In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Women: Ruining the World

Because Judeo-Christian values are apparently experiencing a major devaluation, women suddenly have power — and now they’ve gone off and ruined everything. Oh, and Christianity’s oppression of women is reason #22 why it’s really fantastic.

Who lets these nutjobs publish this shit?

Judeo-Christian values do not conflate equality with sameness. But the Left rejects any suggestion of innate sexual differences. That is why the president of Harvard University nearly lost his job for merely suggesting that one reason there are fewer women in engineering and science faculties is that the female and male brains differ in their capacities in these areas. A secular liberal who advocates affirmative action based on sex, Harvard’s president nevertheless also has — or had, until his humiliation at the hands of his faculty — a belief in seeking truth.

And the truth is that men and women are profoundly different.

One of these differences is that women generally have a more difficult time transcending their emotions than men. There are, of course, millions of individual women — such as Margaret Thatcher — who are far more rational than many men; but that only makes these women’s achievements all the more admirable. It hardly invalidates the proposition.

Women (except for Margaret Thatcher) are crying emotional wrecks who should not be allowed to handle anything that requires “rationality.”

To say that the human race needs masculine and feminine characteristics is to state the obvious. But each sex comes with prices. Men can too easily lack compassion, reduce sex to animal behavior and become violent. And women’s emotionality, when unchecked, can wreak havoc on those closest to these women and on society as a whole — when emotions and compassion dominate in making public policy.

Why do women’s emotionalities go unchecked? My best guess is because men aren’t doing their part (animal behavior, violence, etc). And as a sidenote, who would you rather have in charge: A crazed animalistic brute, or a compassionate but overly-sensitive person? Hmmm.

The latter is what is happening in America. The Left has been successful in supplanting masculine virtues with feminine ones. That is why “compassion” is probably the most frequently cited value. That is why the further left you go, the greater the antipathy to those who make war. Indeed, universities, the embodiment of feminist emotionality and anti-Judeo-Christian values, ban military recruiters and oppose war-themed names for their sports teams.

Here’s where I’m confused: Since when is “feminist” the same as “feminine”? I thought we feminists were all combat-boot-wearing baby-hating bull-dykes? We don’t have “compassion”! We just want to wage war on men!

In the micro realm, the feminine virtues are invaluable — for example, women hear infants’ cries far more readily than men do. But as a basis for governance of society, the feminization of public policy is suicidal.

Ah yes. That mystical feminine gift of being able to hear. I’m so glad that God made the sexes inherently equal by giving men all the power, and granting me the ability to know if a baby is screaming. This sure makes me proud to be a Christian.

Pandagon has more.


39 thoughts on Women: Ruining the World

  1. It’s amazing the lengths they will go to to fuck up what can be a thoroughly decent religion. I can only point out that the word compassion literally means “suffering with” and it is supposed to be the whole point of Christ on the cross. Jesus suffered with us, or for us, depending on your interpretation.

    According to these guys, that makes Jesus a feminist, which I guess I sort of believe, too.

  2. Jill, I’m disappointed that you so savagely butchered Prager’s column. Some of his points are trite and oversimplified, and it’s a fairly hamfisted attempt by a man to address an issue that’s been rendered “taboo” for men to discuss in today’s society, but he does make himself clear (especially in his opening and closing remarks) that he isn’t deriding women at all.

    There are things that women (not down to the person, mind you, but a vast majority) are, always have been, and always will be, better at than men. The converse, too, is true. In those differences lie the harmony that makes the world go around. An example: My strength in crises and level head in the midst of chaos made me ideally suited to working as a paramedic. My wife’s strong suit is organization and goal-oriented work, and she’s perfect in her role as an RN. I would flounder in her job, as I would consider it monotonous and repetitive, and she in turn would (by her own admission) rather take a poke in the eye with a sharp stick than to be thrust into some of the situations I am in regularly. Between the two of us, working at two distinctly different careers for which we are each very well suited, careers that give each of us many emotional rewards, would you dare to say which is more important? The paramedic and the nurse have very different, but equally vital roles. Without her role, my work would be incomplete, and without mine, hers would frequently not even start. Such is the case between men and women.

    The errors in the past centered upon men’s tendency to look down upon women’s roles. WWII pretty much shook that to the foundation. Women displayed their capacity to “step up” and do whatever was necessary to keep this country rolling, in a HUGE way–to the point that I’m quite sure the conflict would have had a drastically different outcome without their efforts. Perhaps the same goal would have been achieved had the troops and the “home front warriors” both been a more even mix of men and women, but I don’t think so. A gun doesn’t particularly care who pulls the trigger, but I doubt the men would have been as effective back here.

    To you who insist upon taking men’s roles in society, I would issue a word of caution. “Our place” is an insult to your strengths.

