What kind of girl do you think I am?! September 28, 2006 Jill Deep thought for the day, courtesy of all of those “I’m-not-a-feminist-but” kinda folks:
Hey, those are all great advances. And now pretty much everybody endorses them, so you don’t get credit for them anymore. It’s a bit like saying “why don’t blacks want to be Republicans? We freed the slaves, damn it!” It’s an ideology. It has to be attractive in the present. What are you advocating for now?
Well, first of all, Robert, America isn’t the world. And there are still lots and lots of women world-wide who lack the basic rights listed here. We’re working for them. And even American women haven’t secured all of these rights. I’ve been told not to wear pants to law firm interviews. Women in this country are having our family planning rights attacked constantly. The underlying idea — that women are full human beings — has yet to be completely realized, despite gains. And I’m sorry, but feminists can damn well take credit for all of these things. Republicans don’t get to take credit for freeing the slaves because it wasn’t Republican ideology that eventually led to their freedom — believe it or not, slavery existed in many societies world-wide, and it was removed because of human rights ideologioes, not Republicanism. Try again.
And as a follow-up, your argument is like saying that civil rights activists shouldn’t get credit for desegregation, because “everyone” agrees with it now. Ridiculous.
And even American women haven’t secured all of these rights. I’ve been told not to wear pants to law firm interviews. In one of my high school classes (this was in ’99) we did a unit on job interviews. They told us that if we were female, we were NEVER to wear pants to a job interview. It was just never acceptable. They showed us drawings of people going to job interviews and we had to say what was wrong with them. Guess what was wrong with the woman? Yeah. Pants. (The guy was wearing flip-flops, a torn and dirty tee shirt, and cutoff shorts. But that offensive slut was wearing pants.) I know a lot of young women who say they aren’t feminists because of the “f-word” reputation it has. I’ve managed to convince one of them that it’s okay to call herself a feminist. It’s a slow process, especially with the way the word has been dragged through the mud.
In one of my high school classes (this was in ‘99) we did a unit on job interviews. They told us that if we were female, we were NEVER to wear pants to a job interview. It was just never acceptable. Gahh, the world is moving backwards. In 95 at my school, there were two example interviews at the start of a chapter, and the moral was supposed to be that interviews are all different but a few ground rules are always the same. The woman (or maybe girl, since they were meant to be 16-y-o school leavers) was being interviewed for a smart office job, and the boy for a building site “Come on up the ladder and tell me whether you’ve brought your own tools” job, but as far as I can remember no-one actually said the gender roles wouldn’t work the other way around.
I used to be on a Mock Trial team for my university, and the women were always told we had to wear skirts, because otherwise the judges (almost all male in every tournie) would grade us down on professionalism. There are definitely arenas in modern society where things we consider universal gains aren’t universal . . . and they’re not that hard to find. The thing that bothers me about the “well we’re doing okay now, so who needs feminsim?” argument is that even those things we consider safe (like voting and property ownership) are only upheld by the continuing struggle of feminists. If we all gave up worrying about it, sure our reproductive freedoms would be the first to go, but who really thinks they would stop there?
The woman (or maybe girl, since they were meant to be 16-y-o school leavers) was being interviewed for a smart office job, and the boy for a building site “Come on up the ladder and tell me whether you’ve brought your own tools” job, but as far as I can remember no-one actually said the gender roles wouldn’t work the other way around. Of course not, because its assumed that the gender roles won’t be changed. That’s the kicker. If a woman wants to climb that ladder, eyebrows are raised, still. The assumption is of the norm that is presented in old sexist roles. That no one verbally challenges them or takes exception says more about the power of quiet complicity than anything. What are you advocating for now? Women have stopped speaking since the conservative backlash has successfully stopped them by making them ‘femi-nazis’ and branding all the work of feminists as passe’, by saying ‘oh that’s been done, we’re all there with you now sit down and shut up because you’re off base on this one’, women have been silenced and the old guard has reared its ugly head. That is why the listed items are important to bring up, because each one came with a struggle, a struggle from women who refused to sit down and shut up, by women who stood together and fought for change. And they fought and they still have to fight and anyone who thinks that the named were given ‘permission’ to exist by the patriarchy is an idiot. But that’s what the right wants every girl today to believe; to wipe out women’s history and start back again where they the boys got sidelined so they can start their act all over again. Yes, that should be put on a T-shirt. I’ll give each of my daughters one. I’m advocating that young women know the history of how they have the priviledges they have, that they were hard-won and that they can, by seeing the success of their elders, also work hard to make change for the future and succeed.
