This is not exactly a burning question for America. Nonetheless, it raises some interesting issues that are worth exploring, so heck, I'll explore them.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a group dinner with Kenji Yoshino, a gay law professor who wrote a fascinating book called Covering. The book talks about the way that pressure to conform to group norms prevents people from fully participating in society. Moving from "Don't have sex with men because we'll kill you" to "don't have sex with men because we'll arrest you" to "don't tell anyone you have sex with men because they'll shun you" to "it's okay to tell people to have sex with men, but don't force anyone to acknowledge that fact by acting different or flaunting your relationship with your partner" are all improvements over the previous--but at the end of the day, being forced to act the way the majority does is profoundly limiting. In some trivial sense, everyone has to do this, of course, but most people don't have to hide the dominant relationship in their lives because it makes other people uncomfortable.
He talked at length about the phenomenon of "reverse covering"--the way in which members of non-dominant groups are forced to reinforce their identity as members of those groups, even when they don't want to. This can come from either inside the group, as in the case of black teenagers who are punished by their peers for "acting white", or from members of the dominant culture. Women, for example, are pressured to both cover and reverse-cover; as he says, "to be 'masculine' enough to be respected as workers, but also 'feminine' enough to be respected as women."
What I asked him, after the dinner, is how far you can reasonably press a dislike of reverse covering. For a group to be a group, it must be able to say, not only "this is what we do", but "this is what we don't do"--you can't call yourself a Christian if you worship the risen Christ, and also Moloch.
His answer, the right one, I think, was "that's a hard question". You can't call yourself gay if you aren't sexually attracted to members of your own sex--well, I mean, you can, but you shouldn't, not that I think this is a real problem. But gay culture has defined any number of other characteristics that it views as central enough to a gay identity that it punishes defectors pretty severely. Is being liberal an important component of gayness? On most dimensions, it doesn't seem like it should be--yet the gay conservatives among my friends and loved ones, particularly the lesbians, are often punished for their views by the community.
Which brings us to feminism. I view myself as feminist(ish) because I believe the following:
1) Society is set up in ways that limit women's choices and opportunities--men's too (it's awful hard to make the choice to stay home with kids, or become a nurse), but women more. Men are not, for example, socially punished for monogamy the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity.
2) Privilege exists, and is in many unfortunate ways invisible to those who possess it.
3) We should try to change those things.
I differ from the feminist mainstream on many of the questions of how we should change this. I don't think that subsidized childcare should be a civil right, I think comparable worth is a very bad idea, and I don't view abortion rights as fundamentally a question of female equality, but rather as an incredibly complicated attempt to trade off two important and incommensurable values that has no overwhelmingly obvious answer. I'm probably more willing than most feminists to give credence to the possibility that, say, women have lower IQ variance than men and are therefore less likely to show up in the tails of the cognitive/income distribution--though I also think that people often see what they want and expect to see, which makes those kinds of arguments rather more tenuous than their advocates allow.
But the basic thing, to me, is that I endorse the project of changing social values to increase the scope of human possibility.
But for many feminists, that's too basic. For many, to be a feminist, you have to want to make radical state-sponsored change to the economic system in order to promote equality. You have to grant rape accusers extraordinary presumption of truth-telling. You must endorse a hard line on abortion rights. If you do not agree with these propositions, you are a non-feminist, or an anti-feminist.
And maybe this is fair, at least the "non-feminist" part. I think increasing the equality of women is a very important project--but I think society has a lot of important projects. I also think that when you're trying to orchestrate these kinds of social and political change, you should think hard about whether you're actually increasing the scope of human freedom, or restricting it. Radically coercive social or economic regimes may increase women's equality in part by decreasing everyone's freedom, and given my values, I don't think that's a win. So if you define being a feminist as someone for whom fuller equality is the most important consideration, rather than simply something that we should all work pretty hard for, then you should probably exclude me from the list.
Personally, I'd like to see feminism take on as expansionist a definition as possible without rendering the concept meaningless--something closer to my list than whatever, exactly in the head of people who label me an "antifeminist". Not because it particularly matters whether I get to wear the proud Scarlet F, but because bringing more people into the tent would make feminism less of a dirty word in many quarters. It would give what I view as the movement's most important work--that of exposing and trying to change the structural problems in society that limit women's choices--more reach, albeit at the expense of driving many radical solutions to those problems.
But it's not something I'm going to have a fight about. The feminist movement has a right to define what constitutes being a member, and I'm not going to appropriate their label if it bothers them, any more than I'm going to start calling myself a Catholic who just doesn't happen recognize the authority of the Church. If you read any feminist blogs, you'll know that they spend an enormous amount of time trying to define the core values of feminism, and while I may disagree with the definitions they end up with, if they dislike my opinions on the matter, well, it's their movement.
But that does leave women (and I suppose men) like me with a bothersome question: what do we call ourselves? I share a lot of opinions on structural cultural issues with feminists, even when we disagree on the solutions these imply; I think we've come a long way, baby, but I don't think we're quite there yet. If I am to leave feminists in peace, I need my own word. Suggestions are welcome.
"So if you define being a feminist as someone for whom fuller equality is the most important consideration, rather than simply something that we should all work pretty hard for, then you should probably exclude me from the list."
That's probably the nub of it, at least for those feminists who would take issue with you.
Why is it "their movement"? I didn't realize the analogy "Jessica Valenti : Feminism :: The Pope : Catholicism" held.
I'd have to start by questioning the "need" to have a word (read: sound-byte) to label your position. It's handy for those who don't want to think about the subject, of course. And it can save time in discussions, albeit at a cost.
I run into the same issue on other topics. For example, I'm a fiscal conservative, socially libertarian to liberal, moderate regarding other issues, etc. No political label works for more than a minority of my opinions. Is that a problem for me? Occasionally, when I don't have the time (or the inclination) to have an extended discussion with someone. On the other hand, either we may have other opportunities. Or perhaps they are someone I just don't want to spend time talking with.
Your stated views have an almost perfect correlation with mine.
Ultimately, competing societies approach a social arrangement that maximizes the potential and capabilities of individual members of each gender, thereby securing the greatest prosperity for that society. This maximum continually changes with human progress in technology. We'll see what happens.
Julian Sanchez seems to have the same question that I have. While I admittedly do not know much about feminism, you seem to present it as monolithic, and controlled. I am sure there are Feminist constitutions out there for some groups but is the Feminist "scene" completely uniform. I consider myself liberal, but I don't consider myself an eco nut, or some sort of socialist, communist, constitution rewriting liberal. Vice Versa, while I at times make jokes about conservatives being religious fascists cause it's funny, I realize not all conervatives equal Jerry Falwell. So my question is, are you being bashed by the oft accused Feminazis that may be overrespresented because of their scene stealing antics, or have a large number of feminists really disowned you? I know my sister is pro-life but would still consider herself at least a feminist in the sense that she advocates for fair work practices and wages. Is she being dropped from the movement too?
Men are not socially punished for monogamy the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity.
What the heck does that mean?
It doesn't--but ultimately, for a label to have meaning, the group has to agree on a core definition. If I read submitting to the church hierarchy out of the label "Catholic", I vastly expand the number of people who get to call themselves Catholic--but I don't think I have the right to tell Catholics what constitutes catholicism. At some point, long usage by a relatively stable core group gives them a certain right to self-define.
Jessica Valenti doesn't have the right to decide whether or not I'm a feminist--but the movement as a whole certainly has the right to define what their core principles are, at which point it's perfectly fair for Jessica Valenti to analyze whether or not I meet those criteria. And to most of them, I'm probably not a boundary case.
Shouldn’t that read “Men are not, for example, socially punished for promiscuity the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity”? I don’t know of anyone who is “socially punished” for monogamy (at least not in any way that matters) and I’m not even sure that there is much in the way of a “social punishment” for promiscuity.
