Feminism

I have three main issues with feminism:

1. Name. Labels shouldn't matter, but they do. The construction of feminism implies female. When you have two genders in humanity, that necessarily means that male is excluded. Intelligent thinking would show otherwise, but the unwashed masses tend to drown that out.
2. Extremity. Like most things, the extreme portions of anything gather the most attention. Look as Islam, for example. As a consequence, the actions of the whole are tempered by the (insane) ramblings of the few.
3. Things done in the name of. This is linked to 2, but is more specific. Demanding things in the name of feminism connotes that that is what feminism stands for by extension. For example, demanding that there be an equal number of females to males in any particular environment in the name of feminism, or by someone labelling themselves a feminist, draws a correlation between the two (rightly or wrong, it is about perception).

I would suggest a better term would be humanitarian, but even that has been hijacked. Regardless, it's the best I can think of at the moment so I'll put myself in the humanitarian camp.

Do I think that men should be promoted over women? No. Do I think women should be promoted over men? No. Do I think that the individual person should be promoted on their merits? Yes.

In some respects, I probably couldn't be called an egalitarian. I believe everyone, at base, is equal but that then changes with particular circumstances. For example:

- In a board room setting, if there are 12 vacancies on the board how should they be filled? Any answer giving a particular gender quota is wrong in my opinion. It should be the 12 best people for the job, regardless of gender, age, race, religion; accepting that those factors should be taken into consideration for the performance of the job.

- In a job that involves constant heavy lifting, how many women should be employed? I say that any woman who can perform the duties to an acceptable standard should be considered on equal footing with men.

- The same goes for a traditionally "female" role with a suitably qualified man.

That all seems very nice and palatable, but there's a flip side. What is a woman who was pregnant was going for one of the jobs in the first two points? My stance is that it should be right to discriminate against her and refuse the job. Why? Because the very fact that she is going to have a child would impact on her ability to perform the duties for a significant period of time. This makes her unsuitable for the position.

But, I digress....

I think feminism is a flawed concept insofar as rational proponents hold it to currently be. I'm not informed enough to truly know how it originated, but I don't think it's particularly relevant anymore. What is relevant is what it is now, and it's a mess. The factors listed at the beginning of this post have, I believe, soured what is the core of feminism and I think it's too late to fix that.

 

You'd think that womyn would understand this more than anyone else. The name is anachronistic, born out of a time when advancing women was the same as advancing justice, because women were in such a hole socially. But, this is why I don't call myself a feminist (also because the term is ambiguous, many very different groups claim the label); I am a gender equitist.*

*Equality is slightly problematic. If there are genetic reasons that lead women to be less ambitious (for instance, ambitious men gain creature comforts and increased chance of mating; ambitious women gain only creature comforts), we shouldn't have an equal number of CEOs. We should have an equitable number though, meaning that the selection mechanism is fair, but avoiding forcing people into it if they would be happier elsewhere.

 

It might just be the Scotchy scotch scotch scotch talking, but I am happy that this thread has been very civil. It's hard to ever have an open, honest discussion on what people think about social issues without someone flipping the fuck out and some sort of flame war ensuing.

Militants, from both sides, are a big part of the reason there hasn't been more advancement.

 

This is valid but only really holds true when it's management that's prejudiced. If the customers or employees are prejudiced, then hiring a woman does have a negative impact in terms of loss of business or decreased worker morale. Firms operating in this environment will only hire women if they can do so at a lesser cost to make up for the lost sales or productivity.

 

But BL1Y, you forgot about the patriarchy! I knew there was a reason you didn't come to the last meeting...

That's egalitarianism to me. Equal standards and opportunity under the law, not equality of outcome. And certainly not forcing people into roles. I mean, feminists love to talk about expectations - from women's magazines, men, society, everybody - but is it better to be expected to be a mother and a successful businesswoman? Do everything women have traditionally done and everything feminism seeks to claim from (what has historically been) the male sphere of things? I doubt that's going to make anyone happy.