    I truly believe that the epitome of God’s creation was Woman. If He made anything better, He kept it for himself.

  3. heh heh. My favorite part is towards the end, when he blames women running the schools for banning dodgeball, ‘cuz it might hurt some kid’s “feelings”—funny, I always thought it was to prevent litigation from angry parents, upset over Jr.’s glasses getting broken (or some other injury). Oh well—when all else fails, blame a woman!

    And I just love it when men assure women that when they seek to limit the full range and expression of our humanity, particularly if it diverts from their definition of what is properly feminine, they are really “honoring” us. Kinda like a pickpocket assuring you of the good they are doing by taking away your heavy burden of a wallet!

  4. Indeed, universities, the embodiment of feminist emotionality and anti-Judeo-Christian values, ban military recruiters

    Bullshit. Recruiters were at my university last week. While the student body is very conservative, the faculty is liberal, but that didn’t stop them letting the recruiters in.

  5. Dodgeball was my favorite sport in gym. Finally, a sport which let me do what comes naturally to me when a ball is coming at me! Unfortunately, all the other sports required that I actually catch the ball, rather than dodging it.

  6. If avoiding war and trying to avoid killing children with peanut allergies and tring to avoid breaking childrens’ noses in dodgeball are not rational, I want to be irrational…

    Worst though, Prager’s conflation of “Judeo-Christian values” with militarism is outrageous. Talk.. about… missing… the… point…. (Too bad the Anabaptists and the Quakers could never gain any sizeable popularity.)

    (And I want to second the part about recruiters at universities… Here at Indiana – a classic example of a liberal university, at least as liberal as they get in the Midwest – we most definitely have recruiters, not to mention a whole ROTC.)

  7. Bo, whereas you begin by at least admitting that these supposed truths about men and women are not true for every man and every woman, you end by referring to “men’s roles in society”. How about letting both men and women decide what their proper places in society are? I’ve come to the conclusion over the past few years that, whatever my proper place may be, it’s sure as hell gotta be more than kid-herding and housework (which, as everyone who’s ever seen my place would agree, I’m not suited to).
    And peace is a non-Christian value? Who knew? So the bit about letting the thief take your cloak is obsolete, too – um, who exactly was it that said that, anyway?

  8. Again, what Ledasmom said. There’s nothing inherently masculine about level-headedness in a crisis, and nothing inherently feminine about tedious work. Some nurses work in the ER. Research is tedious and goal-oriented, and science is overwhelmingly male.

  9. Actually, Bo, do you realize how little your stereotypes have in common with others I’ve heard trotted out? Go over to amptoons.com/blog, and check out the post on the article about sex-segregated classrooms. Who’s goal-oriented, according to that teacher?

  10. Bo-

    Saying “I’m not deriding women” isn’t the equivalent to actually not deriding women. Making sweeping generalizations about a particular group’s lack of ability is a derision, whether or not you add it, “But look, they’re good at this other stuff…” I wonder if you’d have the same reaction if he had written something like, “God separated the races in the Bible. This is one reason why Christianity is superior to every other religion, but now it’s gone and got all messed up with black and brown people in positions of authority. Blacks overwhelmingly vote for liberals, so clearly they are too compassionate and overly-sensitive and irrational and have a victim mentality, and therefore having too many of them in government is dangerous. There are a few exceptions, like Clarence Thomas, but for the most part they should stick to the things they’ve proven to be good at — like tending the fields.”

    Pretty offensive, huh? But yet it’s acceptable to make the same argument based on sex.

    The fact is that gender roles are a complex interplay between nature and nurture — we weren’t all just born with all of our personality traits and preferences pre-determined by God. Many of them were created and cultivated.

    As for your WWII analogy, look what followed it — a huge cultural backlash that sent “good” women (that is, middle and upper-income women) back to the home. An embrace of women’s God-given roles, right?

    Well, no thanks. I’d rather decide for myself what my role is than have Dennis Prager tell me that I have no place in policy-making or any other occupation that requires rational thought. And likewise, if you decide that you want to stay home with your kids, more power to you. The “complementary roles” scenario is BS, as is the assertion that both roles are equally valued by conservatives and religious folks. If women’s roles as homemakers are equally valued, how about some financial compensation for their “equally valuable” work? (Let me be clear here that I do think home-making and child-rearing are incredibly valuable; I just don’t buy the argument that it takes a vagina to do it right).

  11. I am trying to imagine what part of homemaking a vagina could possible be required for, and really, really hoping that it isn’t floor-cleaning. Or washing dishes. Because if it’s washing dishes, I’ve been doing it wrong for a long time, and anyway I don’t think I’m limber enough for that any more.

