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

Before I Go

Lauren

Someone wants to know:

Do we need feminism in America any more? At all?

Because I’m going to bed, my quick answer:

Yes.

Not only are there gender disparities in the United States that still need to be addressed, but as members of one of the most, if not the most, influential countries in the world our resources and power are needed to help existing movements close gaps in gender disparities in other global communities as well. Even presupposing that feminism no longer has work to do in the United States (and I would argue the opposite) it is clear that people around the world need our help and are asking for our help. Further, due to the lack of education in the U.S. about dire global issues, feminists and other activist social groups have much to do to raise the knowledge bar for other Americans in order to raise the necessary funds and hands to do this work around the world.

More detailed answers are appreciated in the comments below. Let’s educate.

68 thoughts on Before I Go

  1. Liberia has now elected a woman to lead the country. Liberia. 7000 phone lines in the whole damn country. 80 percent of the population below poverty level. WTF. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that we not lag third world countries in this area.

  2. In a country in which Sam Alito wasn’t just nominated for the Supreme Court so that he can vote to overturn Roe and make it virtually impossible for victims of gender discrimination to sue their employers, that question might be less risible…

  4. By the numbers, my personal experience in a large IT firm:

    21 – number of male managers
    1 – number of female managers
    109 – male employees
    10 – female employees

  5. I’ve long thought that the rise of Fundamentalism both here and abroad is rooted in the growing influence and participation of women in life outside the home. Fundmentalism and true Democracy cannot co-exist. For those truly interested in the spreading Democracy (and I happen to be one of those who think Democracy is good), Feminism is necessary.

    More thoughts later …after I’ve had several more cups of coffee.

  6. We need feminism because, gasp, it helps both sexes. I firmly believe that total equality for women allows women to fulfill their possibilities which, in turn, allows men to fulfill theirs. Neither sex has to “fill” their role; they’re free to fill their own destiny, using whatever given talents they have. And what’s wrong with that?

  7. Perhaps the more relevant question is, “Does America think it needs feminism any more?” Although I’m sure many would disagree, I think that the answer, based on political and social trends in this country-particularly looking at election returns going back 10 years- is “no”. I’ve pounded on this theme before, but if feminism wants to stay alive in this country as a relevant socio-political force outside the narrow realm of academia, it has, at the very least, some tough PR work to do.

    Don’t shoot the messenger.

    P.S. I’m not talking about “feminism” qua statements like “men and women deserve equal pay for doing the same job.” That’s non-controversial. I’m talking about feminism’s more, shall we say, extreme variants, some of which seek to completely deny any sorts of differences between the sexes.

  8. A similar question may be “Does America need the National Rifle Association any more?” After all, the second amendment (depending how it is read and who is reading it) guarantees everyone’s right to bear arms.

  10. As long as the idea is pushed that there is exactly one way to be a man, and one way to be a woman, we need feminism.

    As long as the majority of possible combinations in which two or more people can be into each other are shunned derided, or just plain against the law (though you’re not going to find me supporting pedophilia), we’re going to need feminism.

    I wish there was a different term for it in the popular language, only because feminists don’t own the popular concept of the word “feminism,” and so get beaten about the head and shoulders for believing things that it usually takes an O’Reilly or a Coulter to dream up. Perhaps suing to overturn the trademarked “Moral Majority,” and then co-opting it? Dusting off “the Immoral Minority” and seeing what can be done with that? Dunno. But whatever we call it, it’s still necessary.

  11. I think a better question is why wouldn’t we need feminism? Why does feminism need to be justified? I know there’s a huge portion of our culture that’s not interested in self-criticism, but disregarding that, isn’t there value in academic (or less structured/institutionalized) cultural criticism regardless of it’s real or perceived political point of view? Even if sexist discrimination were eradicated, wouldn’t the study of gender and gender rolls still be useful?

    It’s a rhetorical question that doesn’t deserve more than cursory answer. Lauren’s “Yes” works for me.