Well Christina Hoff Sommers calls herself an “equity feminist” as opposed to a “gender feminist” for pretty much the same reasons you do. Personally I think the moral and intellectual high ground is held by those who reject identity politics entirely and refuse to grant any legitimacy to those who are interested in protecting their label or in trying to come up with a new label.
Megan,
Your problem is tangential to our last discussion on group dynamics. Why do you need to be associated with a group? Group dynamics lead to groupthink and poor decision making. Why bother? I like the Groucho Marx philosophy of group identity "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members". Aren't you supposed to be a libertarian rugged individualist? So why all the group identity?
Uncontroversial (I think) propositions: women are expected to be interested in sex largely in the context of a romantic relationship; men are expected to be interested in strings-free fun. Take two not uncommon stock figures: a woman who refuses to have sex with people unless she is in a moderately exclusive and committed relationship; a single man who has casual sex with women he meets at parties several times a month, and between long-term monogamous relationships, maintains multiple concurrent casual sexual relationships. A man who did the former, passing up opportunities for casual sex, might be regarded as slightly odd (or not). A woman who did the latter would be regarded in many quarters as having something at least slightly wrong with her, and would certainly be viewed by many men as not marriage material. The man would have little problem mentioning his behavior at work; the woman would almost certainly hide it. Etc. The punishment for diverging from social expectation is much more severe for the woman than for the man.
FeminIndividualist.
It's a mouthful, but conceptually not entirely unlike your odd run-of-the-mill Anarcho-Constitutionalist.
Men are not, for example, socially punished for monogamy the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity.
Shouldn’t that read “Men are not, for example, socially punished for promiscuity the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity”?
I believe it is correct as written. According to some viewpoints, a man isn't a real man if he settles down with one woman too soon, before he's spent ample time scoring in the nightbclubs each weekend.
How about post-feminist. It is interesting sounding and slightly insulting to those who disagree with you.
A.) feminism is a loose set of ideas that link a group of people (predominantly women) in beliefs that desire to increase equality between men and women in all facets of life.
B.) feminism is a rigid set of ideas encompassing a political, economicm, and social worldview. An agenda driven group whereby women gain power and influence in proportion to men.
C.) the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes ,organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.
One of these is taken straight from Merriam-Webster. The point is that definitional arguments by their own nature are splitting hairs.
Megan I would characterize you as a feminist and not the kind that thinks I should spend my days trying to analyze Edmund Burke, or Edith Wharton to grasp femininity. It isn't a dirty word, nor is it an ironclad definition. We associate ourselves with ideas and groups to cut down on explanations. Otherwise getting a handle on someone's politics may as well be a 3 week class.
I'll appropriate a label, and qualify the exceptions as necessary. I think everybody does it to varying degrees. I just hope the shoe still fits.
2) Privilege exists, and is in many unfortunate ways invisible to those who possess it.
This seems to me to be a broad statement about class and opportunity, rather anything particularly gender specific. Be careful, lest you be branded as a class-warmonger (or whatever it is that people concerned about the poor getting a break are, these days).
I'm fond of "Feminist Sympathizer," myself. A sympathizer seems to me to be self-defined.
Besides, it conjures up amusing images of activists printing underground pamphlets in one's basement, or the "nice little wifey" spooning laxatives into the punch for stag movie night at the Elk's club.
Why not just call yourself a "pragmatic feminist"? It seems like a pretty good description of what you are (although being a pragmatist is considered a bad thing in some circles). Or "heterodox feminist" or non-doctrinal feminist."
As an aside, I like your anecdote about talking to Kenji. From all accounts, he's a great and thoughtful guy.
@wj, I think that you would have been classified as a Rockefeller Republican or a typical northeastern Republican. Unfortunately, after the Republican's made their Faustian bargain with Dixie, your wing of the GOP has become marginalized.
We also associate ourselves with groups whose beliefs we acknowledge to further them. I thought this would be sel-evident but upon review its a gaping logic error.
Why call yourself anything?
You'll experience far less cognitive dissonance in your mental life if you never choose what kinds of -ist you are. It's really quite liberating.
Good post, thanks,
The scene of Ferris Bueller coming out of the shower says it all. "I just believe in me"
"... If I am to leave feminists in peace, I need my own word. Suggestions are welcome."
You may feel you need your own word but unless your views are shared by a significant number of people you don't deserve your own word. I would suggest "feminist Republican" or "Republican feminist". If that isn't accurate enough you could try McArdlist.
Such a girl thing to do. Kicking you out of the club for not adhering to strict dogma. Wasn't Ayn Rand like that. Oh dear, my proposition has broken down in the face of The Catholic Church (although I'm not enough of an historian to know whether they kicked people out to any great extent or just made war on the people who voluntarily left.)
Personally I think you should use "feminist", and to hell with your haters. This is a struggle over a label. If you concede it, then they win and feminism becomes purely a sub-movement of the left. Which would be a damn shame, at least for anyone who cares about feminism. (Woops, there I go, using it my way.)
That said, if you must choose a neologism I really like "post-feminist", basically because whiterpeople think post- anything is cool, and you'd be beating them to this one. But also, "post-" has about the right connotations: you're not a leftist feminist in part because you've seen the results of their crazier ideas played out in real life.
"A man who did the former, passing up opportunities for casual sex, might be regarded as slightly odd (or not)."
The delicious (or horrific depending on your pov) irony here is that men aren't going to shun you for not having sex* with enough girls; it's the girls who will shun you. A man might think "the dude is weird", but he'll still get invited to play golf or watch the game if he's otherwise fun to be around. Hell, we don't want to have sex with him. In the present culture, women have a lot more incentive to care about a straight man's sexual proclivities than other men do.
*I've used the euphemism for the proper term since I wasn't sure whether the proper term would be considered "obscene" per the disclaimer. I only mention this because "having sex" sounds so weird to my modern ears. It beats "making love" though so there you have it.
I'm not bothered by the lingo, but by how we move forward after establishing the three principles of feminishm (ahah! maybe thats the word....) I totally agree with all three of the points, and also agree that changing the system shouldn't be done in society-warping ways. But what are the better ways? How on earth do you "change the structural problems in society that limit women's choice"? Do you hammer your philosophy into the minds of men and women who believe in traditional gender roles? Do you work harder so women's IQ variance matches up with men's? Do you tell Planned Parenthood and the Family Research Council to join forces? These sorts of things are impossible. So tell me what your "project of changing social values" actually entails. I want to be Executive Director.
I'm not bothered by the lingo, but by how we move forward after establishing the three principles of feminishm (ahah! maybe thats the word....) I totally agree with all three of the points, and also agree that changing the system shouldn't be done in society-warping ways. But what are the better ways? How on earth do you "change the structural problems in society that limit women's choice"? Do you hammer your philosophy into the minds of men and women who believe in traditional gender roles? Do you work harder so women's IQ variance matches up with men's? Do you tell Planned Parenthood and the Family Research Council to join forces? These sorts of things are impossible. So tell me what your "project of changing social values" actually entails. I want to be Executive Director.
The real irony here is that if you declare that you're not a feminist, you get abuse from the same set of malcontents along the lines of how you don't appreciate what the feminist movement has done for women.
It's a catch-22. You can't be in and you can't be out. A certain set of activists have claimed the word "feminism" and declared that it represents their particular political movement, in the same way that certain evangelical Christians have claimed the word "christian". Then they turn around and get angry, upset and confused when a large percentage of women respond in polls that they don't consider themselves feminists.
Maybe you need to do what libertarians do now. Call yourself a "small f feminist" as opposed to a member of the Feminist movement.
I think you're getting hung up in your feminist details. Instead of your three beliefs, I think the first two can be accurately summarized in the following:
1 & 2) Society allows for double standards to exist.
3) We should try to change that.
Why do you care if your a feminist or not? Does it really matter?
It shouldn't......but maybe, that's just me.....