  12. Well, it went on a (ahem) sit-down strike after the last (eight-pound twelve-ounce) kid, and wouldn’t do a thing until I agreed to a contract.

  13. Did you finally agree to a contract, or is it still in negotiation?

    Although my vagina doesn’t do floors either, and it’s never agreed to pass a child at all. Of course given that my children were both over nine pounds, maybe it considered that hostile work conditions…

  14. Jill (and others):
    I suppose the point I was trying to convey is that this is sort-of a half-full vs. half-empty debate. If a concert pianist and a violinist swapped instruments, the poor efforts at music would be due to their respective weaknesses. When they swapped back, the beautiful sounds would be due to their respective strengths. Which is the better musician? And after hearing them on their instruments of professional expertise, would you call the pianist a great pianist or a piss-poor violinist?

    I repeat that the grave mistake made by men was to fail to give the proper recognition to the importance and dignity of women and their labours, considering a “woman’s work” far below their own pursuits. Somewhere along the way, the Biblical idea of “submission” was replaced by its perverted cousins, “subservience” and “subordination.” There’s nothing degrading in willful submission, but the other two are imposed by someone else, and have no place between men and women.

    piny, I think I may have used an incorrect term when I related my wife’s “goal-oriented” tendencies. I should know better than to blog on such deep subjects after a wicked day at the office . . . What I was trying to convey is not tedium or methodology, but rather the different set of priorities needed to achieve long-term goals, instead of short-term problem solving. Better terms may have been, “patience” and/or “perseverence.” I do apologize for the mistake.

    Again, my overall impression here is that one is hard pressed to deny some significant differences in the sexes that go beyond the obvious physical distinctions. In recognizing them, however, it’s far better to look at those differences as different sets of strengths, rather than different sets of weaknesses.

  15. I apologize for taking up so much space in this forum, but there’s a little more information about me that may be pertinent, for those of you who don’t know.

    My wife, the nurse referenced in my first comment, is currently working nights, and I work days in my own business. We have five children, comprised of a teen boy, third-grade triplet daughters, and a little boy in kindergarten. Our schedules being as they are, she and I split the housework and the child-care responsibilities pretty much down the middle. I tend feeding the kids, getting them through the bath and into bed, clean up the kitchen, then get everybody up and going, feed breakfast, fix hair, and make sure everyone’s shirt and pants are on right, then get them off to school. On days that she’s off, I still do some of that, but she takes some of those chores, and I get onto things in the yard, or things that need to be done to the house (been quite a lot of that since that Katrina bitch dropped by).

    Now, from the time the triplets were about 9 months old until they started school, my wife wanted to stay at home with them, and I took extra work to make it happen. During that time, the inside of the house, and nearly all the childcare responsibilities were hers, as I was quite literally away from home about 2/3 of the time. The 1/3 of my time that I wasn’t working, I tended the outdoor stuff.

    So when I talk about things that women or men are better at than the other sex, a lot of it is experience. I feel, while I’m doing my girls’ hair in the mornings, kinda like I’m driving my lawn mower to work. It may get the task accomplished, but it’s not its primary function. My wife hates having to do any of the “yard work” or fixing stuff, as well. Just because there’s a difference in what we’re good at doesn’t mean that either of us are incapable of doing what the other does. Staying within our strengths, however, makes things run much more efficiently.

  16. Bo.

    So, you do a lot of housework and dinner fixing. That doesn’t give you a ‘pass’ for chauvinistic comments that are couched in hail-fellow-well-met terminology. That’s one of the maddening characteristics for me in having conversations about gender and biology vs. socialization with men—the first thing that comes up is some version of “I’m not/can’t be a sexist, because I cook and clean around the house, too”. Hey, it’s your house. Those are your kids. Why wouldn’t you cook and clean? Ain’t nobody handing me a gold medal for cooking, cleaning, vacuuming, doing the laundry….or cutting the grass, powerwashing the deck, repairing the ‘running’ toilet, installing receptacles, painting the living room….whatever.

    Think about your analogy with the musicians. What makes a person a musician? Well, exposure to musical education, or opportunity for musical self-education is a start. After that, lots and lots of practice.

    How much practice did you get as a child in hairstyling? Did you practice much hairstyling as a young man? Did you do much hairstyling before having children? No? How about lawn mowing? Home or car repair? Contrast that with how much experience your wife had with hairstyling vs. home or car repair. Still think biology is the determining factor, and not socialization?

    See, I’m one of those women who is always bumping up against the stereotype of what “proper” women do, or what “proper” women are. I’m one of those women who blows the lid off of visual/spatial tests, who likes to work on mechanical things, digs so-called “masculine” pursuits like martial arts and mountain biking. And I never fail to hear the old canard, “but you’re different“.