  13. Why does feminism need to be justified?

    Feminism needs to be justified because every ideological movement needs to be justified to stay relevant and vibrant. The day that the adherents of any intellectual movement start regarding it as obviously self-justifying is the day that movement is marked for atrophy and ultimate death.

  14. “The day that the adherents of any intellectual movement start regarding it as obviously self-justifying is the day that movement is marked for atrophy and ultimate death.”

    Um why? Do you have any kind of justification or support for your blanket statement? Can you explain how a continually self-critical “intellectual movement” (a classification I reject, but your words) can atrophy if it is constantly growing and evolving? Oh, I also reject your defining feminism as an “ideological movement” because it is larger than the dogmatic bullshit I imagine you’re reacting to.

    Oh, and I’m not a feminist (I’m a man) so you shouldn’t assume I am an adherent, and as such you should explain how my regard of it’s value as self-justifying means anything at all.

  16. I’m not a feminist (I’m a man)

    OtherRyan, generally the only folks who think men can’t be feminists are radical feminist women and the pro-feminist men who support their position. And even that’s not universal.

    I describe myself as feminist with no qualifiers, and I’ve got a Y chromosome and a penis.

  17. There’s a difference between feminism as an ideology and movement and feminism as it is perceived by the majority of Americans. Reading through the Protein Wisdom thread, it occurred to me that they’re largely debating theperception of feminism, not what it actually is. I agree with Jon C; the movement has a PR problem. Of course we need feminism in America — I mean, the fact that some of the men in my neighborhood still think it’s okay for them to shout after me that I have a fine ass and expect me to be flattered by it is a big reason for me to keep fighting to change minds — but the movement is fighting against a) the perception that men and women are equal because women have jobs outside the home now, and b) the perception that the feminist movement is made up of ugly, militant bull dyke man-haters with no use for men.

  18. Do you have any kind of justification or support for your blanket statement?

    Have you ever met a Whig, or know it meant to be one? Me neither, and that’s the point.

    Can you explain how a continually self-critical “intellectual movement” (a classification I reject, but your words) can atrophy if it is constantly growing and evolving?

    It wouldn’t. But that just begs the question, is feminism in fact “self-critical” and is it “growing and evolving”?

  19. 1. We need feminism so people won’t ask me if I am babysitting when caring for my own kid.

    2. and ditto to nerdchick (#4) except at my company the employees and supervisors are pretty evenly distributed along gender & racial lines, but mid- to upper- management is overwhelmingly white men.

    I don’t think a name change for feminism would do a damm bit if good. The wingnut PR campaign would smear the new name quickly enough. We need to fight these kinds of smear tactics, not retreat from them.

  20. Thomas-

    After many years stewing on the question of “can men be feminists.” I’ve come to my own belief that I can be adjective feminist as a man but not capital letter noun Feminist. I personally believe that the most important component of feminism is the self-empowerment of women to criticize and theorize on their own terms. This is purely hair-splitting detail that I wouldn’t get into on a non-feminist site and I don’t claim to speak on anyone else’s behalf – and you and I are probably more in agreement than not. I did learn what I know about Feminism from those separatist Feminists that everyone loves to demonize, so you could say I’m informed by a “radical” feminist position, and while I really don’t “support” it, I do not dismiss it either.

    To further my tangent, I believe that men need to study and critize men’s gender roles in very much the same way that feminists have deconstructed their gender roles. Not the bullshit with the inner caveman with drums, etc, but just as men can’t fully understand women’s gender roles, feminists can’t deconstruct men’s roles fully. That’s our responsibility, and a great deal of the learning has to do with deconstructing your own gender role – women can’t – and shouldn’t do for men. Theoretically the two bodies of thought would evolve into a holistic gender theory at some point, but I’m no expert. I imagine what I’ve just typed has some troll just salivating with anticipation, so have at it.

  21. OtherRyan, we agree on a lot, and I misread your principled analysis for simple ignorance. Sorry.

    I’m fine with the term “feminist” to describe my views because my definition is broader than many in common circulation. I define feminism simply as opposition to patriarchy, which is a system of rigid gender roles which particularly disadvantages women but fundamentally limits all people. That’s perhaps ideosyncratic.

