitalism is just another way for them to hoard all the powers and make others do their bidding whilst not being explicitly racist or sexist despite being built on racism and sexism. I mean there’s no law that says only white men can be in power. However, it is the reality since there has been little efforts to uplift disadvantaged people. True equality cannot be achieved in a society where someone does all the work and someone else gets to reap the benefits.

While stemming from the same literary origin, a liberated woman is different from Women’s liberation. A liberated woman is a woman who has managed to free herself from the restrictions society puts on women. She is in control of her body, her sexuality, her life and her ideologies. On the other hand, women’s liberation is the movement that strives to free women from societal gender norms and expectations. In simple terms, a liberated woman has liberated herself despite society, and women’s liberation is society working to liberate women.

Men, and society as a whole, are more accepting of a liberated woman since it is something a woman does on an individual level. She overcomes the barriers society puts on her by her own means. Furthermore, men also get to reap the benefits of her sexual liberation and economic and marital independence. In contrast, women’s liberation would require men, and society, to check their attitudes towards women. They would actively need to make changes in their daily lives, and be inconvenienced by doing things they expect women to happily oblige to. Like Pat Mainardi says in The Politics of Housework, “Liberated women-very different from Women’s Liberation! The first signals all kinds of goodies, to warm the hearts (not to mention other parts) of the most radical men. The other signals-HOUSEWORK.” Women’s liberation presents as a chore to men, they’d have to give up their privileges. No wonder most men do not make efforts for women’s liberation despite advocating for it. This is where the liberated woman comes into play. A liberated woman has broken free from the sexist conditioning society enforced on her, she is aware of her worth as equal to that of men, and will hold men accountable for their sexist notions. A liberated woman is also a symbol, the evidence, that women don’t have to depend on men for a fulfilling life and hence, help change the ideas that have bound us to archaic notions of gender roles. The more the number of liberated woman, the more the pressure on society to revisit their treatment of women. In this way, a liberated women is important for women’s liberation: by pushing the society to do the liberating.

At first glance, Mainradi’s The Politics of Housework and Anne Koedt’s The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm both look like personal matters relating to one’s household or sexual lives, and hence nothing of political pertinence. However, on a closer look, we can see that both these pieces show “personal IS political”. They highlight how people in power (men) enforce narratives in order to keep women ignorant and unaware, so that they can better subjugate them for their benefits. Whether it’s by perpetuating the idea that women love household chores or women are not biologically built to enjoy sex, they make women fault themselves when they finally recognize the unfairness. The only reason women’s liberation isn’t considered political is because men in power say they’re not political. However, these issues don’t just shape a household or community. It is on the basis of these assumptions and narratives that legal policies and health guidelines are made. “But the severest damage was not in the area of surgery, where Freudians ran around absurdly trying to change female anatomy to fit their basic assumptions.” None of the experiences, traditions, norms and roles an individual encounters exist in a vacuum, they are an amalgamation of the collective narratives society enforces to “not disturb” the existing system that “works”. Of course the personal is political.

This country was founded on the belief of freedom and democracy. However. it only extended to well-to-do straight, white men. Everyone else had to fight for their their rights, and their place in this country. Women have fared no better. Whether it’s the right to vote, the right to work and have economic autonomy or the right to be treated equally, women have had to fight a long battle (and continue doing so). The adoption of 19th amendment marked the end of decades long suffrage, but it didn’t guarantee the equal treatment of women. The labor rights strived to protect workers from inhuman working conditions but couldn’t necessarily protect against gender discrimination. Equal Rights Amendment was proposed shortly thereafter for exactly that, to protect women from gender discrimination in all aspects. It never got ratified, especially since women were concerned it would upend the fight for their labor rights. As Tara Law said, “Working women at the time were focused on gaining workplace protections for women and children, and some were concerned that an Equal Rights Amendment would endanger laws that made factories safer and limited the number of hours women could work.” Suffrage and labor rights paved the way for the ERA, and the ERA in turn looked to make sure women were treated equally in the workplace despite some friction among the two.