I have always maintained that there are (at least) two distinct strands of feminism that are often at odds with one another: (1) a "libertarian" feminism that stresses freedom for individuals of both sexes to make choices and not to be treated as a member of a category, and (2) a "Victorian" feminism that is much more about demanding active steps to eliminate inequalities. Libertarians don't care so much about outcomes; if women tend to choose careers that give them more flexibility at the expense of lower compensation, that's okay as long as it's a real choice. Victorians are much more likely to deny the legitimacy of such choices. Libertarians think prostitution ("sex work") can be okay if non-coercive; Victorians think it is inherently degrading and exploitive and should not be legal. Etcetera.
It's amusing to read some of the comment threads on feminist blogs and watch the tension between these groups. It appears that a lot of younger women are instinctively Libertarian, but often get pulled into agreement with the Victorians because of their sympathy with the results that Victorians want to achieve.
I concur that "small f feminist" as opposed to "Feminist" is probably the best choice. That's how my wife tends to think.
As I see it, "Feminists" want equality of outcome, feminists want equality of opportunity.
just appropriate the label "Independant" and tell everyone else to frell off... It works for many things. If people actually want to know more, you can tell them. Most of the time, they'll leave you alone.
So, what -ism is there for dissaffected middle aged guys?
Why not just stick with "libertarian"? One helpful aspect is it will help steer you away from the statist, coercive means of achieving #3.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597
AND YOU CALL YOURSELF AN AMERICAN WOMAN?
Not to make light of this, but I have had on many occasions, the need to explain to people the differences between "I like that", "I don't like that", and "I dislike that". Two state preferences, one doesn't. It is possible to not be a member of something but not be in the opposition, some people are so wound up in their own self-righteousness they just can't see that.
The straw is flying everywhere.
People don't think you're a feminist, because you don't give two shits about feminist ideas outside of ideal thoughts about how women would be more equal to men if we comically aped masculinity rituals like waving guns around. I don't think you're anti-feminist so much as just too self-absorbed and an intellectual lightweight to really be considered a feminist.
The straw is flying everywhere.
People don't think you're a feminist, because you don't give two shits about feminist ideas outside of idle thoughts about how women would be more equal to men if we comically aped masculinity rituals like waving guns around. I don't think you're anti-feminist so much as just too self-absorbed and an intellectual lightweight to really be considered a feminist.
But that does leave women (and I suppose men) like me with a bothersome question: what do we call ourselves?
The word "silly" comes to mind, as does the word "obtuse".
"I don't think you're anti-feminist so much as just too self-absorbed and an intellectual lightweight to really be considered a feminist."
See what I mean Megan?
How about "antifeminist as a young woman"?
I think the reluctance to embrace the antifeminist label is a sign of your immaturity. Once you get married, get more established in your career, and stop spending so much time with social radicals (like the people who call their spouses domestic partners, rather than husbands and wives) your intellectual confidence will improve and you will realize how good it feels to be an antifeminist.
Incorrect comparison.
Men ARE, for example, socially punished for failing to have sex (40-year old virgin) to a greater degree than women are socially punished for promiscuity (Sex in the City).
But as someone considering feminism, I have but two questions:
1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men have and women do not have in equal or greater levels.
2) Please enumerate any government-enforced responsibilities which women bear which men do not bear in equal or greater levels.
If women have equal or greater rights and equal or lesser responsibilities, as enforced by government, then there is no need for feminism (a movement of equality) to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Otherwise, to propose that the government needs to assist women to create a equal playing field is an admission, by feminists, to one of two potential facts:
A) Women are not equal to men, and therefore women need help from the government to be equal to men (to be able to fairly compete).
B) Feminism is not about equality, and is instead about giving women advantage over men (if women were equal to men AND receiving government help, then they would be in the position of an advantage over men)
In any other matter, i.e. social perceptions.. women make up (more than) half of society. If they are incapable of influencing society to an equal degree as men, then are they equal?
too self-absorbed and an intellectual lightweight to really be considered a feminist.
It's a good thing that insufferable smugness and poor writing skills aren't on the "list of things that mean you can't be a feminist."
"I totally agree with all three of the points, and also agree that changing the system shouldn't be done in society-warping ways. But what are the better ways? How on earth do you "change the structural problems in society that limit women's choice"? Do you hammer your philosophy into the minds of men and women who believe in traditional gender roles? "
Well we have already seen some radical changes in society along the lines of increasing women's choices. I suspect it is impossible to properly attribute causality between the changes and any particular set of actions, but things that people have done with the intent of increasing women's choices have included:
- lobbied politically for law changes (eg, votes for women, married women's property acts)
- portrayed in literature, theatre, movies and comics the disadvantages and suffering caused by particular rules that limit women's choices, and indeed by particular rules that limit men's choices
- changed their own lifestyle, for example the first woman who went to medical school made it easier for other women to go to medical school. More generally, the more common a non-traditional behaviour is, the more difficult it is for people to maintain a firm belief in traditonal gender roles. For example, if a person who believes in traditional gender roles keeps encountering, both on the TV and in real life, female police officers, then eventually this hammers in to all but the dimmest minds that women can be police officers.
- work at new technologies that allow society to get around structural problems that limit women's, or men's choices. Eg washing machines and the contraceptive pill.
The problem with any narrowly-focused social or political movement having a label is that the label will eventually be captured by the most extreme members, and after that you can't be "in" if you don't subscribe to the full chatechism, and you're automatically cast "out" as a branded heretic if you don't.
In the case of "feminism", as far as I can tell, this means in addition to suffrage and other basic equalities under law, and full social acceptance of the same, you must at least subscribe to a basic platform unconditional abortion rights and general victim status in all other areas.
This means that classic, pragmatic McArdle talking points such as "Why have we only achieved two out of three in 'Safe, Legal, and Rare'," or "Do women ever falsely cry rape, and why?", or "Gun rights", or "Are women already compensated equally for job performance if we count the cost of maternal leave and skill re-aquisition in net compensation", are right out.
In short, you refuse to clip your own wings in the service of an ideology. Unfortunately, the very movement to which you could be most beneficial has been hijacked in the fashion described above, with someone like Amanda Marcotte demonstrating plainly that she doesn't support rights, she only supports the correct rights, and wants to further arrogate for herself the authority to determine what those are.
In short, she wants Power, and a noble title to wear while wielding her power against the infidels. Very medieval of her. And probably not the kind of friends you need to transform your own good ideas into policy.
Amanda Marcotte wrote: The straw is flying everywhere. People don't think you're a feminist, because you don't give two !%#@ about feminist ideas outside of pick only one, Freud: [ideal|idle] thoughts about how women would be more equal to men if we comically aped masculinity rituals like waving guns around. I don't think you're anti-feminist so much as just too self-absorbed and an intellectual lightweight to really be considered a feminist.
Fortunately, due to the great gender equalizer known as The Internet, both men and women can, with equal facility, hang a full moon in public.
SB Anthony and EC Stanton would be mortified to discover what people like you are doing with their legacy.
SB Anthony and EC Stanton would be mortified to discover what people like you are doing with their legacy.
I think it's just adorable how she personally embodies a whole range of negative female stereotypes against which those worthies struggled in their pursuit of greater equality. It makes a nice contrast with a number of my acquaintances, who manage to embrace femininity, even girlyness, without being nearly so intellectually frivolous.
As to Christina Hoff Summers. I do believe that most women, and a lot of men, are equity feminists. The gender feminists are rare,except in the media.
I as I see it, most real women, and feminists, are too busy managing their lives to hold down a full time job in the media. The problem is that while gender feminists are rare, they are arrogant and dishonest. They falsely claim to represent all feminists and all women.
As to equity, ok I believe that men and women are equal in some nebulous sense. Having said that, it is irrational discrimination, and detrimental to society, to demand proportionality or equity when there is no reason to believe it should exist. Men and women make different choices and as result of these different choices obtain different outcomes. Some may call this discrimination. I call it life.
