The Idea of He’s “The One” is Bullshit and Here’s Why

I’m an occasional Refinery29 reader and I was more than interested when I came across this article around the same topic about how knowing a guy is the one is totally warmed up crap. The author, Maria Del Russo, gave a pretty heavy dose of her opinion and you may call me cynical, but I agree with her. There is no such thing as the perfect guy, or The One.

As with anyone with a smartphone, I swiped left and right into hell and back on Tinder. I’d ditch the guys without a bio, and stuck to those who looked accomplished (points for you if you had a picture in a suit). I swiped right on potentials that I assumed would make my parents happy (yes, in my culture, parents’ opinion matters). With hopeful feelings, I chatted up with CJ* who I thought would be the one and wore my most ‘I-am-successful-but-also-pretty-cute’ outfit. We had a great chat over dinner and proceeded to go for drinks at a snazzy bar in town. He acted like the perfect gentleman (he paid for everything albeit the arguing), he held my hand, gave me a chaste first Tinder date-esque kiss and asked if he could take me out for a movie a few days later. I was in la-la land. I had done my share of Facebook stalking and realized we had a lot of mutual friends in common. The reality was, he was accomplished, he had a great family, he was doing a steady job and was well known amongst the local crowd. CJ wasn’t some dodgy guy with a hazy past. I was over the moon! Did I finally meet the guy of my dreams? I wanted to be in an exclusive relationship with him faster than you can say Kavindra is stupid.

We proceeded to meet for a late dinner and headed for the 10 PM movie. He held my hand during the entire screening, with forehead kisses in between and promises of salacious activity to continue the evening. I got goosebumps, I was reluctant. I wasn’t the type to get frisky with a man on the second date. After the movie, we got into a cab and sped to my house (as I declined his invitation). This was the worst cab drive of my life. He groped me and tried to get his hands in my pants. I was scared. I didn’t want to make a noise as I was in a cab and I didn’t want the driver to know what was going on in the back. I ran home as soon as the cab stopped and locked myself in my room. I scrubbed every part of myself until I was raw and my eyes bloodshot. It was such a small thing, but it affected me. But, what shocked me the most was that I had built up this whole idea that he was The One. But the one I wanted to end up with wouldn’t grope me inappropriately in a cab. After this incident, I asked him what he wanted. Did he want a relationship? Soon after I popped the question, he ghosted. Nada, zilch, zero messages. He didn’t want a relationship and he wasn’t a gentleman enough to tell me that. He called me a few days later if I wanted to meet in the evening (for what I’m sure you can imagine). I declined calmly (even though I was raging mad).

I’ve given up on romanticizing the idea of finding The One. To me, there is no The One who ticks off everything on your checklist, who will make your parents happy, who will still lovingly talk to you even when you’ve completely shut him out.

The reason why I think we’ve gone wrong is because we’ve built a story around who is supposedly The One. We’ve made assumptions after assumptions of what would it be like to be with him, to introduce him to the family and everything else but when he doesn’t act accordingly, we get hurt. Had I not imagined the idea of him to be the perfect gentleman, maybe I wouldn’t have had as big of a problem with what happened that evening in the cab. Assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups because we paint a reality we’d like as opposed to the actual reality of it all.

As the author of the R29 article mentioned, we can have a feeling that he is the one, but we can’t know. We can’t know if we’ll get a job, or if there is a 100% guarantee that we’ll get the promotion. In the same regard, we just can’t know if he is The One. You can have a pretty good feeling, but you can’t know because in my reality, there is no such thing as the perfect one. Instead, there is and will be a guy who will love you unconditionally, your flaws, your multiple personalities, everything. There is a guy who will love you for all that you are and will grow your entire being, but he most certainly will not tick all the boxes on your checklist. Inevitably, he might hurt you and you will hurt him. He might not act the way you want to in a scenario and vice versa. But that’s all OK. All I’ve learned is to resist building stories and ideas about the guy because he is his own person. He will act as per his will, and seldom will your imagination and reality overlap. And that’s all OK. You will know if you want to spend the rest of your life with him but you can’t know he’s the guy to fit the bill because he is an individual who deserves to be loved for who is he as opposed to the picture you’ve painted of him. That’s where I went wrong. I fell for the guy I painted, not for who he was and that was my mistake.

Credit goes to the author of the Refinery29 article for inspiring me to write this. Check out her article: I don’t believe that you’ll ‘just know’ when someone is the one.

*name and events changed to keep things anon.