    Like you, while I certainly don’t agree with the separatists about everything and I’m not on the same page with radical feminists all the time, I respect them, and I do understand what they’re angry about.

  22. Jon, is it your understanding that it ever meant anything to be a Whig? In England it was a party of convenience at the infancy of the political party system and I don’t think it really had intellectual underpinnings so much as it was a group of politicians banding together in mutual self-interest. I don’t know that it was anything different in the U.S. — perhaps more like an industry trade group than an ideological or intellectual movement.

    Bad example.

  23. Have you ever met a Whig, or know it meant to be one? Me neither, and that’s the point.

    I know it’s fun to write quippy retorts while muttering “zing” under your breath, but you haven’t actually done anything to support your assertion that Feminism is on the brink of death.

  24. but you haven’t actually done anything to support your assertion that Feminism is on the brink of death.

    I guess you missed my point about the trend in American elections for the past 10 years.

    Jon, is it your understanding that it ever meant anything to be a Whig? … I don’t know that it was anything different in the U.S. — perhaps more like an industry trade group than an ideological or intellectual movement.

    All I know is that it used to be an American political party. I couldn’t tell you what it stood for without doing some research, and neither can you apparently, which, again, I think demonstrates my point. Granted, it’s not a perfect analogy, as there’s no such thing as a “feminist party”, but I think I’m entitled to a little slack, as I’ve been doing nothing but studying property law for the past 72 hours, and will be doing so for the next 48.

  26. I think a better question is why wouldn’t we need feminism?

    because it’s fundamentally discriminatory. Feminism as a moral process and end needs to justify its relevance by outlining – rationally – where women are disadvantaged by culture and asserting rational steps to remedy those structural disadvantages. Otherwise, as a perpetual motion movement, it is by nature sexist.

    Or put more succinctly with an analogy:

    “I think a better question is why wouldn’t we need a movement to protect whites?” Well, why not? Because it can’t justify itself as a popular movement.

    And taken too far, it ghettoizes the sexes by pitting their interests at odds with each other. Say, when and if the distinctive advancement of women, without measurable goal – is the neverending process, just because women are “better” or “extra-cool” or “super,” human beings, merely by virtue of being a certain gender.

  27. And for my education, please name a few of these (this is a non-snarky question):

    Not only are there gender disparities in the United States that still need to be addressed

    Specifically? What are the goals?

  28. Jon C–

    The whigs weren’t really an ideological party. To simplify, they were essentially a pro-Missouri Comprimise status-quo party, led by Sen. Clay from Kentucky. They were a coalition of disparte groups with little in common and agreed over little except for being against Andrew Jackson’s patronage system and being pro-industry.

    They died for many reasons, including being split over slavery, having the Republican ideology come to the fore, combining an abolitionist message with the Whig’s pro-industrial thought, subsuming the Whig’s positions under a larger, more comprehensive ideology.

    The split weakened both the Republicans and the Whigs, who increasingly built their thought around xenophobia, which failed to really net them the votes they needed. Once again, the ability of them to just tack on anti-immigrant crap indicates that there was never a well defined notion of what it is to be a whig.

    Finally, most of their politicians built their political thinking aroudn the status quo of the 1840s, which ceased to exist after Lee signed his papers at Appattamox.

    What it has nothing to do with is a continued thoughtful debate over ‘what it means to be a Whig..’ Or, “are whigs necessary?’ Because it never really meant anything to be a Whig other than to not be a democrat. And so, when another group that was also not democrats, but also had a positive ideology (namely opposing slaverly and the semi-feudalism of the old south) came along, the Whigs died.

    The first time (1856) the Republicans ran a Presidential candidate, they outperformed the Whigs, with about equal numbers on both sides. By 1860 they were irrelevant before the republicans, and only managed to carry three appalacian states that didn’t want a civil war to happen.