A significant number of today’s workforce is female, and yet women (especially women of color) are the most underpaid demographic. Furthermore, women and non-binary people still face workplace discrimination including, and not limited to, sexist dress codes, maternity leave conditions, unequal treatment, sexual harassment and so on. Labor rights works to ensure people are paid fairly, and can work in a safe environment. So when labor rights are protected, women’s’ right to be treated equally in the workplace is protected, making labor right a gender justice issue.

While some things have progressed, most issues with labor rights remain the same. Like the Triangle returns highlighted, workers in developing countries faced the same fate like the unfortunate women in The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory even after a 100 years. They work under the same condition those young women worked, with less pay and all their attempts to protest are thwarted by force. While the labor rights have protected US citizens, it has done nothing for the people (including children) overseas exploited by large US conglomerates that take advantage of their difficult economic conditions and weak legal systems. Suffrage was a long journey, labor rights is still an ongoing battle and equal rights amendment has a long way to go.

First off, I have to say that I’m really excited about this discussion post. I’ve been wanting to write about this for a long time because Twitter threads weren’t doing it for me anymore. Maybe it’s because I spent a lot of time watching movies and TV shows during the pandemic, but I started paying more attention to details I wouldn’t notice otherwise. One such thing that stood out to me is the portrayal of women in media (both in terms of lack or representation and misrepresentation). This issue worsens when it comes to women of color, plus-sized women and members of the LGBTQIA+.

Women are grossly underrepresented in media, especially high-budget movies written by men. The fact that Bechdel’s test exists is a testimony to the fact. And even when we are represented, it’s usually as the main lead’s love interest or some other one-dimensional trope with no story or motives of their own, only existing to drive the male lead’s story forward. Women characters are either put on a pedestal (the manic pixie dream girl or the cool girl that challenge the men to be more spontaneous, the devoted girlfriend, the supportive mother), or, sexualized as objects of desire and villainized for their sexuality, ambitiousness (the gold digger, the seductress, the career-driven stuck up) and so on. We are rarely allowed to just exist, as humans, with both flaws and redeeming qualities.

The creators of media are not solely to be blamed for this, the issue exists within the demographic consuming the media as well. We have seen this with the new Star Wars trilogy and Captain Marvel. I am not a personal fan of these movies either, but the criticism (bordering on harassment) these actors got for simply being women was ridiculous. We can also see the disconnect come into play when female characters most women enjoy or relate to, is largely disliked or not as celebrated in mainstream forums. Be it Diane Nyugen from Bojack Horseman, Siobhan Roy from Succession, Fleabag from Fleabag, and many more. Where male characters are applauded for being “morally grey” or “complicated”, women characters are penalized for the same.

One may argue that these aren’t important issues or that things are way better than they were before. However, with the way media plays a significant role in today’s society, it is important it represents its residents. Furthermore, just because it is better does not mean it’s as good as it could be. On the other hand, casting a woman in a historically male character (James Bond, Dr. Who) isn’t the solution. It is a half-assed attempt at making peace. We should be writing better roles for women and striving to make a space where diverse women and non-binary people are represented and appreciated the way they deserve to be.

I always thought that activism was a big gesture, something extreme that makes people talk. I believed that big-scale events that immediately change the course of the world is the only valid form of activism. However, after reading the Wendy Syfret’s How To Think Like An Activist and watching the documenter Vessel, I realized that it all starts from one person, one idea, and no activism is small or insignificant. The historical example of activism all started small, and what they later became was the amalgamation of many such people believing in the same thing and working towards it. Like Syfret says, “No one person can save the world. But every one of us can shape it”.

