Feminism Essay

It can be said that the study of feminist politics philosophy focuses on both understanding politics and criticizing how politics is typically built without taking into account the feminist issues that have been raised for decades. Noting that the feminist political philosophy is a subset of both political and feminist philosophy is also significant. It works to investigate and highlight the various ways that women in both their historical and contemporary settings are poorly understood, depicted, and addressed. It is a subset of the feminist philosophy. As a branch of political philosophy, it serves to make sure that new ideas, justifications, and practices in politics are organized and reconstructed to include the concerns and concerns of the feminists. The feminist political philosophy is that branch of philosophy that makes better use of the feminist theories that can be borrowed from scholars, for example, Engels and Marx. It can be acknowledged that some early forms of feminist politics were based on universal understandings of women as fixed, stable subjects with shared political concerns based on their common identity as women. However, today’s feminism is much more concerned with ‘difference. This particular paper investigates the implications of this ‘difference’ for both the feminists and social justice in both practice and theory.

The difference

It is true to state that the feminist politics has indeed changed over the years. This can greatly attribute to the changes that have taken place in the world’s economic, social, and political systems. In particular, it can be acknowledged that the changes that have taken place in the economic, as well as, educative sectors of a majority of countries in the world have led to almost everyone embracing the notion of gender equality in all sectors of work and this includes politics. When relating politics and the differences in race, back then when racial differences were being highly considered, it was quite obvious that White men were more willing to grant political power to the White women under the notion that these would serve to maintain White supremacy. However, in the contemporary world with racism being a non-issue in most parts of the world, women are being considered for various political positions by men not due to the mere fact that it would foster White or Black supremacy, but on the mere fact that each and every one can equally compete for the political position. Despite this, it is important to note that the concept of race also acts a determining factor in the feminist politics.

It is true to state that black women played a significant role making sure that feminism becomes a fully-fledged movement, however, it can be acknowledged that they never got to be considered among the stars of the movement. To a very great extent, this phenomenon creates a great rift between White and Black women in the sense that there are 2 groups within the movement that have equally contributed to the inception of the group that is constantly competing with each other. With the wide adoption of lifestyle feminism, it can be acknowledged that politics began to fade away slowly from the scope of a majority of feminists. This is mainly because it adopted a holistic approach that implied that women could be feminists without having to necessarily change their culture. The notions that could now get discussed under the lifestyle feminism include notions, such as, the right to make an abortion. With regards to this particular notion, the lifestyle feminists argue that if at all feminism was a movement to try and end the oppression of women, then, depriving them of their reproductive rights is its self a form of oppression.

This lifestyle feminism drew the attention of a majority of women from fighting for the inclusion of women into the political mechanism. In relation to the above-discussed paragraph, it can clearly be stated that feminist politics is slowly losing the momentum it had before. This can mainly be attributed to the fact that feminism has begun to lose focus and definition. The other thing that can be blamed for this is the women themselves. It can be acknowledged that as feminism progressed and continues to progress, women get to discover that men are not the only members of society that perpetuate the sexist thinking but women also do. It is true to state that women are constantly competing and at war with one another and this destroys the sisterhood bond that feminism as a movement tries to create.

This constant competitions and wars between the women give other groups in society that perpetuate the sexist mentality the opportunity to oppress the women more. In relation to feminist politics, women who chose to vie for various political positions rarely get supported by their fellow women. Culture and religion are another groups of factors that have contributed to the constant differences in the feminist politics. It can be acknowledged that it is expected in both culture and religion that women play the submissive role to men. Religion itself has it that God ordained it that women are subordinate to men at home and slowly this notion had started to be taken into consideration in the working environment. It can, however, be noted that things are now different. With more women venturing into the workforce, thus, making them equal breadwinners for their families as are men, this notion has begun to change. The rapid entry of women into various formal sectors of work has challenged the men to the point that they feel threatened, hence, they seek to frustrate feminist politics in the attempt to protect themselves from losing the only thing that keeps them in total control over women. Men take it that the feminist politics is an anti-male movement in itself that seeks to strip them off the only thing that gives them autonomous control and to a very great extent this makes act against the feminist politics.

Defining struggle in the South African Context

In the mid-20th century, the South African administration created increasing repressive policies that pose a direct threat not only to people of different race, color, and ethnicity but to women as women. Women used these avenues to protest against the cruel government. Like President Jacob Juma reminded citizens in his August 9th speech, the struggle of women against resistance dates back to 1913 a season where women gathered to match to the Magistrate court in a remote town to burn their passes. After the match, the South African administration made a decision that women citizens residing in urban areas will not have to get monthly entry permits, an exemption that would be seen lasting until the late 1950.