  29. On my own blog I don’t find that I spend all that much time writing specifically about why we need feminism, but when the question is put and when I skim down the comments, I do find myself scanning the solar system for other inhabited planets for some of these guys to be from, because we judt don’t seem to live in the same world at all.

  30. Okfine Lauren.
    Educate me.
    How does my being forced to attend “sexual harrassment training” benefit some rape slave in Dafur?

    And ditto what Indecent Bill said.

  31. Uh, yes.

    When we have fifty/fifty female/male* representation in Congress, Senate, and the executive branch, and in corporations and universities,, and really right across the board, then and only then can we retire the F word.

    Not holding my breath. Are you?

    *or whatever percentage reflects the female to male ratio in the general population . . .

  32. A lot of effort of feminism seems to me to be focused on the United States. To me, this seems foolish. The United States offers greater protections to the rights of women than virtually any place you care to name on Earth, combined with greater financial opportunity than the imagined social paradises of Europe. To me, were I a feminist — and I am not — I would focus on places like:

    1. Africa, where practices such as the clitorectomy are still widely practiced, along with the chattel slavery of women,

    2. China, where the state issues permits for the number of children a woman can have, and where abortion is not voluntary, but mandatory,

    3. The Middle East — where only two countries have female suffrage, and those are Israel and Iraq. I won’t even begin to discuss the barbarism of practices such as honor killings.

    A relatively small amount of effort and “moral ‘suasion” could radically improve the living standards and rights for huge numbers of women. You could get the most bang for the buck by forcing places of like this — which are islands of moral darkness the likes of which no one in the United States has ever experienced — to enter the twentieth century, if not the twenty-first. This would improve the lives of millions of women.

    Or, the feminist movement could continue to try to “gild the lily” in the democratic west, which has long past the point of diminishing returns, to try to get a few more minor, incremental gains.

    I know what I would choose. It would be reforming the third world.

  33. In fairness, Colossus, a lot of feminists do focus their attention on the undeveloped world. We don’t hear much about the work they do, for the obvious reason that we’re not in the undeveloped world .

  34. Not to mention that Western feminist movements are not only present in the undeveloped world, but also help further preexisting third world movements do what it is they are already doing, hence:

    it is clear that people around the world need our help and are asking for our help. Further, due to the lack of education in the U.S. about dire global issues, feminists and other activist social groups have much to do to raise the knowledge bar for other Americans in order to raise the necessary funds and hands to do this work around the world.

    We collectively have our fingers in all sorts of pies, so to speak. If one is interested in specific movements I can compile a short list of global organizations sometime this week (unless someone else wants to do me the favor and start it for me).

  35. a short list of global organizations

    Would RAWA qualify to start? (Or did you mean organizations truly global in scope?) I suppose the objection to RAWA from the right would be “Oh, they’re socialists,” but that only brings up the question: Why does the right always seem to let the socialists have all the fun on these issues?

  36. The original asker is apparently saying “I’ve got mine, Jack. Why should I give a shit about gender equality and all that jazz?”

  37. The original asker is apparently saying “I’ve got mine, Jack. Why should I give a shit about gender equality and all that jazz?

    Also, she totally parties. And dates. Dates men. I wish I could quit being such a miserable misandrist bitch so I could have fun like that.

    Damn this feminism! Why’d I ever think this was a good idea? I could be snorting lines of coke off some guy’s scrotum right now, but no, I had to stay in and read Backlash. Again.

    I really hate you bitches sometimes.

  38. There was a survey that came out a couple of months ago (and I’m too lazy to find the cite) that indicated that 27% of the US population would never vote for a woman candidate for president. NEVER. NO MATTER WHO THE NOMINEE WAS.