Life is simply not proportional. Ok women earn what seventy-six cent for every dollar a man earns. On the other hand, men are thirteen times more likely to die on the job than a woman, for much the same reasons. If the former is a cause for state intervention, why not the latter?
I am not saying that as a society we can't do better. However I do reject the idea that we should demand statistic parity in some areas while ignoring it in others.
Then remember Mother Nature is a chick because you women on average live seven years longer than us men. It just ain't fair.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
I wonder if she still thinks that 20 years later.
==
1) Society is set up in ways that limit women's choices and opportunities--men's too...
2) Privilege exists...
3) We should try to change...
==
Megan (and others), who would actually disagree with those principles? I don't mean to straw man it, but I could see Rush Limbaugh (anti-feminist) giving this list. Who agrees with the counterfactual, that women have more choices than men (or more generally, societies don't place boundaries on behavior) and that nobody has unearned privileges? The third is a catch-all, since it places no weight on anything.
I can't think of serious examples of disagreement represented in the popular discourse. If that is feminism then everyone is a feminist.
The difference is, Marcotte is SO correct, she doesn't HAVE to think...
But that does leave women (and I suppose men) like me with a bothersome question: what do we call ourselves?
Sane.
Amanda Marcotte claims to be an intellectual heavyweight, but I have yet to see her academic publications (or graduate degree), and her claim to fame is being kicked off of a failed Presidential campaign's staff because of blog posts commonly perceived as intolerant and bigoted. If Amanda Marcotte is looking for an intellectual lightweight, she should look in the mirror at the intolerant bigot with no academic credentials or scholarly body of work.
"too self-absorbed and an intellectual lightweight"
If you want a laugh, go to Pandagon right now and check out what apparently constitutes intellectual rigorousness. When you specialize(!) in a form of discourse that prizes both an absolute supression of even the possibility of the validity of opposing points of view (self-absorption, anyone?) while trafficking in wide generalizations and even catch phrases ("sheeple"? "McSame"? and of course the ever-popular "wingnut"--intellectual lightweight, anyone?), it's a little rich to be attacking Megan from a position of superiority.
Basically this all seems to me to be a very familiar pattern when there's enmity going around... the hatred exists on its own. People like Marcotte and Kathy G couldn't really explain why they hate Megan so much. They can only evince it. That's why Megan's out-group theorizing on her vis as vis feminism was condescending, yes, but probably not that far off--because it's probably also true of most of us, most the time.
Unlike Catholicism, which has a central institution that officially defines the movement, feminism has no central authority, and you are thus free to define yourself as a feminist if you wish. Unfortunately, that does mean that opposing views claiming the same term can render the term meaningless.
I consider myself a feminist because, while I value women's achievement, I don't want any special help from the government in order to achieve my goals. Perpetual victimhood isn't feminist.
While I recognize that their are likely biological differences between men and women, I don't believe that those differences should prescribe the roles of all women. I, for example, fall outside the typical model of women's achievement, in that I do very well on standardized tests, but less well in terms of grades. I am better at math and science than literature and writing. Just because a gender or race or religion may deem something more likely, it doesn't mean that it should be normalized and institutionalized.
Feminism, like most isms, includes so many things that anyone can call themselves a feminist if they so desire.
Although for the most part I'd say to be a feminist you have to either believe
1: The differences between men and women are primarily socio-cultural. Hence "women have lower IQ variance than men", if true, has to be explained by socio-cultural causes.
or
2: The differences between men and women is real, but it means that inequality came due to "women's abilities" being oppressed or denigrated. So these abilities must be given greater value for equality to emerge. Hence greater pay for nursing, quality childcare, English teaching, wine-taster, astronaut, etc. Also a concurrent diminishment in importance for systems based in hierarchical male aggression. (Corporations, the Military, and a few others)
If you don't believe either, and you don't seem to, than I'd say you're probably not a feminist in any normal sense.
Without addressing the absurdity of Amanda calling Megan an intellectual lightweight, is it really the contention of feminists that being an intellectual heavy-weight is a membership requirement?
Sounds rather elitist.
"...she should look in the mirror at the intolerant bigot with no academic credentials or scholarly body of work."
True enough but considering what a degraded, sick farce academia has become, "academic credentials" or a "scholarly body of work" don't enhance anyone's credibility in my book.
If only she had a PhD in Women's Studies with a focus on Pre-Marxian Lesbian Theories of Whiteness, ha, ha.
And just to add to that tirade from Marcotte, I think she would qualify as a "self appointed mind-guard". Yet another reason that self respecting individuals don't join groups like "feminists".
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/groupthink.htm
Utilitarian.
In response to your query, I think you call yourself an Individualist (capital I optional). Couching all this in terms of group identity is, in fact, part of the problem. Self described feminists properly note that one thing women have in common is that they have not been treated as individuals, but have instead been judged, as a group and according to ignorant and arbitrary criterion. Group solidarity is a way of addressing this politically as it demonstrates the size of the problem. However, solidarity is maintained by establishing group identity, which as noted, ironically, requires conformity which suppresses the individual. This is the nature of the transition from liberal (classically liberal) to leftist. It is both natural and self-defeating. Only by remembering that the starting point is the desire to be treated as individual can this course be halted. Hence, Individualist.
My suggestion? Until there is a formal body that actually defines what feminism is continue calling yourself a feminist - maybe all of those men and women that support equity regardless of gender would join the crusade instead of being scared the the stereotypical feminist type.
How about "classical egalitarian", with "classical" being intended as a reference to the classical liberal tradition, which libertarianism is heir to. You believe in equality, but unlike a radical egalitarian, you don't believe in enforcing it at any cost.
You could also refer to yourself as a gender centrist, which is my own somewhat clumsy coinage, but I think "classical egalitarian" sounds better.
"being forced to act the way the majority does is profoundly limiting"
Well dang. That's a rain on a parade, isn't it?
It's also what NAMBLA and other child molesters say. You realize that, right?
I'm not saying gay men are child molesters, although some certainly are (chicken hawk?). I am saying that "The Majority" has a vested interest in the way every individual acts. And in some cases, that interest is just and right and deserving (child molesters, membership in the military) and in other cases it borders on over-reach by The Majority (what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home as long as no one, including them is harmed).
So, about that flaunting? Fine in San Francisco, not so fine in fly over country. Is that ok with y'all or are we really just trying to justify the act of shoving one person's choice of lifestyle into some other person's face?
Call yourself a feminist, or an angel, or a rainbow. Who cares? Any sufficiently rich ideologogical tree is going to have a lot of branches or roots. Believing, or worse, trying to enforce, the one true feminism is the evil that must be resisted. Compare and contrast to Ms. Marcotte, for instance.
With respect to the relative societal punishment of men and women, it is worth noting that this is a very subjective measurement. I realize it is a gross generalization but as a rule women seem to care a whole lot more about what others think than men do. While I can't prove it, I believe that the same level of "societal persecution" towards each would be perceived as worse by women on average. Sort of like the proverbial NY Times headline: World Ends, Women, Minorities Hit Hardest. If that means I can't properly perceive the privilege I have, well, so be it.
Megan,
I found Camille Paglia's essay on this topic enlightening. You might check it out if you haven't seen it yet:
http://www.bu.edu/arion/Paglia%2016-1.html
Not to mention Amanda Marcotte's last book was derided as racist for including numerous depictions of lily-white Amazons brutalizing dark-skinned savages. In my opinion, it would not be wholly unreasonable to believe she's a filthy racist.
Isn't this an example of how how the house of cards can get before civilization falls?
Isn't this an example of how how the house of cards can get before civilization falls?
Isn't this an example of how high the house of cards can get before civilization falls?