Objectivity in Journalism: Problematic or Useful?

The concept of objectivity has been entrenched in two juxtaposing arguments in the sphere of media. On one side, the argument prevails how objectivity is a cornerstone value and scholars such as Michael Schudson have even coined it as the “emblem of American Journalism” (Torres, 2012). On its inverse, scholars have argued its naivety in so far as well-known reporters such as Martin Bell having claimed objective reporting to be “bystander journalism” (McLaughlin, 2016, p. 43). Given such wide-reaching sentiments, tracing the origins of objectivity can posit the term within the contours of journalistic discourse and thus substantiate the definition of the concept. As such, it can also shed light into provoking the argument that although objectivity is an ethical order of news functionality, it can breed restrictive news that is unattainable (Harrison, 2000). Additionally, in some cases, it can foster a dangerous illusion of truth because a journalist’s quest to report on neutral ground is contingent on the sources and the method of information gathering which, unbeknownst to the reporter, isn’t always objective (Harrison, 2000). 

Thus, in prefacing the discussion of objectivity as restrictive, it is a sine qua non to unearth the origins of journalism in an effort to position the rise of such a concept. In borrowing the efforts of Maras (2013), he argues that journalistic objectivity sprung from various drivers of media including professionalisation, technology, commercialisation and politics (Maras, 2013). Prior to teasing out the drivers of objectivity, it is imperative to cement a definition of the concept. Michael Shudson (2001), scores the objectivity norm as reporting the news without any commentary on it or reshaping its structure (Schudson, 2001). Given this definition, the characterisation of the aforementioned drivers is fruitful in understanding its problematic nature. 

Keeping in mind Schudson’s (2001) definition, Harrison (2000), argues that routinisation within the realm of professionalisation of journalism fronted objectivity as a key mandate. Thus, as journalism became increasingly recognised as a professional category of work, the field sought to stitch boundaries that standardised news (Maras, 2013). Although professionalisation has held a benchmark and created organisation efficiencies through objectivity, it is naive to believe that it has provided public discourse with the most even-handed news (Harrison, 2000). To exemplify this argument, Harrison contends that applying objectivity to the selection criteria of news has in fact worked in contradiction to the goal of unbiased reporting (2000). He substantiates his claim by asserting that a news channel may leave a story out if it contains a certain bias so that the reader is offered the best mixture of neutral territory news (Harrison, 2000). Therefore, in judging what information is accepted and rejected, the news agency diminishes the intent of objectivity.

 To further assert the subjectivity that arises from the efforts to be objective, Harrison’s work (2000) looked into justifications made by journalists that determined if a story made it to the news or not. His paper concluded that journalists would print a story if it was newsworthy, a quiet news day, quality of images and novelty to name a few (Harrison, 2000). By the same token, stories were rejected if they were too expensive to run, lacked novelty, did not align with the news agency’s branding, or even if a journalist’s schedule was too busy to accommodate a story (Harrison, 2000). The common denominator spanning across all such remarks is diminishing the sense of objectivity (Harrison, 2000).  As such, the understanding of professionalisation of news as a driver for objectivity plays into Schudson’s idea of the conept in journalism. If his definition were to be used as a benchmark for objectivity, the professionalisation of journalism does little to amplify objectivity in news. Harrison claims that news organisations stray away from referencing their work as objective as it is an unattainable bias (2000). Instead, for example, news corporations such as the BBC categorise their news reporting as impartial, balanced, fair and accurate (Harrison, 2000). Additionally, Maras (2013) acknowledges that the professionalisation factor standardised labour across journalism and as such overlooks the varying degrees of objectivity exercised by those in the field. For example, editors, writers, publishers, etc. have different conducts of objectivity that play into their role. A journalist, for instance, would use a certain frame to cover a story and whoever edits the article may choose to cut and rework some of the words which reflects another form of reshaping of the news. Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp in their work on social norms (2001), fleshes Maras’ (2013) argument by asserting that professionalisation of the field gave reporters a certain sense of power to make judgement calls on news telling. They state that the trust administered through the professionalisation of journalism allowed reporters the freedom to make calls on what would be reported and what would be left out (2001). Additionally, they argue that the further a reporter is away from home, the more explorative that freedom becomes (Hechter & Opp, 2001). The scholars foreground this with the example of foreign correspondents who are “treated as independent experts” and assume to have the capacity to provide accurate information with very little supervision (Hechter & Opp, 2001, p. 178). As such, although journalism claims objectivity as a true north star, recognisable limits also exist. 