  39. It’s constantly ‘feminism in America’ and ‘America is one of the most, if not the most, influential countries in the world our resources and power are needed to help existing movements close gaps in gender disparities in other global communities as well.’ And that you need to help other countries,…
    BUT I, citizen of small Belgium (Yes, a country in Europe, next to France) see something else. If there is one huge developed country, its America, but it’s just developed in economic or war,… (or something)
    But not on humanitarian! You aren’t the leaders of the equality. And people shouldn’t learn about feminism,… from America. Only the fact that Bush is your president, is foolish. America isn’t ready for such things, it’s too conservative.
    It think also that you people aren’t the partisans of Bush, but I just think it’s wrong to say such things about your country.

    I Think Europe (or some countries in Europe) are more free,… on that sort of things.

    Yes I know, I hope you’ll understand, and also that you understand what I’m trying to say because my English (or American?!) is very, very bad.

    Ciao…

  41. I heard about that survey, too, Roxanne…but I believe that for people under 45, the percertage of people who said they’d never vote for a woman was much lower. So there seems to be a motion towards a positive change, which is a little more heartening.

    I can’t find that particular survey, but this page has some relevant numbers. One trend I noticed is that people are more likely to say they’d vote for a woman president, but they’re not sure their friends and family would do the same.

    I’m only just now discovering feminist blogs, and for the most part I’m fascinated by what I read; some of it’s maddening, some of it’s hopeful, but it’s all very interesting and I hope I can contribute to the dialogue. I am an American, and while I am grateful to live in the nation that probably is the best place for a woman to live, I am also embarrassed because I feel that we could do better, but to say things are good enough here as they are is a bit like patting ourselves on the back for passing with a C when, with a little extra effort, we could be getting an A.

  43. Feminists are well aware of problems in other nations. That’s why they thought it was so funny when all of a sudden the Bushists noticed that there was a Taliban and that the Taliban oppressed women. Shock and awe.

    Denigrating the importance of feminism in the US of A is a pretty typical minimizing response. The “It’s-just-a-chickflick” kinda thing. “Don’t worry your pretty little heads about it.”

    When women are represented in government and in industry in the roughly the same proportions as they are represented in the general population (50/50, 49/51) then the F word can be retired.

  44. I could be snorting lines of coke off some guy’s scrotum right now, but no, I had to stay in and read Backlash. Again.

    I can’t add anything, I just wanted everyone to read this again.

  45. I’ll repeat:

    And for my education, please name a few of these (this is a non-snarky question):

    Not only are there gender disparities in the United States that still need to be addressed

    Specifically? What are the goals?

    Thus far, Roxanne has responded with a poll that cites a quarter or so of the population would never vote for a president, and another commenter said that feminism is necessary until “women are represented in government and in industry in the roughly the same proportions as they are represented in the general population (50/50, 49/51).”

    Is that it? “government and industry equal representation?”

    Anything else? Any really obvious ones that I’m missing?

    The purpose of this thread was to educate, correct? Educate me.

  46. BTW, with regards to Roxanne’s poll:

    One in four Americans 65 and older said they wouldn’t vote for a female president; just one in 20 of those under 30 held that view.

  47. Bill, why don’t you reread the thread. Other examples have been detailed out besides Roxanne’s poll that you seem to be dismissing (I think that 5% of a polled population expressing blatant sexism is enough of an answer by itself though)

  48. I should clarify that I don’t know if the polls discussed in the article I cited are the ones to which Roxanne was referring.

    Bill, I think that the portion you quoted is a positive sign of changing attitudes; it’s great news. On the other hand, here’s another finding from one of the polls:

    In the Roper poll, about eight in 10 Americans said they would be “very comfortable” with women as members of Congress, presidents of universities, editors of newspapers, heads of charities and CEOs of businesses. But only 55% said they would be very comfortable with a woman as president.

    As always, it would be nice to see the actual poll/questions/methodology, etc.

  49. Bill, there’s a glaring disparity that’s missing: the military. Opening all service classifications to women would benefit both women and men. It would provide women with the opportunities that traditionally come from military service and it would spread the burden of military service more equally between genders.

    Feminists are well aware of problems in other nations. That’s why they thought it was so funny when all of a sudden the Bushists noticed that there was a Taliban and that the Taliban oppressed women. Shock and awe.