    Really? Why then are so many corporations devoting so many advertising dollars to women like me? If we were truly so few in number this would not be happening. “DIY” is a national trend that is increasingly driven by women. I remember reading a statistic a few years ago about the number of single women who DIY their own oil change for their vehicle—almost 30%. Those advertising images of women doing non-traditional activities aren’t “political correctness”, but smart business—reaching out to an already-existing and ever-growing demographic. Why ever-growing? Because women are continuing to knock down barriers of what is considered “proper”. More women (as adults) are discovering talents they never knew they had, reaching across the barrier of artificially gendered talents (or as you refer to them, strengths).

    And there’s a false dichotomy in this too, that by developing so-called “masculine” strengths, we therefore must be relinquishing so-called “feminine” traits. Bo, some folks have a real vested interest in limiting the full human development of women. Why do you want to sound like one of them?

  17. I feel, while I’m doing my girls’ hair in the mornings, kinda like I’m driving my lawn mower to work. It may get the task accomplished, but it’s not its primary function.

    What the hell? Are women supposed to be better at fixing hair? The best thing about having two boys is that nobody will ever expect me to know a damn thing about what you do with hair or makeup (if one of them becomes a transvestite, he’s going to have to talk to his aunt, and I want to be there to record it).
    See, this is what gets me about this feminine-nurturing crap: I don’t do nurturing. You amputated your finger with the meat cleaver, kid? Well, stop whining about it and get some ice.
    The way you’re talking, anyone would think that yard-work attraction is an inherently male quality, and hairdressing an inherently female one. They aren’t; it’s cultural that guys mow and women braid. I’m glad that you and your wife are able to use your individual strengths to get everything done that needs doing, but will you for the love of lunch stop using your personal marital experience to generalize about men and women?

  18. La Lubu & Ledasmom:

    You have exemplified exactly why I added the second post as an afterthought. I had considered not going into my own experience, as I feared it would be misconstrued just as you have, but discussions had been civil enough, up to this point, that I thought I would avoid the stereotypes you used in attempts to condemn those you perceive I hold dear.

    If you two will set aside your own prejudices for a moment, I’ll try to make my point clear. My second post, the one that seems to have drawn so much fire, wasn’t my attempts to “excuse” my previous comments. It was to try to demonstrate, through my life rather than my words, that I’m not one of the idiots that relegate all duties into either “women’s work” or “men’s work.” I realize, from doing a little of everything through my life that no daily chore is trivial, that in order to maintain a civilized, proper home for human inhabitants, it takes everything being done, and it doesn’t matter so much who does it, or by which gender it’s performed. Bringing home a $4000 a week check doesn’t kill salmonella on the countertops, and keeping the bathrooms clean doesn’t keep the lights turned on. It all has to be done, and I was presenting myself simply as someone who doesn’t consider any facet of any job “below himself.”

    I would speculate that the growth in the DIY industry’s marketing towards women is from several facets, but there are two sides to the coin. How many women are getting into those projects because they want to, and how many are doing them because they have to? Have they been abandoned by the father of their children? Is their significant other incapable or unwilling to do these tasks? Have they chosen to rely only on themselves because the oafs to which they’ve been exposed or attached weren’t anything they could depend upon? Please don’t jump my case on this one–I think it’s proper that women, just as men, learn to do things like general home and auto maintenance, in the same vein that a man who can’t do his own laundry and cooking is a pitiful creature. But I must say that a man who, through incompetence or indifference, forces his wife/girlfriend to do these things isn’t worth killing.

    See, this is what gets me about this feminine-nurturing crap: I don’t do nurturing. You amputated your finger with the meat cleaver, kid? Well, stop whining about it and get some ice.

    That doesn’t make you “non-nurturing”, that makes you a sadist. I know your example was an exaggeration, but “nurturing” isn’t “coddling.” I would assume that you didn’t let your boys, as toddlers, fend for themselves in foraging for food. If you fed them, you nurtured them. If you’re teaching them qualities and values that will serve them well as adults, you’re nurturing them. I am not forwarding a “feminine-nurturing” meme, I’m advocating concentration upon individual strengths in order to find happiness, even if doing so might be damaging to one’s political agenda by conforming to certain currently-taboo stereotypes.