In the same manner, technology has been another determinant within the history of journalism that gave rise to objectivity. The advancements in technology allowed for an increase in wire news that favoured a style of news stripped from partiality of the region, language and other biases (Maras, 2013). As such, wire news became leaner, prompting a more pyramid-style news format. These allowed editors of agencies to rework them and also increase circulation of these articles as readers didn’t need prior knowledge of the subject of news (Maras, 2013). For Carey (1995), this type of enhancement only de-intellectualised the reporter and converted journalists into subservient vehicles for facts rather than intellectual discourse (Carey, 1995).  White (2000) argues that technology stripped journalists from making sense and analysing information. As such, Glasser (1984) argues that objectivity, as a result, forms a sort of bias in and of itself and demotes media from occupying a watchdog status within the public sphere. Kaplan (2002) instantiates Glasser’s perspective by arguing that reporting with an overarching goal of remaining objective has disabled journalism (Kaplan, 2002). Intrinsically, then, defining news reporting within the contours of objectivity has limited reporters in inspiring public debate with political authority and dismisses them from performing their democratic mission (Kaplan, 2002). In attempting to promote neutral information that arose from the technological advancements, it has detracted journalists from probing hard questions and issues of controversy insofar as Kaplan categorising this type of journalism as weak (2002). 

Maras (2013) progresses his discussion and articulates commercialism as another path in history that allowed for the formation of objectivity within journalism. With a close link to the technology argument, Maras asserts that commercialisation of news rendered journalists to be objective in that advertisers can service their interests in a politically neutral newspaper (Maras, 2013). As aptly described by Phillips (1977), in simply stating the facts, a news article is stripped from political biases to avoid controversy and skirts around truth and propaganda. Scholars have argued it cannot go amiss that commercial interest necessitated the need for news organisations to detach themselves from political parties and promote partisan news (Donsbach & Klett, 1993). In fact, by the end of the 20th century, partisan news organisations loosened ties with affiliated political parties (Sloan, 1989). Scholars rooted for this idea of objectivity as it allowed journalists to conduct unbiased reporting by being neutral towards facts rather than opinion and structure (Donsbach & Klett, 1993). However, it would be naive to believe that promoting fact over opinion stabilised news as objective. 

By nature, commodification of news did not lead to an inherent production of neutral news but rather, emphasised information that would favour profitability (McManus, 1995). In doing so, being neutral implied sacrificing quality and debate for profitability that is masked as standing in favour of public interest (McManus, 1995). Richard Picard (1989) as cited by McManus (1995) applies the understanding of economic principles within the sphere of media to exemplify McManus’ argument. Picard argues that in an effort to publish information that interests a broader audience for commercial purposes, reporters eschew stories that may offend readers albeit truthful and important to the public sphere and instead, favour stories that are more entertaining and acceptable (McManus, 1995). To exemplify this argument, Socolow (2010) discusses how wide-reaching and popular news sources in America were rooted with the help of commercial interests. For example, CBS news was originally funded by General Mills and such an ownership structure affected its news production (Socolow, 2010). Socolow (2010) points to the profitability of broadcast news as a motive in promoting news of an ethical order and blurring what it means to objectively report.

The technological and commercial discussion provides the ideal premise to argue the final driver of objectivity Maras discusses, the political arena (Maras, 2013). As stated before, in making news more agreeable to audiences of varied political affiliations, news rendered itself objective to be sellable (Maras, 2013). Therefore, as with commercialism, the lack of partisan ties between institutions of power and news organisations saw the birth of a type of neutral news reporting as well as the rise of news as watchdogs (Maras, 2013). However, it is important to discuss if this type of journalism encourages news as the fourth estate or simply a lapdog to power institutions.

Donogue, Tichenor and Olien (1995) raise a palpable argument that journalism cannot, in all angles of the term, act as a watchdog. The scholars argue that a cardinal requirement for media to act as the fourth estate requires significant agency from hidden interests (Donogue et al, 1995). The scholars cement this opinion by asserting that public interest seldom holds singular opinion (Donogue et al, 1995). Rather, public discourse is made up of a plethora of interests that vary in influence and power. As such, media, inevitably, focuses on the maintenance of these power structures within the folds of public discourse (Donogue et al, 1995). The argument is enhanced by the scholars concluding that the media cannot, wholly, invent political decisions but can put forward social policies fronted by authoritarian powers (Donogue et al, 1995). Gans (1979) further emphasises this point by adding that even if the media were to subscribe to a watchdog role, covering news would depend on the sources available to the journalist. Inherently, by being limited to the sources available for a journalist to dig into, it promotes a type of subjectivity towards the source (Gans, 1979).