    I remember reading about this as far back as 1997 or 1998. Mavis Leno, Jay Leno’s wife, was active on this issue.

  52. other Ryan –

    Why don’t YOU re-read the the thread – there are no objective measures presented, only a discussion about the utility of political movements and one link to a list of vague platitudes like “it’s men and women are the ‘other.'” That means nothing to me, from the perspective of measurable goals.

    Hubris –

    Bill, I think that the portion you quoted is a positive sign of changing attitudes; it’s great news.

    Correct. A ringing sign, I’d say, “other Ryan’s” ridiculous hope for perfection aside. I was just pointing out that context to clarify Roxanne’s point.

  53. zuzu –

    Bill, there’s a glaring disparity that’s missing: the military.

    I’m not sure that we’d agree on all aspects of this, but that’s an example in the realm of a measurable area of gender disparity that presents a goal for feminism. Whereas this smart-ass…

    “Is that it”?

    Are you frickin’ kidding?

    Bwaahahahahahaha.

    Clearly can’t recognize a sarcastically challenging quote, and instead of providing me a concrete measure of feminism’s yet-to-be-achieved goals and targeted disparities, offers all-knowing, elbow-ribbing snark.

  54. Well let me throw my two cents on top of the pile…

    I tend to think simple and easy, like my lifestyle. Why not have feminism? In this world you will always have extremes of thought (not that feminism is extreme but just hear me out) and you need those extremes to keep things fair… to fight for a middle ground. The arguments to get rid of feminists are a joke, with the same rational we could get rid of all defense lawyers, because in this modern day of age you must be guilty if a prosecutor charges you with a crime so why waste time with a defense?

    We need people to fight for people of all sexes, races, heights, weights, eye colors, feet sizes, sexual desires… etc etc etc. If not one type will have more power than the others and it will be an unfair system. Life is unfair, I know… but working towards something fair isn’t a bad thing. So I say keep the feminists, do your thing. Guys will have advocates too, and so will everyone else. We are all just fighting for a better world anyway…

    Like I said, I am a simple guy so thus my simple idea.

  55. I don’t know if this has already been said. I agree that America does need feminism. Also there are many places in the world that need feminism. However I think that it is wrong to state that these places… “need our help” ..or are “asking for our help”

    Many places have there own feminist movement that in some ways you can find to be more evolved than western feminism. Also we have way to far to go to assume the position of the forerunners in feminist thought. It is true that places can benefit from some of the things that have happened in america, but it is also true that we can benefit from stories of feminism abroad. lets just remember that we are one of few countries who has not signed the U.N. Equal Rights for Women document and who do not have some form of an equal rights amendment.

    again too many comments to read through hope this wasn’t said.

  56. That means nothing to me, from the perspective of measurable goals.

    Well then I’ll blow your mind with a link to Peggy McIntosh’s canonical “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” and watch your small mind explode as you try to extrapolate the connections between gender and race. If your inspired to identify any specific male privilege you enjoy I’ll give you a cookie.

    I think the presence of so many trolls on a feminist blog – who appear only to disrupt and disparage – is proof enough that America needs feminism. In other words, it’s still relevant just because it still makes people like you angry/upset/scared.

  57. Bill, I can thinkof some objective and more-or-less measurable goals:

    I think I want to see a time when rape and intimate partner violence become bizarre abberations.

    I think I want to look forward to when highly educated folks in “pink-collar” professions are paid the same as comparably educated folks in traditionally-male professions (or better yet, when there’s no significant gender imbalance among knowledge workers).

    I want to look for when as many men as women are primary childcare providers.

  59. Clearly can’t recognize a sarcastically challenging quote, and instead of providing me a concrete measure of feminism’s yet-to-be-achieved goals and targeted disparities, offers all-knowing, elbow-ribbing snark.

    To which I say, yee-haw.

    Oh, and as to providing a concrete measure, I believe I provided that long ago.

    You know. That 51-49 percent, 50-50 percent, chickflick kinda thing?