I'm probably more willing than most feminists to give credence to the possibility that, say, women have lower IQ variance than men and are therefore less likely to show up in the tails of the cognitive/income distribution--though I also think that people often see what they want and expect to see, which makes those kinds of arguments rather more tenuous than their advocates allow.
I know this is kind of fan-boyish, but kudos. That's good writing, and a clearer and more concise explication of this perspective than I've read before.
In my younger years I ran into this same sort of problem. I didn't want to join a group because I didn't believe in or agree with the all of the objectives of and things that the group stood for, I didn't care for general group dynamic, parts of the leadership rubbed me the wrong way, didn't like the stereotypes of the group, etc. But, I realized that working with and identifying with a group that you might not wholly agree with is just about the only way to achieve substantial objectives. Unless your Genghis Khan and in possession of a Mongol Horde.
Let me try to rephrase so that I understand the three principles.
1) Men and women are different, on average, play different roles in reproduction and society has different expectations for them.
2) Barack Obama's kids will very likely be richer and more powerful than yours or mine.
3) We should try to change those things.
Is that right?
1) and 2) are true. So what? Society has expectations of all of us that we don't like. Some people are luckier--richer, smarter, better looking, more social--than others. So what?
Some of the unfairness described by 1) and 2) are serious and require remediation. Others are not serious. Others serve a purpose and do not require remediation. Finally, the method of remediation matters. The cure can be worse than the disease.
That is, the truth of 3) depends on how and what you intend to change. We could make life fairer by inflicting good looking, rich kids with some terrible skin condition, coupled with drug-induced mental illness. Is that a good idea? I don't think so.
More realistically, we could tinker with the most important institutions in society, marriage and child-rearing, to make them "fairer" to everyone. Of course, we have no idea what the consequences to society or families will be, but hey, we are being fair.
Or we could try to treat everyone reasonably and kindly, so far as is practical. Improve schools, for example. Mind our own business in social relationships. Yes, that sounds better.
A big part of the reason that I can never be a leftist is that I usually don't understand what they are talking about and when I figure it out, it shrinks down to "Life ain't fair."
You, my friend, sound like a humanist. Plain and simple.
Heck, just call yourself "a member of the oppressor class" and let people wonder.
r
Perhaps gender-conscious libertarian?
Maybe you are an equiminist?
Truth is you are a liberal feminist, with the word "liberal" being an adjective form of "liberty." But since both the left and right have both chosen to redefine the word as a synonym of "leftist," the phrase would be easily misunderstood by everyone to mean a synonym of social ("gender") feminist and therefore doesn't really help you out.
Of all the modifiers for the term feminist, I personally like "post" the most, if for no other reason than it suggests that lefty social feminism is essentially over.
At the end of the day, there's always "liberal capitalist." By pairing the word "liberal" with the word "capitalist" you make it impossible to construe the lefty connotation for liberal and thereby force it's original usage. And liberal capitalists are liberal feminists.
yours/
peter.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597
AND YOU CALL YOURSELF AN AMERICAN WOMAN?
Posted by steve j | July 1, 2008 5:42 PM
"...she should look in the mirror at the intolerant bigot with no academic credentials or scholarly body of work."
True enough but considering what a degraded, sick farce academia has become, "academic credentials" or a "scholarly body of work" don't enhance anyone's credibility in my book.
If only she had a PhD in Women's Studies with a focus on Pre-Marxian Lesbian Theories of Whiteness, ha, ha.
Posted by Django | July 1, 2008 9:08 PM
And just to add to that tirade from Marcotte, I think she would qualify as a "self appointed mind-guard". Yet another reason that self respecting individuals don't join groups like "feminists".
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/groupthink.htm
Posted by freddiemac | July 1, 2008 9:19 PM
Megan,
I found Camille Paglia's essay on this topic enlightening. You might check it out if you haven't seen it yet:
http://www.bu.edu/arion/Paglia%2016-1.html
Posted by anon2 | July 1, 2008 9:43 PM
I think it's rather telling that the 'Feminists' deny the Communist roots of their beloved leaders( e.g. Betty Frieden, Bela Abzug )
Also, that women like Camille Paglia, and Naomi Wolfe are, routinely, shunned by "The Only True Initiates of Feminism" speaks volumes about that grotesque claque.
And, I'm not sure what it is about the statement: "The stronger Women are, the Better Men will be.", that makes it novel/heterodox(if it is), but it's the way I've always seen it.
This is a good example of why I have no respect for libertarians, even though I agree with them on policy most of the time. I like libertarian policies, but I don't like libertarians. Like liberals, they believe culture is infinitely malleable, and they have a false sense that their ideas are original.
Ms. McArdle wrote, "men are not, for example, socially punished for monogamy the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity."
Some double-standards are rational. Women don't fear paternity fraud. Men do. Men historically always have. And for good reason. Statistical studies consistently show that between 20-30% of husbands are not the biological father of "their" children. Every state enforces child support on a husband, no matter who is the biological father. A woman, by her sexual behavior, can force a man to pay for a child that's not his for twenty years. So much for your bullshit argument about men not being punished for monogamy.
Abortion laws give all rights to the woman, even if she commits maternity fraud. Indeed, maternity fraud is legal. Just ask the lady getting child support after impregnating herself in a bathroom with the contents of a used condom.
Female sexual behavior affects men in ways male sexuality doesn't affect women. It is rational for a man to evaluate female sexual behavior differently than a woman evaluates a man's. Duh.
Some evolutionary psychologists call the sexual double-standard the 'slut defense.'
I, for one, will vouch for your feminist credentials. Just have NOW send me an email for a reference. I will vouch for your libertarian credentials. Have Mr Paul email me for a reference.
I won't vouch for your practical reasoning skills. Nor will I vouch for your grasp of the the facts of male sexuality and law in America and indeed Western history.
"I need my own word. Suggestions are welcome."
Rational?
Thoughtful?
All I can be sure of is that you're a mammal.
Maybe.
While I admit that there are male privileges, frequently unrecognized by most males (as you've pointed out), there are also quite substantial female privileges, for example:
1) Female on male violence is quite accepted in our society. Think about the social acceptability of a woman slapping or hitting a man vs the social acceptability of the reciprocal behavior.
2) The law carries heavy presumptions in favor of women in most cases, whether you are talking about child custody law, rape law, domestic violence law, etc. The default behavior is to accept a woman's accusation against a man as true at face value, and seek to protect her even while her accusation destroys the life of the accused. Look at the outcome in the Duke rape case... *zero* consequences for the false accuser.
3) Financial responsibility for children: this is optional for women under current moses laws, but mandatory for men.
4) It is much more socially acceptable for a woman to be supported by a man than vice versa.
5) There is as subtle but real propensity on the part of society to help woman out when they are down on their luck, much much more so than for men.
6) Women receive much lighter sentences for the same crime than men.
I'm not arguing against any of these privileges per se, just pointing out they exist and are quite significant.
Incidentally, I'd be quite curious to hear our hostess enumerate some of the male privilege she perceives... I'm sure there are things I am unaware of.
Jeff-
20-30% while used as a statistic on HOUSE does not constitute the actual numbers. This particular statistic is very tricky to measure due to the very nature of the question. With the data available geneticists wager its closer to 10-15%.
Now on to patriarchy, while your right men tend to fear being cuckolded for very good reasons. Demeaning women for being sexually promiscuous is an issue. Because men can have many sexual partners with little if any complaint. And if cuckolding is a man's fear issue. Feelings of inadequacy because they can't keep a man around is a womans. Not so much adultery itself, as the act of discarding a woman in spite of previous affection betraying her trust and feelings in the process.
Also there is a question as to whether promiscuity before marriage leads to more unhappy, defunct, adulterous and or bad marriages; Than those with two people who have a more restrained sexual lifestyle. This is a question, it is purely based on anecdotal descriptions. The data on this is not accurate and it will certainly be skewed. But it seems to hold enough water in my personal experience to warrant a thought and concede to it being a possibility.