Bennett’s (2009) work on the accountability of the press uses the US press as an ideal example to cement the former argument. In their coverage of the Iraqi wars, popular newspapers in the US failed to cover varying sides of the story. However, this was not the fault of a reporter who did not look for other sources, but rather, in a quest to only gather information from qualified and official sources, these news agencies only covered exclusive coverage as given by the US government (Bennett, 2009). As such, public discourse within this topic was severely limited as the information provided was not much “beyond administration spin” (Bennett, 2009, p. 112). This substantiates Gans’ (1979) argument that watchdog journalism also promotes a type of bias.

As dissected by Maras (2013), objectivity within journalism arose from various drivers within a historical context. Although in doing so it posits objectivity as valuable, it does not diminish the problematic nature of the concept. In fact, all four vehicles of objectivity within journalism assert a common denominator: objectivity is an ideal. However, this opens up discussion on what form of agency journalism can subscribe towards. In dealing with this theme, Ward (1998) claims that good journalism is not the separation of fact from opinion, whereby objectivity is a cornerstone. Rather, he argues for a richer and more complex definition. Ward (1998) argues that objectivity is not the absence of feeling or subjectivity, nor does it require a journalist to be detached from a story as all such manners are unattainable. Instead, effective objectivity requires journalists to subject themselves to “objective controls” (Ward, 1998, p. 122). Therefore, objective journalism does not mean the lack of interpretation but to report with a commitment to deciphering public scrutiny and validity of facts (Ward, 1998). As such, objectivity and attachment are not on two ends of the spectrum and instead, should work together. Ward concludes that objectivity, in this aspect, allows for the control of biases insofar that attachment provides the drive to cover stories with vigour beyond a shallow coverage of events (1998). Objectivity, if defined as reporting without structure, then certainly, it posits problems. However, if objectivity is defined within the edges of Ward’s argument, can promote a type of journalism that is, in fact, powerful with a critical perspective that can unearth the truth. 

*This essay was originally written for academic purposes prior to being repurposed on to my site.

The Gender Initiative To #PressForProgress on Sexual Harassment

MELBOURNE – In the lead up to International Women’s Day, the New York Times (NYT) Director of Gender Initiative efforts, Francesca Donner, spoke at the University of Melbourne on opening a global conversation for sexually harassed women through a series of NYT Global Gender Initiative newsletters.

In an effort to cover how gender shapes lives, Ms. Donner revealed that the newsletter started with the goal of hearing the stories from everyday women. The purpose is to unpack and help make sense of situations and experiences of harassment and suffrage. Gender rose as a topic of universal interest to help women realize they’re not alone, Ms. Donner stated. Within the first issue of the newsletter, the Gender Initiative had received over a 1,000 emails on individual stories and experiences.

“It was a tsunami of news,” Ms. Donner said, regarding the amount of stories that stemmed from conversations on gender matters.

Aayushi, a student who was present at the talk, agreed with Ms. Donner’s statements. “Stories from the Gender Initiative take away the glamour, it’s not just actresses that experience horrific things, but women like you and I. It prompts dialog around it; a starting point for many who bottle it up,” said Aayushi.

In a personal question and answer session on how the Gender Initiative has impacted women in jobs who couldn’t voice out their experiences, Ms. Donner stated that it has the impact to open the door for conversation. Whether it be a friend or family member, it encourages women to take some action, as small as it may be. “We wanted to elevate this conversation to a national level, and that is really powerful,” Ms. Donner said. She continued on, stating that the newsletter was filled with user generated content, whether it be poems or stories, the response was immensely positive and influential.

Ms. Donner concluded the talk with the next phase of the initiative. “You start trickling down into the huge swaths of people who are suffering, who are not glamorous. One of the things is to start looking at women in factories, who are suffering in different ways, and not be in a position to tell their story. Those stories are essential,” she said. That is what the newsletters are now striving for, to get at every single woman who thought they had to suffer alone, and it’s about fighting for every woman, Ms. Donner said.

The conversation is still not over and it opens up dialog for men, too, claimed Luke,* a student present at the talk. “It makes you take a step back and think, it’s so relevant that you start to question nuances in your own behavior,” he said.