  60. Interesting:

    Well then I’ll blow your mind with a link to Peggy McIntosh’s canonical “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” and watch your small mind explode as you try to extrapolate the connections between gender and race. If your inspired to identify any specific male privilege you enjoy I’ll give you a cookie.

    I think the presence of so many trolls on a feminist blog – who appear only to disrupt and disparage – is proof enough that America needs feminism. In other words, it’s still relevant just because it still makes people like you angry/upset/scared.

    It says a lot about you that when I’m openly asking questions – even challenging ones – and you’re more interested in insulting and belittling to reinforce your worldview than convincing me of anything.

    And the funny part about it? I’m ostensibly one of the “centrists,” or at least one of those that’s fundamentally willing to be convinced, with objective evidence, of almost anything (or I strive to be). Which means that folks like you certainly do a lot more to ghettoize movements like feminism to the realm of like-minded converts, rather than expand its reach, and therefore advance its goals.

    You are an effective anti-feminist.

    Congrats!

  61. I think I want to see a time when rape and intimate partner violence become bizarre abberations.

    I think I want to look forward to when highly educated folks in “pink-collar” professions are paid the same as comparably educated folks in traditionally-male professions (or better yet, when there’s no significant gender imbalance among knowledge workers).

    I want to look for when as many men as women are primary childcare providers.

    Interesting, and I of course agree outright with one out of three. The only further clarity would be to define “bizarre aberrations” within the context of current incidence. (though I think we can all agree that these events are all too common, if not completely agree on the proportion of motivation – violent biology and/or culture)

    As for women and men having equal incidence of primary childcare providers, I disagree with this as a social goal outright. Why? Well things like oxytocin, for one. You want to change evolutionary predispostion to achieve a parity result with a social construct, which is doable over significant time, but awful difficult.

    As for equal pay in pink collar jobs, I like the way you stated that, as it acknowledges that women and men, on average, are often drawn towards different vocations that emphasize disparate talents and interests. Any examination of whether these jobs merit equal pay in a free market based economy is hella complex, but I’d be willing to bet that a strong case could be made.

  62. Bill, your citation of the oxytocin study brings up another point of inequality, one that has real-world implications for women.

    Many medical studies are performed on men and the results extrapolated to women, the assumption being that women will react the same way. This is not always the case.

    Take, for example, heart attacks. It was long assumed that women would have the same symptoms that men would when presenting with heart attacks, because men were the ones being studied. You know, the shooting pains in the left arm and whatnot. But it’s been recently determined that women in fact often have very different symptoms than men do and because of that are much more likely to be misdiagnosed when they present at an ER — or, like my mother, to not even recognize that what they’re experiencing is in fact a heart attack. The real-world consequence for my mother and many other women of the failure of medical science to perform studies on both men and women is that help comes too late.

  63. An observation for Bill. You come on as very demanding and expect others to do your research. You say Feminism is discriminatory, then expect others to convince you, right now, that it isn’t with specific examples and measurable goals. When others don’t respond to your question, because they’d prefer to talk about other things, you issue another challenge, demanding them to respond.

    I’ve seen your comments for some time now. You’ve read a lot of the arguments. You are not just asking questions. You also are making judgements. I assume you know how to use a search engine. You can find evidence of gender disparity, if you chose. Perhaps you won’t agree with the interpretations of some research and offer a differing opinion. That would be far more productive, IMO, than demanding other people respond to you.

  64. I want a feminist movement in America until I stop hearing arguments (especially from the kids that I teach) that women and men are given their roles in society because of what pre-humans did 5000 or more years ago. de Beauvoir made a pretty damn good argument against that in the 1940’s. I’m sick of hearing how the world will fall apart without these roles, how we’re “fighting biology,” which has been levelled at feminists about everything from voting rights to wanting non-gender segregated toys for their children. Woman is a womb; it has been the same since Aristotle.

    I don’t trust any evobio arguments because they have always appeared as excuses for the status quo, based on “science” in which researchers found what they wanted to find. Just like “March of the Penguins,” it’s a nice story.

