Photo Courtesy of I -Stock Photos
Professor Chuck Wall lecturer for Human Relations at Bakersfield College was thinking on a new assignment to set for his students while hearing news on the radio that “another random act of senseless violence” had been committed. Moments later he swapped the word from the violence to kindness and thus asked a new question of humanity: What if more people committed random acts of kindness instead of violence in their everyday lives? Would it not make the world a better place?
With that idea in mind he set a new assignment for his students to “commit one random act of senseless kindness” that week. From this moment this idea has since travelled across the world to highlight that sometimes the smallest actions can make the biggest difference. You can read more about the background of how this concept was developed here.
Wendy Roby, author of an article I read in the Guardian, was also inspired by this concept as she readapted it to an article of tips to give other women on how to commit what she coins as “Random Acts of Feminism”
The suggestions and implications written in Roby’s article dismayed me.
I am deeply disappointed that this little gem of an idea was adapted to become small ways to “fight back” against things in society that Feminists are concerned about. It bother me how easily such a creative and positive idea of doing small things to make everyone feel good is readapted to a Feminist response to society that is only a message of war. Just take a look at these fighting words:
“A sign of female solidarity in an unlikely place might, in fact, be a useful weapon in the feminist’s arsenal.”
Why does it have to become a weapon? Is fighting and aggression what Feminism is all about? What a disservice to Professor Chuck Wall’s original idea of restoring faith in humanity and spreading kindness and goodwill between men and women that you turn his messages of bringing people together into a concept that leads to a battle of wills which does nothing other than divide community?
Would the world be a better place if women everywhere started practising Random Acts of Feminism? I beg to differ. We’ll have women refusing to speak to anyone who calls a woman over the age of 16 a girl, the page 3 ripped out of newspapers, insults written on call cards such as “Too sad and ugly for a real girlfriend? Call me!” radical feminist books left on park benches, and women not shaving to make a point. You think I am joking? I have just summarized the ideas outlined in this article.
Wendy Roby might not have a problem with any of these actions, but I do. I feel that these are small acts that only promote a sense of nippy agitation with the world, the idea that society is something to fight against; a kind of rebellion based on the belief that what bothers Wendy Roby (and other Feminists) should bother everyone else in the world too and everyone should know about it. I grant Roby has every right to express her opinion, but these actions will only ram her ideas about how society should be down people’s throats.
I do like the idea of starting small with any kind of positive change, though. If we are going to bring the “Random Acts of…..” model of thinking into the Gender War, I have a proposition for you.
I propose a new code to replace “Random Acts of Feminism” to “Random Acts of Reconciliation” or in other words, small ways in which men and women can restore trust between each other that can be practiced everyday. I would much prefer to see these small acts of reconciliation than petty notes stuck on a pouting model on lads magazines saying “Despite my come-hither expression, I wouldn’t shag a Nuts reader for a million pounds.”
14 Comments
February 7, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Excellent post. It’s high time to begin addressing one another as individuals, instead of referring to the contents of our underwear to see how we characterize and behave towards one another.
February 8, 2008 at 9:36 am
I agree, 99ppp, I think our individuality is important. Thanks for your comment.
February 10, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Why am I not surprised anymore?
As I’ve said in a previous comment, it’s always the extremists who make a habit of whining and moaning like spoiled children while fixing a worthwhile cause into a platform to spout their one-dimensional agendas.
This is the “ism” of feminism at work. The shut-in thinking she knows what’s best for everyone, choosing to see everything from the perspective of a victim.
Would you believe there is a book in Women’s Studies theorizing that the terrorists of 9/11 flew those planes into the twin towers because their masculinity was threatened? I’m not joking. There is a book that theorizes this.
Where, oh where, are the sane feminists out there?
February 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm
OK, to be fair I know that some people – both men and women – who feel that they have been dealt a really bad hand by society (or whoever or whatever) for their entire lives will sometimes strike back in an antagonistic manner out of anger. But that strikes me as a somewhat immature reaction. Three-year-olds hit back; adults try to reason interactively to resolve problems. Are women subjected to more oppression and discrimination in general than men? Yes, they are (and I speak with some authority on this point, having experienced it from both sides). However, I believe that the solution is to speak up when the problem arises and not to try to retaliate in kind later on.
And some of the sane feminists are right here.
February 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Questions raised after additional thought: When did what should be a discourse degenerate into being a war? Or is that simply the mindset of the world today? War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on racism, war on heteronormative patriarchy, yada, yada, yada. We have to declare war on something to fix it or make it better? Isn’t that solution simply more of the problem?
February 12, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Good point, Jami. It seems many find it easier to reactively declare conflict instead of attempting to understand.
February 14, 2008 at 3:27 am
I think declaring war on anything removes all potential for solving the real, underlying problem and paints a convenient monster to scapegoat for all your ills.