Jeff I think we'd agree that promisucity as a whole is definitely not good for the person or the society. But I think we can both recognize that you can't demand a double standard. Besides being unfair, its illogical, and it is just as stupid for men as it is for women from uwnanted pregnancy to disease.
My mother used to work in academic publishing, and sometimes she would bring journals home from the office -- I remember when I was about ten she brought home a special issue of Signs called "Feminisms at a Millenium." I couldn't make sense of it: one of the articles said something like "If only there was a single word to describe people concerned with improving the condition of women!" Why not feminism? I asked Mom. The short answer was that feminists squabble and make splinter movements.
So you could just say you subscribe to one of many "feminisms."
My mother used to work in academic publishing, and sometimes she would bring journals home from the office -- I remember when I was about ten she brought home a special issue of Signs called "Feminisms at a Millenium." I couldn't make sense of it: one of the articles said something like "If only there was a single word to describe people concerned with improving the condition of women!" Why not feminism? I asked Mom. The short answer was that feminists squabble and make splinter movements.
So you could just say you subscribe to one of many "feminisms."
At 01 Jul 2008 01:44 pm Megan wrote:
Men are not, for example, socially punished for monogamy the way that women are socially punished for promiscuity.
You should speak to divorced men who were faithful and monogamous who were then stripped of home, assets, income, family and children.
They were quite severely socially punished for their faithfulness and monogamy.
My dad had a saying, "a radical feminist is someone who believes women are equal to men, only more so." He also wondered why they were so pro-abortion, since their hatred of men obviated their need for it.
Having said all that, I consider myself a feminist in the same way you do. And I'm sure most other women in our post-Boomer age bracket do too. Because we consider ourselves free to make life's most important decisions without the approval of men, we're not interested in banging the drum for government-induced parity the way Amanda Marcotte would like.
Is there inequality? Of course. There's inequality in everything! Heck, my 4 month-old daughter doesn't treat my husband and me equally, and she hasn't even been influenced by the patriarchal American culture that Ms. Marcotte et al think is so pernicious.
I think you should continue to call yourself a feminist. If enough women of our mindset adopt the term, then maybe we can succeed in expropriating it from the Marcottes of the world.
But if you truly believe in equality, why not call yourself a humanist or a egalitarian? A "feminist" is only as equality-minded as a "masculinist" would be.
I haven't read the above comments from other readers, but I wanted to assure you of something regarding this quote:
"If you do not agree with these propositions, you are a non-feminist, or an anti-feminist."
It's not true. Feminists come in ALL shapes forms and sizes, that's the beauty of it. I think it is useful for us to get out of these strict definitions and move beyond them in order to diversify the feminist movement.
"The feminist movement has a right to define what constitutes being a member"
We are all the feminist movement, as said above, so if you want to call yourself a member, go right ahead! It shouldn't be a taboo to call yourself a feminist just because you don't think you fit in. It's like utilizing the basic stereotypes of feminism to define feminists: lesbian, man-hater, hairy, etc. I am not any of those things and I still consider myself feminist. Just like these other things you mention above (abortion, etc.) that are now a part of the stereotypical feminist movement, you don't have to encompass them all to be a part of it! :D
reading through this thread makes me realize that i probably did the right thing by not giving a crap about this shit.
so long, suckers.
"6) Women receive much lighter sentences for the same crime than men."
TR: It's true. A study on the death penalty I read said that gender was about the biggest factor in its implementation. It's a much bigger factor than race and, I believe, a bigger factor than race of the victim. A woman is much less likely to get the death penalty for the same crime than a man. (The other main factor was education. Uneducated people got sentenced more. So in theory an educated woman should be about the safest from the death penalty and, to be honest, I can't think of a well-educated woman on death row)
On the slapping though I think there's a certain degree of fairness in this. On average men are taller and have greater upper-body strength. So a man slapping a woman really isn't the same as a woman slapping a man. However if the man is very small or weak, I'm both, I think this "rule" shouldn't apply and often wouldn't. If a woman slapped me I think she would be criticized. Still I have heard of times where a dwarfish man will slap a woman and be treated much worse than a woman slapping a dwarf. That strikes me as generally unfair, although I'd make an exemption if the dwarf is some kind of body-builder.
No, there's not.
You, as a small guy, could go pick a fight with a 6 foot tall bodybuilder and when he whups your butt, you'd be considered a fool for starting the fight.
A woman, on the other hand, can go pick a fight with a guy (about the same size relation) and the guy is in the wrong for retaliating if he does return her blows.
"The punishment for diverging from social expectation is much more severe for the woman than for the man."
Yes...for THAT specific behavior. The societal disapproval for a man who doesn't work is significantly greater than for a woman who doesn't work. The societal disapproval for an unattractive woman is greater than for an unattractive man. The societal disapproval for a man complaining about how he is treated is greater than if a woman does the same thing. The societal disapproval for a man who wants to work with children is very much greater than for a woman who wants to work with children. And on, and on.
Yes, there are many ways in which women are held to different standards than men, but the reverse is true as well. Society expects different things from the genders but simply pointing out one example where woman get the short end of the stick doesn't do much to show that women are "oppressed" currently.
"We are all the feminist movement, as said above, so if you want to call yourself a member, go right ahead!"
Then what's the point?
The only use of any term is to indicate this rather than that. If the term "feminist" means "a person willing to be called 'feminist'" it doesn't indicate anything.
Indeed, some article complaining about why women don't call themselves feminists are, in my view, quite sufficient reason to not call myself one. Cheerful burble about how I can line-item veto any views I like leave me wondering -- well, why do you want me to call myself feminist?
"A woman, on the other hand, can go pick a fight with a guy (about the same size relation) and the guy is in the wrong for retaliating if he does return her blows."
Some of that's still around, but I've noticed it declining some. I think in people 30 and under there's greater acceptance that a man can defend himself if a woman starts an unprovoked physical attack on him. Granted there is skepticism that this would happen very often and I think some of that skepticism is warranted. (In general most people, male or female, really don't go around slapping each other for no apparent reason)
I'll admit a problem lies in what counts as "unprovoked." One young woman told me that when a woman attacks a man it's always because the man did something to provoke her, even in cases where it's not at all obvious he did so. In one case we knew a teacher whose wife ran him over with a car and her response was that this must somehow be in response to something he did at some point.
. . . we consider ourselves free to make life's most important decisions without the approval of men . . . If enough women of our mindset adopt the term, then maybe we can succeed in expropriating it from the Marcottes of the world.
Christina 11:18 AM
The problem, Christina, is that your ability to decide life's most important decisions came about largely because of women like the Marcottes of the world. So while she might be too attached to the methods of the past (and impolite on top of it), you seem to be ignoring what it took to get to today.
It's no insight to say that your ability to decide wasn't always a given; the right to vote, property rights, nurse vs. doctor, secretary vs. CFO, USO vs. RIO - those decisions weren't possible just a few generations back on your family tree.
Cheers,
Thomas R said: "On the slapping though I think there's a certain degree of fairness in this. On average men are taller and have greater upper-body strength. So a man slapping a woman really isn't the same as a woman slapping a man."
OK, how about when she kicks him in the groin? I think the assumption by most is that he deserved it.......
That's because women are weak (according to this standard). When have we ever excused a guy hitting someone else for what that other person said? Apparently women, unlike men, are incapable of controlling their emotions, otherwise we would not allow this excuse of their violence.
That's what the double standard really says. And yet, we have women who support it because, in their view, it allows them to hit men so that they can "keep men in line" or "keep him from saying such things". Apparently they don't even consider what they are really saying about themselves.
Gee, Demonspawn, your horizons are pretty limited.
Next time you're out at a bar, pick out a guy, any guy, and try "Your sister's a whore" on him. Chances are high that you'll get hit and then we'll find out if anyone excuses his behavior. Chances are again high that quite a few will.