  19. Jill:

    To answer your rhetorical question about who would be
    best in charge, I would agree with the latter:
    “a compassionate but overly sensitive person.” And how.
    I read that same article about the Harvard professor
    disheartening a young girl’s dreams in science and
    medicine by insisting that males fared better in the
    area due to, what was it? oh yes, how
    different our brains functioned. The young student, infuriated, then wrote a letter to her aunt. Little did
    this big, soi-disant enlightened Harvard man know that an
    article would be published in “US” magazine, and every
    other magazine geared towards women. Even worse (and
    to my humor), he was chastised for telling this
    young woman she’d be better off…writing, cleaning, grooming
    dogs’ manes and whatall?
    My professor made a comment earlier last year
    on why women weren’t allowed to operate aircraft in
    the military. Simply put, he asserted that women rely
    entirely, if not mostly, on EMOTIONS. He then used
    a hypothetical instance of a woman hovering over Iraq
    via helicopter and not being able to execute an
    order (i.e. dropping a bomb on “suspicious” headquarters)
    because she may begin crying hysterically thinking about
    her boyfriend back home, or worrying about innocent
    Iraqi children (what is wrong with that?), thus endangering
    herself and her co-pilot. As opposed to dropping
    random bombs and wiping out innocent Iraqui children?!
    And so what if we whole-heartedly rely on emotions?
    We’re good natured for the most part, and I
    think the majority of us are stable enough (including
    the gals at war) to discern right from wrong;
    to do the right thing at the right time…

  20. Again, my overall impression here is that one is hard pressed to deny some significant differences in the sexes that go beyond the obvious physical distinctions. In recognizing them, however, it’s far better to look at those differences as different sets of strengths, rather than different sets of weaknesses

    The point we’re making is that most of these differences are cultural. Caused by sexism. Women are more empathetic because they’ve been trained almost from birth to care more about others than about themselves. Men are more aggressive because they’ve been trained almost from birth to take what they want. Women are more maternal because they’ve been trained almost from birth to believe that taking care of children is “women’s work.” Men are more take-charge because they’ve been trained almost from birth to lead rather than to submit and follow. Women are more patient because they’ve been trained to sit still and be quiet. Men have a hard time sitting still because little boys are allowed to be more rambunctious.

    While I try not to bring transition into everything, I have firsthand experience of this: my personality has changed in the space of a few months as the demands made on me have shifted. As femininity has ceased to be acceptable to the people around me, I have stopped speaking softly and taking up as little space as possible. As people have assumed my competence, I have demonstrated competence. As people have looked to me to lead discussions, procedures, and tasks, I have become a leader. Were the trend in the opposite direction, I don’t doubt I would have responded in the opposite way.

    Like Lauren said: it’s practice. I find it hard to believe that someone with the rare talent of a concert violinist could not also have become a concert pianist. It’s absolutely true that you and your wife and different people with radically different skills. This does not mean that those differences have anything to do with being born different genders–that your wife is innately more patient because she is female.

    You do keep saying that we need to acknowledge everyone’s strengths and value them as a person, which is great and which no one here disagrees with. Nor is anyone here saying that no one can behave in ways which happen to align with gendered stereotypes.

    The problem is that you keep reverting to sexist stereotypes about which gender does what better: using a coincidental skill as evidence that skill is linked to gender. Those stereotypes, no matter how linked with an idea of complimentary worth, are counterproductive to the goal you insist you share with us. They don’t help people attain their full potential. They don’t see people as individuals. They rope people into roles they have little natural talent for and even less interest in. Remember, you’re debating women who are not suited to womanly tasks and talents, and who have suffered because of the expectations you’re content to maintain. The system you prefer damages them and damages itself by ignoring them.

  21. piny, that was so well stated but then just about every comment I’ve read of yours here, at alas or at pandagon has been both really intelligent and eloquent. Is there a stage in transition, where you convince yourself that you really need to blog?

  22. I’m just trying to get in as much commenting as possible before the testosterone destroys my verbal skills.

    Um, seriously, though: thanks so much! I’m actually considering starting a blog for gender/political stuff, but I’m not sure when it’ll actually happen.

  23. Wait, wait! That wasn’t meant as a slam against bo in particular or men in general–just a riff on the stereotype about women having greater communication skills.

  24. If you two would just set aside your own prejudices for a moment…”

    Huh. I didn’t know that being angry with those who are copasetic with having my opportunities and abilities limited by my gender means that I am acting with “prejudice”. I’m prejudiced because I refuse to agree with/submit to those who are bigoted against me? Huh. That’s deep.

    Bo, to put it bluntly, I’m really tired of people, especially men, who keep insisting that there is only one way to be a woman. Insisting that certain talents are “feminine” is a three-fer—a way of reifying sexist stereotypes (which yes, does have real world consequences), a way of negating the femininity of women who don’t fit those stereotypes (if I only had a dollar for every time I’ve heard, “yeah…but you’re not a real woman”), and a way of negating the masculinity of men and boys who don’t fit their limiting stereotypes.

    Ask yourself: whose purpose does this serve, this stricture of individual human development?