It’s especially harsh when it comes to Gender Relations.
February 14, 2008 at 3:30 am
But Jami, it shouldn’t make any form of discrimination or abuse men get from women any less relevant just because it’s not a prominent thing.
February 14, 2008 at 12:58 pm
@Jami & Sam – I have no idea whether or not men or women are more discriminated against by society, it isn’t something you can measure because everyone’s experiences are different. I have been very fortunate, I don’t feel particularly discriminated against on the basis of my gender. I am sure a woman who has been badly treated by men all throughout her life would have a different viewpoint to me.
Jami you ask the question that is at the core of my article: why does this have to degenerate into a battle? For what it is worth, my reference to one Feminist viewpoint in this article is an example of a common problem with various groups that claim to fight for “men’s” or “women’s” rights. Always it comes from a viewpoint of battle, of fighting, of war.
In fact, just the other week I read comments on certain Men’s Rights groups that declare that they have to fight back against this “feminist oppression” so theirs too is a message of war, and so is that of Feminists who claim they seek to end the systematic oppression of women (by society, men or patriarchy etc.).
I tend to think that life is unfair to everyone! I am sure there are routine injustices committed by men towards women; women towards men; women towards women; men towards men, in every moment of every day. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help the less fortunate or those who are not treated with the basic human dignity they deserve, but we need some acceptance that all people suffer and face injustices in their lives to varying degrees.
What are these acts of discrimination against women that you have noticed Jami, I would really be fascinated to learn what the difference is between your experience of being male and then female? In some respects your viewpoint is unique given that you have lived both sides of the debate (so to speak)…
Jami, Sam and 99ppp have all made excellent points, it was a pleasure to read them.
February 15, 2008 at 1:15 am
I agree, Emmah. Everyone suffers. That was my point. No one has it any better or worse. I was just saying that we shouldn’t look at suffering through sementic arguments.
That’s my whole problem with Feminism and Men’s Rights. It’s all sementic arguments designed to play to emotions while making it look like they’re more of a victim than the other party.
Oh, Jami has lived “Both Sides”? I’m curious, what does she mean by that?
February 15, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Sam, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have but to give you a running start, go look here. Follow the links, too.
I stopped in to say that I’ll either put up a post at my place or a comment here about differences, but it’s going to have wait a bit. Life is intruding on my blogging again.
February 15, 2008 at 8:11 pm
No worries, Jami. I would love to read whatever it is you have to write on the subject. Feel free to post the comment on your blog…I am happy to link to your post, we can have an inter-blog discussion – if you do decide to write a post on your blog. I am also happy if you prefer to write your thoughts here too. Let me know either way.
March 27, 2008 at 4:53 am
It is unfortunate that the person you cite advocating Random Acts of Feminism approached it with violent connotations. The use of the “Random Act” concept applied to feminism doesn’t have to be about violence even though this one woman’s description was. And I don’t personally agree with all the examples given. But perhaps your criticism should be about the examples given, rather than the concept itself, which I think is a useful one.
For example, and for full disclosure, I offer a Random Act of Feminism on my (new) blog each month. I use it as a way to suggest ways that people, in their individual, daily lives, and among their peers and community members, can do small acts that incite conversation around various topics related to sex and gender equality. It’s about addressing assumptions about sexuality and gender that are no pervasive and normative in our society that can make people reconsider the ways that heterosexism it par for society.
Some are things we can go out of our way to do and some are reactions to what others do. For example, too often we keep our mouth shut to “not make a scene.” We should instead take these instances as opportunities to inspire conversation and seeing the world differently. It’s about planting the seed of questioning, reflection, and self-reflexivity. Change comes only when you realize that the taken-for-granted and assumed-to-be-”the-way-it-is” is put into question.
For example, you mention the suggestion of not speaking to anyone who refers to an adult woman as “girl.” I agree with the spirit of that but not the method. Instead, when someone uses the term “girl” (when I’m pretty sure they mean an adult woman), I’ll ask-”wow, how old was she?” When they respond “34″ I’ll say, matter-of-factly, not snidely, oh, so you were talking to a woman, and leave it at that unless they have a puzzled look on their face, or want to continue. And I’ll explain about the casual term for males is “guys” not “boys” and how there’s no analagous term for females and what these words imply, etc….
This is my approach to Random Acts of Feminism, and I think this approach is completely in the spirit of Random Acts of Kindness-that you don’t have to lead a global, organized movement for peace to affect peace and kindness in the world.
March 29, 2008 at 4:23 am
I have a random act of kindness involving Random Acts Of Feminism.
When a man is abused by his spouse, don’t look on him with suspicion. Offer support, encouragement, and point him towards a welcoming, sympathetic hand.
That’s the feminism I’m for. I don’t care about the gender of the abuser, I care about the abused, regardless of THEIR gender.