  65. Bill, even if there is a biological predisposition for women to “tend and befriend”, that would only be a tendency and predisposition. Individuals vary widely. Further, if men and women had equal workplace experiences, then we would expect to see the practical considerations militating in favor of a female primary caretaker to be distributed about equally with those in favor of a male caretaker. That is, for every woman with a male partner whose career was less rewarding or lower paid or more family-friendly, we would expect to see a man with a female partner who was in that situation. In the real world, practical considerations like these are a huge part of the decisions about how to balance family and career, and biological urges to parent share space with them. Therefore, in a more equal environment, we might see a disparity in primary parenting, but nothing like the total disparity we see here.

    It can be tough to separate biology from culture, especially since they influence each other, but I’m not insisting on changing biology. I just think that where we have a strong social imbalance in roles, and biology is only part of it, we ought to work on removing the cultural forces that exaggerate the biological trait. (And I’m not taking the sociobiology claims at face value — this stuff is often used by folks seeking to justify the status quo, so I’m skeptical of it.)

    Bill, you said that “women and men, on average, are often drawn towards different vocations.” There’s a false assumption in the way you phrased this. Men and women are both drawn and channeled into certain jobs. Before I was a lawyer, I was a carpenter. My father taught me the trade from an early age, and I made money on and off as a carpenter (mostly finish carpentry — I’ve trimmed houses as large as 8000 sq. ft.) all the way into law school. I have a younger sister. My father did not teach her his trade. Now, when I lived with her, we did major work, and I taught her some basic framing and drywall. She was a quick study. She has no mental or physical limitation that prevents her from learning a building trade. Sure, she has an education and a white-collar job now, so in a way this is a moot point, but I learned carpentry because of the social construct of “boy,” and she did not because of the social construct of “girl.”

  66. Bill,

    You are obviously not sincerely ignorant of the empirical claims of sexism made by feminists and others, you just dismiss them. So your rhetorical demand for commenters on this thread to justify feminism is really just an implicit attack on it’s legitimacy. And ditto what Ron O. said.

    I’m not responsible for your anti-feminism, however much I’d love to believe I’m capable of such influence. You are no centrist (you do realize that you link to your site, right?), so if you’re striving to “understand” you’re doing a lousy job. If you were, you’d drop your dummy pretense and ask intelligent and respectful questions of the informed and friendly feminists on this site – women who impress me all the time with their patience in debating with folks like you.

  67. Bill, you said that “women and men, on average, are often drawn towards different vocations.” There’s a false assumption in the way you phrased this. Men and women are both drawn and channeled into certain jobs. Before I was a lawyer, I was a carpenter. My father taught me the trade from an early age, and I made money on and off as a carpenter (mostly finish carpentry — I’ve trimmed houses as large as 8000 sq. ft.) all the way into law school. I have a younger sister. My father did not teach her his trade. Now, when I lived with her, we did major work, and I taught her some basic framing and drywall. She was a quick study. She has no mental or physical limitation that prevents her from learning a building trade. Sure, she has an education and a white-collar job now, so in a way this is a moot point, but I learned carpentry because of the social construct of “boy,” and she did not because of the social construct of “girl.”

    The same thing happened in my family–and, IIRC, in my mom’s. My grandma suffered from the same “channelling:” her brother was given a hefty scholarship from the whole family, but she got no college money at all, valedictorian status be damned.

  68. A very insightful quote by Larry Kramer is appropriate and timely here.

    “When a memebr of an oppressed minority exists and feels part of mainstream society, the greater cultural truth is that the movement is barely breathing, as it is at risk of being viewed no longer useful”.

    Sadly that is where many view the usefulness of feminsim. As a 35 y/o male cultured in an inherently sexist society, I know that the truth is a simple one. Without substansive change on a cultural level that renders inequity on the basis of subjective assignemnt not part of the American experience, we will always require feminism as a movement in America.

Comments are currently closed.