During this time, women still went through the struggle of the consequences of pass laws on men and their families together with efforts to have women not to settle in the town and have their families and wives move labor camps of mining firms. In 1948 after the election of apartheid, the South African administration set up a series of laws to strengthen the apartheid system, the Pass Laws Act of 1952, the Group Areas Act of 1950 and the black South African movement. The pass laws and the influx control measures of the apartheid regime influx were as a result that women feared the government the most and failed to react vehemently but thier fears were not unfounded. Hundreds of women and men assembled at the Langa Township outside the Cape Town on the 4th of January 1953 to begin what would be well known as a struggle to South African citizens. Listening to a fiery speech from Dora Tamana, one of the members of the ANC women league, South African citizens were treated to a new declaration that stated; ‘We women will never carry these passes. This is something that touches my heart. I appeal to you young Africans to come forward and fight. These passes make the road even narrower for us. We have seen unemployment, lack of accommodation and families broken because of passes. We have seen it with our men. Who will look after our children when we go to jail for a small technical offense - not having a pass? This declaration was followed by a defiance company to make the struggle more cooperative’.

The African National Congress in June 1952 together with the South African Indian Congress created an initiative referred to as the Defiance Campaign. In this campaign, women carried on with the struggle using radical tactics such as defiance which employed pressure on the government to issue them with freedom. These tactics were in line with the program of action of 1949 of the ANC. This program had seen volunteers from SAIC and ANC design public defiance laws thus inviting arrest having women filling jail cells and extending the court system. In most of the defiant incidences, women were prominent and managed to recruit like 800 volunteers in a bid to end the struggle. Involving women in the Defiance campaign with no doubts proved to be a significant stimulus in developing their political development all around the board. This did not only strengthen the struggle to end women struggles but also acted as an inspiration to form the Federation of South African Women which was launched in April of 1954.

Struggle in the South African context with reference to women struggle did not end at the streets. By the time women had established the women federation, the campaign of defiance had fizzled out. This does not mean that the campaign had failed but despite the shortcomings, women had found new ways to work with the organizations by introducing more apartheid measures with much persistent vigor. In his development, Walker (1991) had clearly revealed that the women federation had begun to have a close planning for the People’s Congress where women had limited roles in attending actual meetings. After the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, the struggle context of women in liberation in South Africa changed. At this time, a state of emergency was proclaimed with a crackdown on ANC members as well as other women activists. It was at this time that the struggle context of South Africa grew into a new era of ‘Grand Apartheid’ where black South African was settled according to their ethnicities from urban areas.

At this time, the ANC was banned and many women activities went underground while some of them escaped taking the women struggle outside South Africa. With the ‘Grand Apartheid’, women suffered some form of separation and arrest, detention, and imprisonment of their husbands, sons and brothers as well but the struggle for liberation did not stop. The feeling of isolation and separation is what comes with the term ‘struggle’ within the South African context. Separation and isolation in women liberation were not only experienced by women but transmitted also to male figures around them with the sense of alienation given majorly to the blacks after the guise of the apartheid. Defiance was one of the tactics used to fuel international communities and volunteers within women liberation structures to continue with the struggle. Even in defiance, imprisonment, isolation, and torture, women who fought for the liberation of other women in South Africa were seen as a rare plume and a sign of great moral leadership and authority. With the end of the struggle, women could come from all parts of South Africa with a view not to be left behind on how women culminated in the match and the larger women liberation event.

Defining Freedom in the South African context

Until recent times, human rights and freedom have been squashed away, more so by those in authority. Inadvertently, South Africans were just fine with the prospect of the apartheid regime. Until 1994, South Africa was subjected to multiple acts of racial discrimination. However, piece by piece, the Africans got sensitized; the Africans were now determined to end the Whiteman’s reign. Ideally, authoritative framework, characterized by oppressions depicts its strength from the followers, however, the victims found solace from one man, Nelson Mandela. For most of the South Africans, it will be pointless to talk about the nation’s freedom without mentioning of the Country’s first black president, Nelson Mandela. Born into the clan of Madiba, Mvezo village, on July 18th, 1918, Mandela through his Africa National Congress Party firmly fought against social injustices.

In acknowledgment, democracy can be achieved when a majority of the people decides. However, what made it more even more sickening was the fact that the minority government, comprising of white people dictated the social welfare of the majority. In his quest of bringing freedom for his people, Nelson Mandela who by the time of his arrest, was seen as ‘a terrorist’ by the apartheid regime categorically sensitized the blacks. “In order to achieve freedom, some form of responsibility has to be incorporated.” He argued. As fate would have it, he was handed a 27 years’ imprisonment. Unlike the minority government, Nelson Mandela’s ideologies were based on an inclusivity of all races. In a democratic country, all the citizens usually take part in a democratic process like electing their leaders. But was this in the case of most South Africans under the apartheid regime? Mandela’s quest for freedom can be traced way back in 1939. Together with Oliver Tambo with whom he had formed an alliance with, suspension from the University of Fort Hare befell them. This is after they were found culpable of engineering a protest that was aimed at fighting for the rights of the students.