    Oh….a woman might change out a switch, angry that the lazy or nonexistent “man of the house” (boy, if that isn’t a loaded term!) won’t do it, and she wants to save money by not hiring someone like me…..but that doesn’t fuel an entire industry. Home Depots, Lowes, Menards, AutoZone, etc. aren’t popping up all over hell’s half acre because an occasional essential job needs to be done by a “manless” woman. Look at sporting goods stores, too. Look at state departments of recreation and/or natural resources; they’re offering more and more classes and seminars specifically targeted to the growing-by-leaps-and-bounds outdoorswoman demographic. Women who were discouraged from “boy things” as children (some even to the point of corporal punishment) are crossing those barriers as adults. And really, really liking it.

    When I was a kid, one rarely saw a female physician, especially in midwestern towns like mine. There’s a medical school in my neighborhood. Over half of the students are female. Same dynamic. Even though I can still remember when there were fierce arguments about what would happen to women or our nation if women were admitted into college for any reason other than to meet “Mr. Right”. Funny thing tho’, now, I hear arguments that medicine is a naturally “feminine” profession, unlike back then, when it was thought that women didn’t have the intellectual or physical rigor to handle it.

  25. Um, seriously, though: thanks so much! I’m actually considering starting a blog for gender/political stuff, but I’m not sure when it’ll actually happen.

    Excellent. Just be sure to do the requisite blogwhoring so we’ll know.

  26. piny, thanks again for the thoughful response. You make many valid points, not the least of which was the role culture plays in “genderization” (for lack of a better term). The only error I see is laying the entirety of that phenomenon at the feet of culture. I have raised girls and boys, and there are differences that start making themselves evident nearly from birth, absent any cultural impetus.

    Has culture unfairly “boxed-in” women for centuries, deeming them incapable (or even worse, unworthy) of certain functions? Of course. Has that changed significantly over the past 100 years? It has, although certain pressures still exist. Where I break from the way you (and others) seem to see things is in recognizing a danger in women being “boxed-out” of certain roles by groups that seek to empower women, in the name of combating stereotypes. It’s no better for a man to say a woman can’t be anything other than a homemaker than it is for a woman to say a woman can be anything except a homemaker. Recognizing differences isn’t wrong–mistreating someone because of those differences is, regardless of intent.

    LaLubu:

    I’m prejudiced because I refuse to agree with/submit to those who are bigoted against me?

    No, you’re prejudiced because you choose to be. Your prejudice is displayed in your assumption that because I’m male and have the nerve to discuss this topic, that I’m inherently bigoted against you and all of womankind. I ask you, exactly what have I said that indicated in any way that I wish for your (or any other person’s) opportunities and abilities limited by gender?

    We stand diametrically opposed on this issue in that I support an honest re-evaluation of masculinity and femininity while you support an agenda-based redefinition, discarding the good points with the bad. I wish you weren’t conveying such anger towards me in your comments, so for the sake of civility, I probably won’t respond to your comments in the future. I do apologize for angering you unnecessarily, as that wasn’t my intent.

  27. I’m a sadist? Because I’d rather try to preserve a severed digit for reattachment than sit around cuddling a kid with blood spurting out of his hand? Gad. Besides, that blood stains.
    As for letting toddlers forage for food, I do let him feed himself sometimes. Why not? Does an evil genie come out of the peanut butter jar if it isn’t opened by Mommy?
    It is tremendously offensive to say that a man who doesn’t do home repair “isn’t worth killing”. Would you say the same thing about a married woman who didn’t vacuum or clean floors? One could also point out that men are traditionally expected to take care of themselves; women should, I think, be expected to do the same. “Forced to rely on themselves” suggests that that’s unusual, rather than the normal human condition.

  28. I would speculate that the growth in the DIY industry’s marketing towards women is from several facets, but there are two sides to the coin. How many women are getting into those projects because they want to, and how many are doing them because they have to? Have they been abandoned by the father of their children?

    Wow. I was not aware that the only reason I’ve been fixing up my apartment was that I’d been abandoned by the father of my children.

    Except that I don’t have children. Hunh.

  29. Gee Bo, passive-aggressive much?

    “I ask you, exactly what have I said that indicated in any way that I wish for your (or any other person’s) opportunities and abilities limited by gender?”

    Well, by saying at the start that certain abilities are handed out on the basis of gender, you are de facto agreeing with limiting opportunities, even if you say that is not your intent. That supposed gender-based abilities gap has been and still is the rationale for keeping women out of more lucrative career and educational options. You make it worse when you follow up with your implication that your strength during crises and a level head in chaos are masculine traits. Women have been derided as being “too emotional” or “hysterical” to take on tough assignments or less able to weather life’s storms than men, so I bristle at assumptions that a cool head and clear thinking in chaos are male traits. I am female and I have those traits. They don’t defeminize me.