International Women’s Day will campaign the #PressForProgress theme on March 8. The movement aims to close the gender parity including the end to violence against women as brought up by the Gender Initiative. Rallies and marches will be held across the world to unify the entire community to think and act inclusively.

**written originally in 2018

Rescued from oblivion 50 years ago, Darebin Creek still needs its friends

*Article originally published on the Citizen, A Publication for the Centre for Advancing Journalism & Issimo Magazine

Peter Wiltshire drives up the newly paved trail around the Darebin Parklands and pulls up at the Napier Waller Reserve, taking in the lush forestry and the song of native birds.

He opens the truck bed to organise equipment and plants for today’s planting activity, part of a program aiming to plant 1000 trees.

Wiltshire has devoted 33 years of service to this landscape as the senior park ranger, but there’s still so much more to do. He waits for the crew of volunteers who have signed on to help out. For them, this is a one-off day of hard labour. For Wiltshire, it’s the culmination of months of planning.

The Darebin Parklands has come a long way since the early ’70s, when a group of pioneering environmentalists started lobbying to rehabilitate the area around the creek straddling Alphington and Ivanhoe.

Back then, these parklands were an infested, weed-ridden quarry hole and a municipal tip, and held under private ownership until 1973. Responding to local pressure, the creek was finally rescued from the jaws of machines that year and the area now boasts thousands of hand-planted native trees and weed-free sections.

Today it is a cherished urban green space, albeit still a long way from its pre-colonial splendour. Nonetheless, volunteers and nature enthusiasts continue tireless efforts to protect and nurture it.

The question remains, though, whether their best efforts and intentions can ever be enough to give the plants and creatures of this waterway – an island in the middle of a sprawling and increasingly crowded metropolis – the opportunity to thrive without threat.

The volunteers walk to the reserve as the sun pours brilliant yellow rays across the creek and surrounding bushland. They’ve got a hard day’s work ahead of them, but they wear smiles and share a common desire to preserve green spaces.

Under towering gums, the landscape has come alive thanks to the efforts of others like them. But the parklands remain vulnerable to human damage.

“The creek collects stuff from shopping centres from further upstream … and you can see them hanging from trees,” says Mel Turnbull, a volunteer.

Litter threatens the health of the creek and is a constant concern of the volunteers. The creeks flush out Melbourne’s waste and, in doing so, end up dirty with trash. The areas around Darebin Creek are entirely urbanised, with houses hugging the creek’s border.

Although the paved walkways and cycle routes have made the parklands and the creek accessible to an appreciative community, many of whom may assume they are enjoying a healthy landscape, the reality is a different story.

“People drop their litter in Macleod [a suburb upstream, 14 km north-east from Melbourne’s CBD] and it finds its way to the parklands,” Sofie Anselmi, president of the Darebin Creek Association, says.
“A duck will pick up a piece of plastic that looks like a tasty bug and it’ll choke on the plastic.”
The creek was once home to a plethora of native species of plants and animals. The clean-up efforts have restored some of that diversity, but the continued health of this salvaged ecosystem is not guaranteed.
Melbourne’s volatile weather – and climate change scenarios signal this will only get worse – looms as a particular problem. “When we get rainfall, all the soft surface absorption, which you find in farmlands and parklands … it’s all gone. The land is now built up with housing estates, so runoff comes down very quickly which brings all the litter and rubbish,” Wiltshire says.
Road wash containing pollutants darkens the creek. “We’re constantly cleaning up from the litter that comes from upstream,” Wiltshire says.

Pollution is a byproduct of the perpetual struggle between the need to grow communities to house residents, and the fight to preserve green spaces. Dealing with the fallout are the volunteers and park rangers who smile at cyclists enjoying the new pathways while they muddle in dirt fixing the problems.

“Keeping the creek clean is a really hard thing to do,” says Cath, a volunteer. The opening of bicycle access, for all its merits, brings a whole new set of problems.

“(With) the bike path – the great thing is that people have gained access but also, [but] there’s going to be more people,” agrees Peter Jens, a long-time volunteer at the Darebin Creek. More people inevitably means more rubbish.

The crew is united in its determination to preserve and enhance this critical natural artery in a city as population pressures become more intense, and more demanding on the landscape, every day.

The Power of the Maddened Woman

***Note: This is an Op-Ed written for academic purposes and revised for AlmostWonderWoman. The op-ed focuses on the birth of feminism in the 1960s during the first wave of feminism, albeit the juxtaposing views to its contemporary reference.

