wiseMusings

Social movements add to the national conversation by raising awareness on particular issues that plague us but which haven’t received the “fortune” of making it on the news headlines.
By broadening the plurality of voices on a given topic, the mass media then jumps on the bandwagon and social movements reach their objective of creating debate. (Not necessarily to say that mainstream media is the only way of creating national debate; it is just the most efficient one)

One such movement has been the #MenAreTrash movement. It was initiated in the wake of various murders of women by their romantic partners or exes. #MenAreTrash was meant to challenge patriarchal attitudes and shame men into admitting and washing away their Original Sin of toxic masculinity.
It received international commentary, yet never quite got off the ground here in South Africa due to one thing. You know the thing. The hashtag.

Men were opposed to being called “trash”. According to them, they didn’t beat up their partners, they never killed anybody – so why lump them in with those who abuse and maim their women?
I found this to be a faulty argument, and have spent a lot of words and effort attempting to explain why the #MenAreTrash movement is less about the nature of the hashtag and more about the change it could potentially bring about. None of which has changed any minds about the hashtag and its perceived misandry.

Two posts on Facebook – insignificant in the moment, but which gained more momentum as I thought about it – have made me question not only the specific hashtag and men’s reactions to it, but the ways in which the members of a movement interact with potential allies and whether it helps or hinders said movement.

Firstly, I was on Facebook a while ago and came across a post whereby a man publicly asked a question relating to rape culture. His friend, a woman, tagged other women who’d perhaps be better equipped to answer this question. One woman who was tagged made a comment in which she chewed out the man and wrote in so many words, “I don’t care what you think.” She also asked the woman who had tagged her to kindly begin a conversation on the woman’s own wall rather than.. I’m guessing… be in discussion with a man?

Secondly, I read a post, also on Facebook, that was to the effect of “no matter what whites did to fight against apartheid, they are still racist and they will always be racist.” The comments were in agreement with the person, and even went so far as to say that the white people who fought against apartheid only did so for personal glory.

As a mere spectator to both events, it stunned me. It bewildered me that the feminist movement – one that initially fought for equal opportunities between genders – would pass up the opportunity for engagement and understanding mainly because the person who began the discussion happened to have a penis.
I then discovered that in some corners of the feminist movement (because it in itself is a very broad umbrella), men are not allowed to hold any opinions critical of the feminist movement. Why? Because they are men (They call them feminazis which in itself denotes a lack of creativity and originality, but I digress).

Similarly, the second post made me think of the founding principle of apartheid – black people and white people are fundamentally different. Therefore they must live apart from each other. I then thought about how this post seemed to continue thinking along these lines, and how far off we are in bringing about a post-racial society. If the purpose of apartheid was to segregate, and even within that system, there were those who practiced integration – what purpose does lambasting them serve, other than to perpetuate the cycle of segregation?

But what solutions do movements propose, other than tacit acknowledgements of an Original Sin by the oppressor? This is admittedly not an easy question to answer. It is complex, it is multifaceted, and it will probably require more analysis from those smarter than I.
In any case, no lasting impact can be made by a movement so long as it doesn’t allow for improvisation and change.

Movements should not be rigid and unchanging in their views. A movement can begin anywhere from #BlackTwitter to a conference of academics. Yet, a movement insistent on creating social change cannot remain as an academic treatise and have zero connection to those that actually make up society.
Doubling down on a view (particularly about allies and their non-role in the emergence of movements) does not bring true social change. It just creates an echo chamber that is resistant to all opposing views, and will likely face problems in achieving its intended purpose.

For a movement to work, it requires a plurality of voices singing to one chorus – and changing the words midway if they serve as a hindrance to the overall goal.

It is here that I highly anticipate the #NotAll conversation to begin (as it always does when speaking about social issues of any kind). I still believe that it serves as a diversion to discussing the issue at hand, and is used to soothe individual feelings rather than take the discussion forward.
However, what I’ve also learnt with the two Facebook posts is that perhaps individual feelings take discussions forward, and little else. People may see the error of their ways intellectually. People may understand the problems in their behaviour. But until you appeal to their humanity, they will try to justify every damn thing.
When you deliberately push away those sympathetic to your cause – it gets even worse.

One community I am (loosely) affiliated to, by virtue of my sexual orientation, is the LGBTI community. Imagine if gays and lesbians all over the world gave a giant “fuck you” to heterosexual allies twenty years ago. How much progress could have potentially been squandered by (pardon the pun I’m about to make) pride? And can we conclude that #MenAreTrash and “whites are racist” squander their own progress by virtue of their naming and viewpoints respectively?

Do men have a role to play in combatting patriarchy? Do white people have a role to play in combatting racism? If so, are our words and deeds showing that reality or are they running counter to our intended aims and objectives?

In answering these questions, let us critically examine not only our attitudes towards the social ills that plague us, but the manner in which we’ll definitively put an end to them (if ever).