I love to hear from readers, and in the recent Muleefu & Friends Interview with Daphne, three worthy questions came in as a blog comment from a dear reader who specifically challenged the expressed views on modern Feminism, whereas I endeavored to answer her in the comments, I thought more justice would mean putting the questions directly to my interviewee Daphne Byamukama –and eventually sharing the entire conversation, well, here we go!

Reader: What is your definition/perception of feminism?

Daphne: Thank you for taking the time to read my interview with Eddie. To answer your question, I would like to say that I always find it useful to define words on their terms. My perception comes secondary to that. If you ask any woman on the street of Kampala what it means, I am quite positive that they would say what many people assume it is, “standing for the equal rights of women.”

The presupposition behind being that one gender has enjoyed its privileges at the expense of the other (woman). All institutions are in cohort with the man and arranged to this end which of course includes, marriage, the home and inevitably, the state.

The philosopher Simeon De Beavour whose thoughts shaped feminism writes in her famous works, ‘The second sex’, ‘’she (the woman) is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the subject. He is the Absolute –she is the other.’’ Therefore, feminism resolves that for the woman to stand a chance at ‘equality’, she must clutch herself out of this bondage into liberation—equality in this case to mean interchangeability of roles with the man in all spheres of society.

Reader: Aren’t you concerned that by boxing it up (feminism) into the family of ‘isms’, you might be throwing the baby out with the birth water?

Daphne: Not at all. Feminism, like any other worldview, makes truth claims as to the absolute standard from which to judge all history and reality. The only grain of truth in its accusations is that men can often define reality to suit their purposes which as Mary Kassian in her book the feminist mistake puts it, “is a human tendency from which women are not exempt’.

Can we deny the sameness in the crimes women face and the need to act?

 Of course not. We also must agree that there are many disparities in which men are affected at higher rates than women. But if we go by feminist thought, we inevitably excuse the latter and elevate the former as the only injustice for which we ought to care.

Reader: Is it possible that the breakdown in peaceable engagement speaks more to the emotion of the activist than it does to the concept of the (feminism) movement?

Daphne: No, I do not think so. The movement in the United States in the 1960s heavily depended on women’s ability to share their pain and experiences to re-affirm that men are responsible for their unhappiness.

Mary Kassian also talks about this process called conscious raising at great length in her book, ‘’the feminist mistake.’’

‘’The essence of conscious raising was re-conceptualization or re-education of one’s normative patterns of thought. While this process occurred in varied ways and over varied periods, consciousness-raising within a small group followed a single general pattern. First, a woman was invited to join a discussion or support group to talk about women’s issues.  In the course of group discussion, she was encouraged to share personal hurt and anger.

As more and more women in the group ‘spoke bitterness,’ they were led to see that the source of their discontent commonly stemmed from their relationship or interaction with the men in their lives–be it fathers, employers, colleagues, spouses teachers or other men. Bitterness grew as the participants concluded that men were responsible for women’s unhappiness. Group members were then challenged to question and rethink their old conceptions of womanhood and their role as women’’.

 This calling out of bitterness and militancy is the lifeblood of the movement and even more evident on social media platforms since news spreads much faster nowadays around the world. There is no separation of the crime and heartache done by the man from men in general.  Perhaps, this attitude will change. I don’t know. I hope so.

Reader: How would you object to “Church has also played a huge role in maintaining patriarchy to enslave women?“

Daphne: Again, we must understand that feminism classifies patriarchy differently from the way the word was formerly understood.  Institutionally, the church envisions herself as God’s lighthouse to mirror His intended design for men and women on earth.

The foundation of the church is Jesus, who gives the utmost dignity and honor to women. His salvific work levels ground for both genders as victims and perpetrators of violence who need redemption.

The church holds to our equality as God’s image-bearers (a revolutionary idea no other worldview has) but does not negate the obligations for men and women have as per His created design. So, to say the church supports patriarchy is a misunderstanding of what it stands for.

Mrs Daphne Byamukama regularly blogs at www.kanywani.wordpress.com

ENDS