“The sisterhood is powerful!” The women roared.

“Women unite!” The women roared.

“Men are the enemy!” The women roared.

Misandry. It’s a sticky word. It makes someone a little apprehensive and if used often enough, pushes women (and men) deeper into the ‘you’re-a-bad-feminist’ hole. But the women’s liberation movement sought after one goal: kill the enemy.

Who was the enemy? Men.

The prejudice against “the man” was exactly the mindset that built a powerful sisterhood behind the US women’s liberation movement in the 1960s. Women stood in the face of objectified glorification. They fought to remove their submissive chokehold and they used one tactic to form the sisterhood: appoint the man as evil and corrupt. The movement was a masked rage towards the intolerance of men that guided women to take action.

This propagation of bitterness and revenge is the very antithesis of feminism today, yet it brought women together in solidarity, as one. To put it plainly, it worked. Regardless of what some may have to say about how misandry is a misalignment towards the contemporary fight for equality amongst the sexes, it worked and it worked damn well. Misandry, as sticky a term that is, was powerful, reverent and was effective in forming the first waves of feminism we’ve seen and those we will continue to see.

The movement united women to fight, to yell and roar in fervour as they rejected the male-dominated social hierarchy. Women banded together and released their cries of frustration at the unfairness of the social conformities. Women discovered the strength within themselves to birth a revolutionary movement to unite the sisterhood, black or white, young or old, gay or straight. The verbal murder of men rooted a new world order of equality amidst struggles of patriarchal dominance. Naming the enemy as men, women rejected the standards of cooks, caretakers and slaves to sexual demands.

No, capitalism wasn’t the root of women’s unfair treatment. In fact, the capitalist system engaging women in low-paid or no-paid jobs was far from the cause. It was the men who perpetuated the system. It was the men who fed the system, fuelled the raging fire and turned a blind eye when it treated women as lesser. And to any man who believed in equality and the good in women, there was no award. Normalcy deserved no award.

In retaliation to the unfairness, women started to meet in small groups to finally speak aloud the torments of being under a man’s hand. They shared stories of struggles and a future of hope to launch a rhetoric of a higher power: the pro-woman line.

The pro-woman line inspired women to identify their powers and created an identity of strength. Instead of floating in the abyss of a man’s rule, women encouraged each other and themselves to see the authority in being a woman, the strength in being a woman, the joy in being a woman. The women boldly stood by the pro-woman line and purged the second class ideals of themselves preserved by men. Prior to the movement, the women thought of themselves as lesser than men. With the liberation beginning to reject the patriarchy, the pro-woman line eclipsed their self-doubt.

There was also so much power in the nuances of the movement fronted by the women. When women met in small groups to discuss their treatment, they spoke as family, as friends, as sisters. They were no longer a submissive audience. They became eager and greedy, and actively partook in forming a new paradigm of a sisterhood with a voice. It was unity with deafening support through the equal relationship between every woman. The root of all of this was misandry and the rejection of a man’s world gave birth to another form of power: consciousness-raising.

The women of the movement tore at the very fabric of America in fighting for their rights. They met in small groups to cultivate a mindset of unity through consciousness-raising. They communicated personal experiences of oppression and discrimination through these specifically designed meetings. These get-togethers had no expert or leader, but every woman stood to discuss their struggles and ways to diminish passivity and oppression. Consciousness-raising efforts promoted women to be autonomous in their decisions and validate personal struggles without a man.

The pro-woman line and consciousness-raising only emphasised the success in misandry, the power in putting men down, the significance in calling men out on their so-called privilege as the better sex. Meetings to promote consciousness-raising took place in secrecy underground where radical feminists left the taint of the man behind. Conclusions of their own experiences were developed by the women themselves without the approval or attention of men. They burnt books written by men controlling women in how they should think. Consciousness-raising was the vehicle that drove change through prejudice of men and saw women turning to each other in the quest for approval and development of their own thinking.

Women became the very antithesis of the figure men drew. It was an all-consuming movement for women to find their voice of reasoning, bring justice through the strength to persevere and be united. The movement devoured man and his unjust dominance. The glass box with a dainty woman inside was broken and the women used the shards sharp as knives to fight.

It was the birth of female independence.

The women were ravenous to step on the man’s world, and they did. They no longer took the backseat. The sisterhood rode into battle to liberate themselves from their conditioned life. They fought through the oppression, the unfairness and it is this supposedly ‘un-feminist’ movement of misandry that has rooted visions of feminism we see today.