At the outset, it is important to clarify to the reader that this is not a scientific or intellectual article, nor does it include any proven proofs, nor deep thoughts, but is just a man's gossip. In any case, this is probably the best approach to the topic of the article.
A few days ago, the world celebrated International Women's Day. In fact, I didn't find much enthusiasm or interest in participating in the "Empowering Women, Half of Society, etc." concert. On the contrary, with a lot of generalization and abstraction, this abstract woman appeared to me, as a component of a global alliance against masculinity. The intellectual and political currents representing "women's rights" today have transcended the vision of bipolarity between men and women, which, although conflictual, has retained for both sides a minimum of "rationality" and "magnanimity".
Today's "global woman" is the one who knows by heart the types of coffee at Starbucks, smelling more like corporate receptions, crowding you up the elevator doors, then you find her waiting for you on your way down, crowding you at the gym, at the market, and certainly at Starbucks.
Intellectually and strategically, the "global woman" has decided to dismantle herself and spread into a post-binational alliance, or "gender non-identity" alliance that rejects boundaries between different species, even the species themselves. It is a gender fluidity that has taken the rigidity and values of masculinity as its enemy. This alliance works to destabilize everything but sees the destabilization of masculinity as a priority, as this masculinity is a storehouse of knowledge and authoritarian values that reproduce the oppression of individuals as they see it.
There is no doubt that feminism went through more rational stages before it led to this decline. From the first wave with liberal premises that made "equality" in various fields its goal, to the radicalism of the second wave with socialist premises, and the third wave after modernism that opened the door wide to the alliance of women with "heterosexuals" (queer), sacrificing their feminine essence that was the subject of the second wave's struggle for this alliance.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the starting points and ideas of previous waves disappear, it depends on the situation, the context, and certainly the hormones, which are closer to different faces that appear and disappear for strategic or psychological reasons.
The liberal former is still strongly present. How could we not live in a liberal cosmopolitan system? However, it turned to feminism as a "city lifestyle," which is in line with its early representations of certain economic and political classes. But today their representations appear almost everywhere. She is the "global woman" who memorizes coffees at Starbucks by heart, smells more like corporate receptions, crowds you up the elevator doors, then finds her waiting for you on your way down, crowding you at the gym, at the market, and certainly at Starbucks.
There is the "angry woman" who sees oppression in everything, exalted by her femininity but not in the glamorous form of the liberal world woman, but in a brute manner that is repulsive not only to men but to many women as well. She lives in a conspiracy called "patriarchy" that shapes all the experiences of oppression suffered by women.
She believes that there are cultural prejudices against women aimed at stigmatizing women with certain characteristics that make them in constant need of "protection" and this serves to justify the domination of men over family and political power. For example, this "angry woman" often hates pink, because she sees it as a sign of tenderness, and this tenderness may be used by men to justify excluding women from political office. One second-wave feminist (penitents) says, "My life was akin to living in a camp. Every decision I made, every person I spent time with, every word I uttered all things that I had to evaluate according to a mental image in my mind of what I think is morally and politically correct, based on my vision of women's empowerment. It all comes down to a gender interpretation, and those things that didn't fit my vision of 'feminist' were bad, patriarchal, and problematic."
This trend was then challenged, rejecting the imposition of a single and similar experience of oppression on all women, and arguing that every woman, indeed everyone, has a personal experience of oppression that goes back to its context and interpretation of this context. Here emerged the "fragile disjointed woman", who did not stop at dismantling the accumulated knowledge about the "patriarchal structure" and the experience of collective oppression suffered by women, but, because of the intellectual tools used, did not hesitate to dismantle herself, and to dismantle the "women's group", this is a woman who hates groups and hates the founding values and intellectual foundations of groups, including the "women's group", who prefers to be a member of a non-sexually defined individual than to belong to a group with clear boundaries (the women's group).
As mentioned earlier, the chronological tracking of the feminist movement does not mean the disappearance of what its previous waves presented. Rather, when discussing with its female embracers, you may find traces of the three waves in one sentence, the idiocy of liberalism with the anger of radicalism and postmodern sophistry. This makes rational debate a difficult task.
However, far from being repulsive and conspiratorial sentiment, I believe that what the second wave has provided is still the best gateway to communicate with adherents of this ideology. Here you may retreat to ask yourself are there real cultural biases against women with the aim of isolating them from social roles and the public sphere? Am I one of the beneficiaries of this isolation?
Academically, radical feminism introduced what is known as "standpoint feminism" that contributed to placing some limitations on unjustified male biases in the production of knowledge in the social sciences. Finally, this current returned with an intersectional face, i.e. by taking advantage of the so-called "intersectional analysis" that resulted from research contributions in the field of critical race studies, with the aim of opening a space for exploring different experiences of oppression (woman, black, working, in the Middle East, for example) based on a systematic analysis of the intersection of these structures of oppression, without descending into deconstructive postmodern feminism. This is a research tool that I find useful and valuable and the Muslim researcher deserves it.
Feminism of all kinds is still an intellectual enemy as I see it, and it is not worthy of Muslim women who are more socially balanced than what liberal feminism advocates, psychologically from what radical feminism may cause, and intellectually from what deconstructive feminism offers. She may be fascinated by blind egalitarianism and angered by cultural prejudices, but I do not see her as a demolition pickaxe for her nation and society. I do not see her turning the peremptory into speculations, destabilizing the knowledge of the interpretation of the verses and interpreting them feministically, I do not see her hating her group, resentful of her role in the family, I do not see her seeing the patriarchal system in the family and work and condoning it in the political authority when that authority is supportive of it for strategic reasons. I don't see it as a major actor in the transition from community religiosity to individual religiosity.