    I don’t have an “agenda”. I’m not a feminist because someone told me way back when that I “should” be. I am a feminist because I recognized as a child that I would never be able to fit the June Cleaver mold in life, and feminism said that was ok–that I could be myself, my whole self, not a truncated version. I could develop all my abilities, explore all my interests. I didn’t have to make less of myself in order to just be. That’s what I want out of life, to be a whole person. I want that for everyone. No one should have to put on a mask and playact their way through life. It’s too short.

    I also can’t help but think that you want to limit women’s opportunities when you make cagey statements like “to you who insist on taking men’s roles in society…” What roles would those be, Bo? You haven’t said. Anti-feminists of my acquaintance have defined men’s roles as being financial provider, defender, disciplinarian, head of household, mechanical fixer, etc. I fit all those descriptions; why do anti-feminists think that makes me someone with an “agenda”? Would it help it I pulled out my trump card and said I was also a nurturer, homemaker, cook, breastfeeder, hair-fixer, skirt-wearer?

    I urge you to examine your responses again. I found them patronizing, because I live in a conservative area; I haven’t just heard statements like these all my life, these beliefs have impacted my life negatively. These are biases I have to fight against in order to make my way through this world. It’s not a game or academic question to me; I have a daughter to raise. I can’t be bothered with people who want to think less of me because I don’t fit their mold. More importantly, I want my daughter to have more options than I’ve had; to not have to scrape and fight the same battles.

  30. piny, thanks again for the thoughful response. You make many valid points, not the least of which was the role culture plays in “genderization” (for lack of a better term). The only error I see is laying the entirety of that phenomenon at the feet of culture. I have raised girls and boys, and there are differences that start making themselves evident nearly from birth, absent any cultural impetus.

    You know that there’s a great deal of evidence showing that individual parents treat children radically differently from birth, right? You yourself could well be responsible for those differences you notice. You also realize, again, that every woman on this comments thread–and I cannot in good conscience exempt myself from that list, given the breadth of your essentialism–disagrees with the idea that their personalities may be extrapolated from their genders? They don’t fit your generalizations. It is entirely possible that there are innate differences between men and women. Given, however, the enormous amount of variation within genders, and the enormous amount of sexism that cannot help but profoundly shape the personalities of boys and girls from birth, it does not make sense to generalize about gendered behavioral differences. It is not accurate or helpful to say that women are one way and men are another way; there are simply too many people who don’t fit those rules.

    Has culture unfairly “boxed-in” women for centuries, deeming them incapable (or even worse, unworthy) of certain functions? Of course. Has that changed significantly over the past 100 years? It has, although certain pressures still exist. Where I break from the way you (and others) seem to see things is in recognizing a danger in women being “boxed-out” of certain roles by groups that seek to empower women, in the name of combating stereotypes. It’s no better for a man to say a woman can’t be anything other than a homemaker than it is for a woman to say a woman can be anything except a homemaker. Recognizing differences isn’t wrong–mistreating someone because of those differences is, regardless of intent.

    This is an anti-feminist straw man, one that mothers like La Lubu and Lauren (who knits!) are probably pretty sick of seeing. It was not–was never–feminists who said that childcare and householding were worthless, or that women could not be homemakers. It was feminists who insisted that those tasks be valued, as well as insisting that women who wanted other things in life be honored.

    Nor, I repeat, has anyone here said that women cannot be nurturing, giving, patient, or any of the other qualities you seem inclined to attribute to the sex as a whole. The only thing we take issue with is the idea that women are more gifted at these things because of their gender, or that women should be these things because of their gender. See La Lubu’s post for a description of the people that injures and how it might hurt them.

    I do not agree with your implication that sexism is not still a powerful force in dividing women from their potential, one at least as powerful as you seem to think feminism may become. You may have raised girls, but I’ve been one, and believe me: the difference in the way people treat you–here and now–is astonishing. Feminism has never said that women cannot be whatever they want to be; our sexist society, however, demeans the abilities of both sexes every day.

  31. Ledasmom, in my defense, you didn’t say you would try to preserve the severed digit. Your statement was, “stop whining about it and get some ice.” Had you said that your response would be to immediately spring to action in responsible first-aid response, I wouldn’t have made the “sadist” remark, and I did say that I felt you were exaggerating.

    My “not worth killing” statement may be offensive, but I’ll stand steadfast by it, and no, it doesn’t extend to a woman who doesn’t do housework, but I would extend it to cover a man too sorry to do other household chores. It’s a matter of respect that a man should have towards his mate, because the pleasure of being gifted with a woman’s company should compel the man to do as much as possible to keep her as comfortable and happy as possible. The emphasis was upon the words like “inability,” “indifference,” and “force.”