Of course that simple experiment won't overturn the mountains of data your comments are built upon, but it would be an interesting start.
Cheers,
Hrm.. I have to insult his sister? How about I insult him instead and then see how many excuse his behavior? I'll bet it will be less people, to the point of virtually none. In fact, I'll bet the support would be so low, and he would know it, that I wouldn't even get struck.
And then I'll go up to a woman and insult her brother.. after she hits me shall we compare the number of excusers? And then if I insult her? The number will be greatly higher. The popular support for women hitting men is so high that it's no longer perceived as the woman's fault for hitting him, but instead his fault for saying something that upset her.
Start with the male-female sentencing disparity. If you're not invested enough to research it, another simple experiment will work: open the newspaper. You will find when a man is the accused, the story will be rather cut and dry or sometimes go into his prior 'bad behavior' yet when a woman is the accused, you will often (not always, but often) get some sort of story about her hard past, her difficult situation, or some other excuse as to 'why this poor innocent woman did what she did'
I find myself very sympathetic to some core values and aims of socialists, anarchists, Christians, Buddhists, Republicans, and Rotarians, even though I would emphatically not consider myself any of these things. Are labels really that important, other than as useful cognitive sorting devices?
(I say this with full acknowledgment that "feminist" might indeed be a special case, and one that I am especially incapable of understanding due to my possession of a Y chromosome.)
And you're trying to prove what exactly - that society treats men and women differently? I'll give you that. But spare me if you believe that the balance favors women.
That society can be more lenient on women than on men under certain circumstances? I'll give you that. And there are plenty of other circumstances where society is harder on women.
That society is always more lenient on women than on men? That it's a woman's world out there? That wimmin really get away with all that head-bangin' they're constantly up to? That female-on-male violence is more prevalent or anywhere near the problem than the reverse? Well, sorry, then you're into delusional territory.
And you're trying to prove what exactly - that society treats men and women differently? I'll give you that. But spare me if you believe that the balance favors women.
I'm curious about this. What do you see are the primary ways that today's society's differential treatment of gender works to the disadvantage of women?
SG;
I'm not a woman, so I'm seeing it from an 'outsiders' viewpoint - though I presume I can still speak to society's viewpoint.
I'd put career in first place, ‘sex’ in second place, and what I'll call the bimbo factor in third place. The nutshell version is that women’s careers can still be held back by negative gender stereotyping (e.g. she can’t do it versus give him a chance to prove himself), that women are held to a (much) higher standard when it comes to sexual relations (e.g. boys-will-be-boys hi-jinx versus sleep-around slut), and that women can be more easily dismissed, i.e. general gender stereotyping (female driver, ditzy blonde, etc.).
These things have gotten much better over my lifetime – certainly in America – but they also hit at some fundamental pillars of people’s lives. Building a career is tough enough on its own merits, but having to put up with that extra layer of bullshit would grind to no end. What the women are saying is that these things still exist, and to a much greater extent than men realize.
But I’m curious to hear what might be your counterpoints.
Apparently, reality is delusional.
Source: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence.
Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.
Don't ask me why they were surprised... We've known this for over 30 years: www.dvstats.org
Any more delusion you want to throw my way?
What the women are saying is that these things still exist, and to a much greater extent than men realize.
I don't deny that things exist that make life difficult for women, but I also think our society has a number of cases where men are at a disadvantage (reproductive rights, family law, workplace policies, socially acceptable life paths, etc.)
In particular, I think society has become especially difficult for young boys as "masculine" things have fallen steadily out of favor; physical activity and competition are out, math has been deemphasized in favor of reading & writing, etc.
But pointing out that there are areas where men are disfavored is not meant to imply that I think it's better to be female. I simply don't get the sense that today, on net, either gender is unduly (dis)favored. Not to say that we're in a utopia, but I would be hard-pressed to say that either gender is clearly disadvantaged; they are differently advantaged (or differently disadvantaged).
That was the case before feminism, back when gender roles for each gender existed and were relatively enforced. Men had their sets of advantages and disadvantages, women had another set of advantages and disadvantages. What feminism has done is allow women to take men's advantages.. which would of been fine were it to either allow men to take women's advantages (not really) or had women also accept men's disadvantages (not at all). On top of that, feminism has morphed from a movement of equality to a women's advocacy group such that they also want women's disadvantages reduced.
So using the past as a baseline, and noticing the changes that have taken place since... I'd say that were we to add it all up we'd notice that men are, overall, disadvantaged compared to women, because women have much more choice and freedom than men.
And this is a problem how, Rofe?
We don't need to call ourselves feminists because of what feminists -- many of whom are not the current crop of feminists -- did for us. I don't know any woman who calls herself a suffragist.
We do not owe the Marcottes of the world gratitude for what women "like" them did. For instance, we need be grateful to no woman alive for the right to vote. And we certainly don't need to be grateful to those women who call themselves feminists and are doing their best to disenfranchise us through judical activism, treaties, and giving authority to the UN. (I've seen feminists doing all this.)
We certainly don't owe them any gratitude for anything we wish they hadn't done and would stop trying to do.
Django wrote:
True enough but considering what a degraded, sick farce academia has become
If by "academia" you mean "most of the humanities these days", I'll bite. While there are definitely issues in the academic world, large chunks of it work on the premise of very reasonable standards of evidence, indeed the best that the world has ever known. Certainly politics rears its ugly head but over the long haul truth will out in science in a way that it doesn't seem to elsewhere.
And we get cool toys.
Mary, you seem to be content railing against things I didn't say. But since you also seem to be content reeling off a list of the right's favorite bugaboos, I'm not surprised.
Call yourself whatever you want. Be grateful to whomever you want. I didn't write anything to the contrary. What I did recommend was for someone to have a bit of perspective instead of frothing about what feminists - their cartoon version of feminists - are trying to do to them.
Put it this way. Put your ". . . women who call themselves feminists (and) are doing their best to disenfranchise us through judical activism, treaties . . ." into the context of women's suffrage. Or women going to medical school. Or women driving Indy cars. Or women serving in the military. You can bet that your exact same sentiment was used to argue against all of those . . . things.
I would call them advances. You might disagree.
Cheers,
"For instance, we need be grateful to no woman alive for the right to vote."
TR: I largely agree, but I think there actually are a few women still alive who were adults in 1920. I'm not sure if there's any living suffragists, but it doesn't seem impossible.
Demonspawn,
I owe you apologies for both tone and fact. Very interesting article and, to me, extremely surprising. One article doesn't seal the questions, of course, but it will certainly make me look into this more deeply and, if other research substantiates this, make me change my viewpoint. But consider it substantially shaken.
Color me not only surprised but sheepish as well. Again, apologies.
Cheers,
Mary, you seem to be content railing against things I didn't say. But since you also seem to be content reeling off a list of the right's favorite bugaboos, I'm not surprised.
On the contrary, I made a counterargument against your bait-and-switch argument.
And you seem content to ignore it and attempt to repeat your legermain.
Call yourself whatever you want. Be grateful to whomever you want. I didn't write anything to the contrary. What I did recommend was for someone to have a bit of perspective instead of frothing about what feminists - their cartoon version of feminists - are trying to do to them.>
You recommended it on blatantly invalid grounds.
Put it this way. Put your ". . . women who call themselves feminists (and) are doing their best to disenfranchise us through judical activism, treaties . . ." into the context of women's suffrage. Or women going to medical school. Or women driving Indy cars. Or women serving in the military.
Why?
First off, they are different women.
Second off, once you put them in the same context, you realize that they are working for the opposite things. The women I am citing falling in the same balwark as Simone de Beauvoir's desire that women should not be allowed to become housewives, precisely because they would -- and too many of them , in Beauvoir's eyes.
You can bet that your exact same sentiment was used to argue against all of those . . . things.