By 1952, apartheid regime was at its climax. Inevitably, Nelson Mandela was at the heart of it all. But how exactly was he to achieve freeing his country people from such an oppressive government? The then political party, the Africa National Congress (ANC) put up a structured hierarchy of leadership; Mandela was elected the secretary for the ANC Youth League. Culminated by a series of strikes, boycott and civil disobedience, the Youth League earmarked what was in store for the minority government; all these blueprints were crafted by Mandela. Consequently, Nelson Mandela embarked on a series of a countrywide’ tour that was aimed at creating awareness amongst the people. For instance, he encouraged the South Africans to be part of the civil disobedience, a move that earned him an imprisonment. At this time, his movement had been restricted. Moreover, the ANC was outlawed and this led to its leadership conducting numerous meetings in secret.

In this regard, the freedom of the South Africans had been squashed. Surely, how can one be made a slave in his or her own country? In essence, Mandela was ready to die for his nation as long as strangling social injustices was concerned. Although he was arrested, it is clear that he was ready to sacrifice even more. Initially, alongside Govan Mbeki and Sisulu, they were categorical in appealing the death penalty, if that was meant to be. What then was more intriguing in the freedom of the South Africans? Currently, how can one ascertain that South Africa enjoys freedom? Basically, in a journey marred by challenges, the success by the end of it all had to be seen, if only sacrifices were made; they say that there will be light at the end of the tunnel. Subsequently, limitation of Mandela’s freedom of speech didn’t deter him from sensitizing the people against the apartheid regime. It was now the time to stand tall and to object all manner of prejudices. As a form of punishment, the authorities deployed brutal means on the blacks and those from the mixed races; the whites were favored.

Sadly, the apartheid regime resorted to the shooting of the innocent citizens and in the process, 69 people lost their lives. Through the violence, the ANC Leadership saw the journey to achieve freedom as an armed struggle rather than a peaceful one. Upon Mandela’s timely arrival after he had left the country to amass support from other nations, Mandela was arrested. The regime accused him of illegally leaving the country and magnanimously inciting more people. In an ironic turn of event, he was jailed for five years and in this regard, his first pillar of freedom cropped up. In a unique way, while in jail, he still negotiated on behalf of the people with the minority government. Mostly, this eased tension between the two parties. Agreeably, for a freedom to be achieved, especially when a country is in turmoil, a middleman must exist. Furthermore, in most of the education institutions, freedom of the learners was restricted. For instance, in 1976, the law that forced the students to learn in ‘Afrikaans’ had been passed. This resulted to protest by those students. After his release, South Africans democratically participated in a general election. Unlike in the apartheid regime, an inclusive election was held on April 27th, 1994 and this was referred to as the Freedom Day; a commemorated day in the calendar of South Africa.

Unsurprisingly, Nelson Mandela was elected South Africa’s first black president. In his reign, an inclusive government was ideal. This can be seen when he sorted the opinions from others on to whether or not to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Additionally, he incorporated mechanisms that were to offer international reconciliation. This was after formulating a structure that promoted social justices in South Africa. In awareness, he knew that a nation’s economic progress can be achieved when all races combine together. Today, South Africa is the most developed country in Africa; Mandela was the pioneer of it all. He ruled for only five years, paving way for other leaders. Sadly, on December 5th, 2013, the legend passed away and a somber mood engulfed the whole world. However, all is not lost, South Africa is a country that freedom exists. In harmony, the citizens live together. It takes a collective effort to achieve freedom in one’s country one need not be a slave in his or her own country.

Bibliography

Bundy, Colin. Govan Mbeki. Ohio University Press, 2013.

Dow, Bonnie J. ”Ally McBeal, lifestyle feminism, and the politics of personal happiness.“ The communication review 5, no. 4 (2002): 259-264.

Frost, Brian. Struggling to forgive: Nelson Mandela and South Africa’s search for reconciliation. HarperCollins, 1998.

Heywood, Mark. ”South Africa’s treatment action campaign: combining law and social mobilization to realize the right to health.“ Journal of Human Rights Practice 1, no. 1 (2009): 14-36.

Karodia, Anis Mahomed, and Paresh Soni. ”President Jacob Zuma and South Africa’s Financial Crisis: A Machivellian Debacle.“ International Business Research 9, no. 7 (2016): 24.

Klug, Heinz. Constituting democracy: Law, globalism and South Africa’s political reconstruction. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Lippard, Lucy R. ”From the center: feminist essays on women’s art.“ (1977).

Lovenduski, Joni. Contemporary feminist politics. Oxford University Press, 1993.

Mansbridge, Jane. ”Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent“ yes”.“ The Journal of politics 61, no. 3 (1999): 628-657.

Nelson, Barbara J., and Nājamā Caudhurī, eds. Women and politics worldwide. Yale University Press, 1994.

Nye, Andrea. ”Words of power: A feminist reading of the history of logic.“ (1990).

Walker, Cherryl. Women and resistance in South Africa. New Africa Books, 1991