I really, really would like to print this graphic out and hand it to the co-worker who chirped that feminism is all about telling girls it’s “OK” to have sex so that “guys can get laid,” and that’s why she’s not a feminist. I probably shouldn’t do that. But I *reeeeeeally* want to. Sometimes being a professional sucks unwashed ass.
Robert: Isn’t a strong statement to say that pretty much everybody agrees with those items when #4 is more or less on the outs with the party in power?
I’ve really enjoyed reading your discussion this morning. Excellent arguments. In a discussion the other day about whether there would be a woman president, I mentioned to the man that I considered myself a feminist — and he responded with, “I’m not talking about that lesbian bullshit!” …This little list would have been nice to have on hand.
“More illegal aliens tried in gang rapes. 2 new cases uncovered in unnoticed crime wave” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51906 just wondering what you thought. couldn’t find anywhere else to post this where you’d notice. would be an interesting item for you to comment on in its own thread. if you want further violent crime statistics for illegals you should read this. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51906 really curious to see if you take this up.
Seconding NBarnes statement – also #6 is legally, but not practically true in many, many places in the US.
What are you advocating now? While the skirt thing is important, there are some other problems. First, how ’bout equal rights? Whereas racial minorities are protected by strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, women only get intermediate scrutiny. So I suppose the first step would be to make sure that the Constitution does not condone ANY discrimination against women. The next step would probably be to brake the institutionalized old boys system of control over executive positions in business. This country is run in the board rooms of Multi-Nationals, and more women must be in power in that arena before we’ll start to see any real change in wages and perception. More women in politics would be nice. And on the courts.
They told us that if we were female, we were NEVER to wear pants to a job interview. It was just never acceptable. I remember being told that it depended on the type of job/business. I decided right then and there that if I couldn’t wear pants to the interview, I didn’t want that job.
I was told in my youth that women should wear pants when interviewing for executive positions, and/or when they had a PhD (I was, at the time, on a track for an academic job and was told that a PhD was roughly equivalent to a management/executive position in the non-academic world.) It was presented as sort of a ‘sad but true’ thing to me. I really enjoy the dress code where I work now: it’s fairly specific, but the only gender-specific rule is an exception for pregnant women. A guy can wear as many earrings as a girl, or a skirt, and I can wear pants all I want.
They told us that if we were female, we were NEVER to wear pants to a job interview. It was just never acceptable. I remember being told that it depended on the type of job/business. I decided right then and there that if I couldn’t wear pants to the interview, I didn’t want that job. Agreed–there must be significant differences between law and investment banking, because I was TOLD by recruiters to wear a black pants suit to a financial-firm interview. Pants, as little makeup as possible, simple hairdo or ponytail. The guys I work for don’t seem to be looking for a stereotypical “office flirt” but for a professional woman who gets the job done. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no sexism– I still do get told to “chill,” “calm down,” and “let managers make decisions, don’t step on their toes” more than the men do, even though my particular job description does involve some authority over said managers. The description involves authority but I’m constantly being “reminded” by my male manager not to use it.
Mild comfort – North of Virginia, women lawyers regularly argue in court in pants. Yeah, but we’re done progressing and all . . .
To the commenters taking umbrage at the idea of skirts being the correct thing for women to wear to interviews—do you imagine a man wearing a skirt to one is going to have an equal chance of being hired? Where’s the unfair oppression?
I didn’t read all of the comments, so I don’t know if anyone mentioned this yet… I think some women (and men) would be hesitant to describe themselves as feminists because those out front who describe themselves that way are so knowledgeable about womens issues. They don’t realize it isn’t so much what you know, but do you support the rights of women to be treated equally? That is all that is needed and anyone can learn the rest along the way.
Agreed–there must be significant differences between law and investment banking, because I was TOLD by recruiters to wear a black pants suit to a financial-firm interview. Pants, as little makeup as possible, simple hairdo or ponytail. The guys I work for don’t seem to be looking for a stereotypical “office flirt” but for a professional woman who gets the job done. I’m not trying to be snippy, but how is that any different than someone telling women that they should wear skirts to a job interview?