Lucky for you I don't gamble. Otherwise I would tell you to put your money where your mouth is. You should really consider the possibility that people can know the same history as you do, and still come to different conclusions.
Here, there's no argument, because the conclusion is a matter of fact. People who argued for the franchise for women argued that women are component to decide their own affairs. People who argue for judicial activism and government by UN and treaty argue that "this good thing wouldn't happen without it" -- thereby obsurcing that you don't believe that unless you believe that women are unable, using the franchise, to decide their own affairs.
I would call them advances. You might disagree.
Straw man.
That's why I also supplied the http://www.dvstats.org link. From there you can see around 200 studies dating back over 30 years demonstrating women are as equally or more violent than men. It has also been stated that there are no dual-gender relationship studies (opposed to crime reports) that show men are more violent than women.
Well let's question: were they advances? What criteria do we want to use for "advancement"? If we want to use the criteria of "did women get more rights?" then yes, these are advancements plain as day. However, let's use another criteria and ask the question again: "did women entering these fields improve the field?" That's a much harder question, and current indications would demonstrate that the above were not advancements at all.
Women's suffrage has increased the size of our government from 3% GNP (maintained for decades, sans wartime) to 36% GNP (and still growing).
Women in medical school has lead to an extreme shortage of doctors in the UK as women make up the majority of entering doctors for the last decade or so and leave practice much much sooner than their male counterparts. There are indications that the US is going to follow this trend.
Women driving Indy cars I don't care about either way as it is a spectator sport.
Women in the military has been disastrous for the military. It has lowered morale, unit cohesion, indoctrination, and combat readiness.
Now, using which criteria do we wish to measure "advancement" ?
What the women are saying is that these things still exist, and to a much greater extent than men realize.
I don't deny that things exist that make life difficult for women, but I also think our society has a number of cases where men are at a disadvantage (reproductive rights, family law, workplace policies, socially acceptable life paths, etc.)
In particular, I think society has become especially difficult for young boys as "masculine" things have fallen steadily out of favor; physical activity and competition are out, math has been deemphasized in favor of reading & writing, etc.
But pointing out that there are areas where men are disfavored is not meant to imply that I think it's better to be female. I simply don't get the sense that today, on net, either gender is unduly (dis)favored. Not to say that we're in a utopia, but I would be hard-pressed to say that either gender is clearly disadvantaged; they are differently advantaged (or differently disadvantaged).
Posted by SG | July 3, 2008 2:37 PM
SG seems, to me, the rational voice. I think, though, even he is burying the lede. We, male & female, are both, by and large, being surpressed.
We are involved in a Conceit, rather Malthusian, that dictates that One can, only, succeed, at the expense of another.
This is the Prime Fallacy of 'Feminism'--as per Abzug, Steinem, et al..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/internecine
We were meant to be Partners, not Adversaries, in order to Grow and Prosper. We continus this, internecine, fight at our own peril.
Hoo-boy, where do I start?
Demonspawn, the article you linked to opened my eyes. As I said, I’ll look into it further. But you should have stopped while you were ahead.
Mary, you’re so intent on supporting your conservative holies (where was it that you last saw those black UN helicopters landing?) that your argument lost all coherence. For example, explain your “bait-and-switch” charge. And your “strawman” dismissal? That’s the heart of my point - do you see those things as advances for women, despite the fact that they didn’t necessarily come from the ballot box, or not?
So, now we’re down to brass tacks. Mary says women, once franchised, should take care of their own affairs via the ballot box. Demonspawn says women, once franchised, have been sending this country – and apparently the UK, too – to hell in a handbasket.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, indeed.
Yep, pretty much.
Had a discussion with an older feminist this weekend and I got her to understand it by this argument which I hope will work with you:
What works better, 20 people doing the same thing or 20 people working as a team? Don't you realize that the "liberation of women" has gotten them to stop working as a team and instead competing against men, which reduces the advantage twicefold?
Hi,
Seems to me that your feminism is, simply, conservative feminism. You believe in the exact same end goal as liberal feminism, but are wary of both the artificial methods and over-reaching arguments contrived to bring about that end. Perfectly reasonable, but as your initial post makes clear, haunted by the problem of how a conservative who does want society to change conceptualizes and implements how that change should happen. To me, the answer, at least on rights issues, is fairly simple. Faith that the end in which you believe is in fact an inevitable result of reason working its magic on society.
I happen not to agree with this notion, because I believe that the delay caused by simply waiting for the inevitable is worse then the potential short term damage caused by some of the solutions. As an example, I think that the long term benefit of much of the civil rights legislation enacted in the last half century, by accelerating income and education equality, in net outweighs the short term friction they may have caused.
In general, the reason that I consider myself a liberal, is that my faith in the specific application of reason over the short, mid, and long term slightly outweighs my optimism in reason's ability, generally, to bring about desirable results passively.
A long way of saying that I do think you are a feminist.
Ms. Marcotte comes off as so very charming. Wow, I'd really like to meet her. She seems so gracious and kind. And so pleasant to be around. Never arrogant.
I think that this would be something very appropriate for your website to talk about. Women and girls need to be considered equals in life, and as my story shows, girls can earn the respect they deserve. A very young girls' soccer team played in a league that they dominated. The girls won every game, even against other girls that were older than them. Their coach made a bold move and put them into the boys league. This was met with some criticism, but as the girls did exceptionally well, it made people stop and think about what was fair and right concerning girls and boys. People should not be discriminated against based on gender, and these girls overcame that discrimination. Watch the trailer at www.kicklikeagirlmovie.com and see what you think.
hey, way to mischaracterize MacKinnon! Here's an actual excerpt from Chapter 8:
Feminism has not confronted, on its own terms, the relation between state and society within a theory of social determination specific to sex. As a result, it lacks a jurisprudence, that is, a theory of the substance of law, its relation to society, and the relationship between the two. Such a theory would comprehend how law works as a form of state power in a social context in which power is gendered. It would answer the questions: What is state power? Where, socially, does it come from? How do women encounter it? What is the law for women? How does law work to legitimate the state, male power, itself? Can law do anything for women? Can it do anything about women’s status? Does how the law is used matter? (Ch. 8 ¶ 6)
In the absence of answers, feminist practice has oscillated between a liberal theory of the state on the one hand and a left theory of the state on the other. Both theories treat law as the mind of society: disembodied reason in liberal theory, reflection of material interest in left theory. In liberal moments, the state is accepted on its own terms as a neutral arbiter among conflicting interests. The law is actually or potentially principled, meaning predisposed to no substantive outcome, or manipulable to any ends, thus available as a tool that is not fatally twisted. Women implicitly become an interest group within pluralism, with specific problems of mobilization and representation, exit and voice, sustaining incremental gains or losses. In left moments, the state becomes a tool of dominance and repression, the law legitimating ideology, use of the legal system a form of utopian idealism or gradualist reform, each apparent gain deceptive or cooptive, and each loss inevitable. (Ch. 8 ¶ 7)
Liberalism applied to women has supported state intervention on behalf of women as abstract persons with abstract rights, without scrutinizing the content and limitations of these notions in terms of gender. Marxism applied to women is always on the edge of counseling abdication of the state as an arena altogether—and with it those women whom the state does not ignore or who are in no position to ignore it. As a result, feminism has been left with these tacit alternatives: either the state is a primary tool of women’s betterment and status transformation, without analysis (hence strategy) of it as male; or women are left to civil society, which for women has more closely resembled a state of nature. The state, and with it the law, have been either omnipotent or impotent: everything or nothing. The feminist posture toward the state has therefore been schizoid on issues central to women’s status. Rape, abortion, pornography, and sex discrimination are examples.. To grasp the inadequacies for women of liberalism on the one hand and marxism on the other is to begin to comprehend the role of the liberal state and liberal legislation within a post-marxist feminism of social transformation. (Ch. 8 ¶ 8)