We Should All Be Feminists

For a little while now I’ve been wanted to read more feministic literature but I hadn’t gotten round to it till today. I decided that We Should All Be Feminists should the start of my journey through feministic literature. Above all else this book started a desire within me to take up public speaking, to speak for those who have no other means of public communication, to speak to those who otherwise won’t or don’t listen, and most of all, to share, further, and develop ideals that should be globally accepted.

One point in the book that really stood out to me was the mention of the differences between referring to yourself as an egalitarian rather than as a feminist. To quote Adichie, ‘to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women.’

Update: The biological imperative that I mention later in this review makes sense, particularly as she has recently published a personal essay that outlined transphobic views, and it's not the first time. I also find this critique of her interesting.

...

I don't have many issues with the overall theme. Feminism is a goal that we should all be working toward; strictly enforcing gender roles is something that we really need to stop doing. Those sentiments are something I can support and get behind.

I'm particularly drawn to the section about how we socialise girls (and people perceived to be girls) to work towards marriage, while we don't do the same to boys. For girls and femmes, we're taught to be likable and to seek a relationship (and that we've failed if we're not married by some magic age). We're seen as less respectable if we're unmarried, while men are left alone and able to be bachelors for however long. They are not socialised to have the same regard for their romantic relationships that we are, which often feels like we're meant to please them in whatever way or try to minimise ourselves to not intimidate them. This is something that I feel all the time, and I've felt it for a variety of reasons (one of which is my bisexuality, which society seems to think precludes me from having a successful long-term relationship).

However, in reading this, there is one major point of interest that seeps into her conversations of feminism: biological imperatives.

First: she openly discusses things about how we lived in 'a world in which physical strength was the most important attribute for survival'. As someone who has studied anthropology, this is not something I have ever come across in actual evidence. When we look at ancient societies, starting with nomadic bands, it is not physical strength that was most important; it was our social skills (for taking care of children, elderly members, and individuals with disabilities -- we do have archaeological records for the latter, btw) and stamina/health (for traversing long-distances, which is necessary for the collection of foods via gathering/scavenging). "Physical strength," as she intends it, was not a requirement (but a benefit).

Our anthropological record notes that there is a shift in egalitarianism between perceived men/women that is related to (at the very least) permanent settlement and agriculture. I would, honestly, recommend a deeper archaeological/anthropological historical understanding before saying what our ancestors "required" for survival.

Second: One of the views that came out in an interview awhile back (for which she has "apologised", while also appearing to double down on the same transphobic views she was called out for) makes an appearance in this book: that of defining men and women by their genitals (and their ability to have children). This a deeply uncomfortable aspect for her to address in this fashion, as it lends itself quite well to TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). Whether she intends that or not, it does.