One such example is covered by Vessel, which shows how the ‘Woman on Wave’ started with a few women from Netherlands trying to help a few women and ended up changing the lives of thousands of women. Woman on Wave is a Dutch pro-choice nongovernmental organization that work for the reproductive health of women, more specifically, giving access to safe abortion to women in countries where abortion is illegal. It started out by turning a ship into a mobile clinic, the A-portable, and taking it to different countries, so that women could come aboard and take the abortion pills (through the loopholes of international water laws). Of course, it wasn’t as simple, since abortion is a very polarizing topic in a majority of countries. However, the dedication of the women involved to jump through every hoop, use every tactic they could think of, turned Women on Waves into a safe haven for women worldwide seeking information and resources for a safe abortion. Furthermore, they provided support to the women going through a scary, painful and frankly traumatizing situation on their own. Women on waves advocates and works for the reproductive health of women, and their right to safe abortion. This movement and activism is very important because women all around have been having abortions throughout history, for multiple reasons, risking their lives in the process. No matter what people’s religious or cultural beliefs are, one must acknowledge this is something that happens and that women have every right to make decisions about their bodies, their lives, in a safe manner.

After learning more about activism, I have realized that I have been participating in activism in my own little ways. I used to volunteer for organizations that work for the benefits of women back in Nepal. Since coming here, I have done no such thing and I used to feel guilty about it. However, I now know that holding my friends and family accountable when they make sexist remarks, making the little Twitter followers I have, aware about the gender issues in our society and basically, not being indifferent to the cause is also activism. Sure, I can, and I WILL do more, but now I also understand that no small activism is invalid or insignificant, and it all starts with one person willing to make a difference.

There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the word patriarchy. Most people believe patriarchy refers to the men in power, and not the system that instates men as the head of the family, society and ultimately the country. Any criticism against the patriarchy then turns into an attack against all men. I mean it seems fair enough. Since patriarchy seems to work for the benefit of men, why shouldn’t we blame all men? What we must remember, however, is that patriarchy is upheld by the participation of all members of the society, whether it be willing, coerced or forced. Pinning the system to only one faction of the society blindsides us from the bigger issue and makes other factions look inconsequential in the running of the system. This would mean that there is nothing any of us (except the men in power) can do to change the system. As we all know, this isn’t quite the case. If it was, women would still not be allowed to vote, and there would’ve been no progress in terms of gender equality.

Similarly, patriarchy isn’t solely the difference in personalities between men and women. While the effects of patriarchy can be seen on a personal level, it isn’t an individual entity. When we fail to look at it as the system it is, we are unable to solve the problems patriarchy causes on an institutional level. Like Allan Johnson says in Patriarchy, The System, “If we see patriarchy as nothing more than men’s and women’s individual personalities, motivations, and behavior, then it won’t occur to us to ask about larger contexts—such as institutions like the family, religion, and the economy—and how people’s lives are shaped in relation to them.” As such, we may explain why a specific crime was committed by a specific man. However, we will not be able to address why men are the perpetrators of most violent crime. This is where the levels of oppression (namely, personal, interpersonal, institutional and cultural/structural) come to play.

On a personal level, a man may physically abuse women because he considers women to be weaker and insignificant than men. This can then be seen on an interpersonal level by his interactions (language, actions and behaviors). He may be used to referring to women as “b*tches”, or other dehumanizing terms, in conversations. These behaviors may then be encouraged on an institutional level. Laws that restrict women’s bodily autonomy, policies that imply that men have more value than women in the workforce can further perpetuate the idea that women are inferior to men. These sexist notions may be further imposed on a cultural/structural level. Subscribing to religious/ cultural beliefs that measures a woman’s worth by how submissive and docile they are , or being raised in a society that rewards “toughness” and brutality in men can help validate abuse against women. In this way, we can see how patriarchy works on different levels and how these levels influence each other. Patriarchy is not an individual entity, it is a system that exists beyond the personal. That being said, just like how patriarchy can shape the way we interact in the society, the way we interact in the society can, in turn, sustain or challenge patriarchy.