    La Lubu, I’m not passive-agressive, I just don’t wish to further descend into an angry debate. You admit to biases, I’ve apologized for pushing against them. Fin.

  32. La Lubu didn’t admit to having biases. She was saying that you have biases, and that she has a great deal of experience with similar biases and how limiting they can be to women. They limit her. You are making her into an exception to the rule, which makes it more difficult for her to gain recognition for her strengths. Your sexist beliefs are the biases she has had to fight against.

    And as for pushing against biases, that’s what she’s doing for you here: she’s pointing out that her experience argues against the idea that sexist beliefs are good for women, no matter how intertwined with ideas about complimentary strengths.

  33. Can’t you see how disrespectful it is both to men and to women, Bo, first, not to expect of women that they be fully functional and capable human beings, and second, to assume that men aren’t worth making an effort for? Shouldn’t a woman make exactly the same effort to make the man she loves happy that a man should make for the woman he loves?

  34. Bo, refusing to submit to another’s bigotry towards you is not ‘bias’. It’s good sense to be wary of those who mean you harm. Harm doesn’t just come in the form of swinging punches. Harm can also come in the form of: refusal of loans, or higher percentages than a man with equal (or poorer) credit; lower grades in classes than male students with the same quality/quantity of work; refusal for admittance into certain internships, professional development, courses, promotions, apprenticeships, etc. because it is commonly thought that women don’t have what it takes (or that it would be a waste of time because parenthood and career are compatible with men but not compatible with women. or that giving a space to a woman means that some man, somewhere is being shortchanged); a woman not being hired for a position even though her qualifications are superior to those of the male candidates; not taking the statements or witness of women as seriously as the statements or witness of men; not recognizing potential female speakers in classes, professional meetings, city meetings (thinking we are just doing an imitation of the Statue of Liberty rather than waiting our turn to speak); thinking that a woman’s opinions on politics, social policy, religion, or anything ‘weighty’ must be based on emotion rather than reason and knowledge; using positive terminology to describe men who go against the grain (“maverick”, “iconoclast”, etc.) and negative terminology for women who do the same (“ballbuster”, “battleax”, “she has an ‘agenda’, etc.); assuming that women are less competant than men; assuming that women don’t have as broad an intellectual base as men; assuming women can’t tackle the hard sciences or mathematics (and creating the self-fulfilling prophecy through school years by expecting less from female students, never encouraging their growth in those areas); assuming that women are more fearful during crises; assuming that women are more scatterbrained and disorganized; assuming that women are more vengeful; assuming that women gossip and bad-mouth more often than men; assuming that women are more vain and materialistic—-do I really need to go on? These are all stereotypes that have impacted my life, Bo. I don’t deserve this. No one does. And to make it worse….

    It’s happening to my daughter. Already. To my beautiful, spirited five-year-old daughter. She was born premature, and I credit a large part of her survival to her fighting spirit. She is tenacious, energetic, bright, and yes…stubborn (where’s she get that?!). And already, folks ask me if maybe I think she has ADHD. Is she bouncing off the walls, unable to concentrate on anything? No. She just demonstrates the same physicality expected from five year old boys. She doesn’t color between the lines, preferring to decorate her paper with self-made drawings of animals and fantasy scenes. She doesn’t keep her markers on the paper either; yesterday, she drew markers up her arms in imitation of tiger stripes, growling and gnashing, explaining that she was “a mama tiger, protecting her young.”

    Already, at this tender age, “well-meaning” folks want to take this streak out of her; get her to conform to a more feminine ideal. That is fucked up.

    What if, Bo, some Yankee came down to Mississippi and patiently tried to explain to you that Northern intellectuals were far more capable than mere Southern bikers such as yourself; that you simply didn’t have what it took to do the moral, intellectual heavy-lifting that comes with running a society, and you should resign yourself to whatever stereotypes such an individual wanted to foist upon you. Furthermore, that this was for your own good, as it would complement your ‘natural strengths’. Would you say, “Gosh! You’re right! I’ve never thought of it that way before! I’ll stop reading the newspaper and voting, and get right back to swilling beer, belching, watching NASCAR, and any other limiting or offensive stereotypes that will give you plenty of opportunities to “prove” your supposed superiority! Ya want me to burn some crosses, too? Anything y’all want, Mr. Yankee!!” Somehow, I just don’t think that would be your response.

    Also…..entering a conversation on someone else’s blog, making inflammatory statements, and then bowing out while accusing others in the conversation of having an ‘agenda’ or being ‘too angry’ or ‘starting an argument’ or whatever…..yes, it’s passive agressive. But it’s more commonly known as “trolling”. In case you weren’t aware.

Comments are currently closed.