And then the complaints about how males are prolonging adolescence, "refusing to grow up," take responsibility, etc.? "Where have all the good men gone?" complain a million crap columnists. You tried to become them, and left them free to become nothing. I mean, I could sit around and play Xbox all day while my sugar mama made all the money, but I don't suppose that makes me a better man for it. And if feminists want to take that responsibility to work on behalf of all women, they should think about it harder than they are.

 

Fixed that for you. Also, I agree.

But, just think about how often the gender of someone you're giving money to doesn't make any difference. Do you care if the person taking your order at Starbuck's, or swiping your items at Target, or sewing your pants in a Chinese sweat shop is male or female?

In many industries, the sex of the person you're paying doesn't matter, and in many, the customer isn't even aware of the sex of who the money goes to.

Of course, there are others where sex does make a difference. I'm more at ease with a man cutting my hair (I feel more at ease to say I don't fucking know anything about hair), would rather have a female clerk in a clothing store (I don't trust straight men for fashion advice...and don't trust gay men either; and really, don't trust women any more, but like to flirt), and would rather hire a man to snake my toilet (because it's waaay less awkward than hiring a woman)(no homo).

But, I think over time people will become more willing to accept people of either gender for various jobs. Social movements take time. Kids don't have the same hangups as their parents. But, at the same time I do recognize that there are plenty of women trying to get ahead now. In 50 years, they'll be gone. I think that the best solutions can take generations, and I really am sorry for the people who won't get to live in that world, but I'm not convinced that speeding things up will be effective.

 

Here's the thing: those solutions don't just happen. People work for them, and they worked hard. In order for future generations to change their mind, current generations have to get out there, and that's what feminism is. Should it be a blunt hammer used to bash men into submission? Nope. But it can be a scalpel, peeling back layers of ignorance so eventually real healing can occur.

That might be a bad analogy. I'm not a doctor, I just play one with my cat.

Female representation:

House of Reps: 75/435

Senate: 17/100

Governors: 6/50

Fortune CEOs: 12/500

Ivy League Presidents: 3/8 (higher than I thought, actually)

NYC Mayors: 0/93 (historically, obviously)

U.S. Presidents: 0/44 (again, historically)

Supreme Court Justices: 3/9

U.S. Population: 51%

For those of you that think the institutional bias is over, how do you explain the gap? Is it simply that women don't WANT the highest prestige jobs? Are they not capable? Isn't it possible that "male" is still defaulted and that it's hard to see that if you're part of it?

There's a reason it's called feminism. There's a reason it's about women, and it's important.

It bears noting, in college I was in a group called Male Dissent that discussed gender issues from a male perspective. It was pretty awesome, actually, and I definitely support groups like that. There's something to be said on both sides, but lets not kid ourselves: gender equality is a myth.

And we haven't even really discussed other countries, where the discrepancy is much more poignant.

 

That women shouldn't have to choose between professional advancement and childbearing is one of the lynchpins of feminist thought. Some of that is biological. Women get pregnant, and that's not going to change. That's why feminism is important; it helps ensure that biological differences don't becomes shackles.

 

As just one example of societal bias, consider the Bechdel test. Try it on movies you've seen, and tell me sexism is all finished:

Go ahead, try it with this year's Oscar nominees (as a start). How many pass?

 

Two responses:

First, evolutionary psychology. Historically, only about 40% of males who reach reproductive age will have children. Almost 100% of women who reach that age will. The reason is because that men are capable of having babies with multiple women at once. Your child is more likely to have a good life with 2% of the King's resources (combined attention and wealth) than 100% of a peasant's resources. But, also better off with 100% of a merchant's resources, than 2% of a king's.

Harems have been replaced with serial monogamy. The alpha males will have several wives over their life times, the beta males 1, and the omega males 0.

This creates a huge incentive to be the alpha male. The alpha woman only produces as many off spring as the beta and omega women. Her offspring will have better genetics, more and a better chance at reproducing, but the difference isn't as profound as it is for the alpha male.

So, it stands to reason that while women do want the highest prestige jobs, their desire may be only a fraction of men's desire for the jobs. Thus, more men get them. They have more reason to work for them, so they tend to work harder, and then get them.

Not arguing that this is good, just that it is. And remember, often these jobs are high stress, and have other negatives tied to them (high educational costs; risky investments); there's good reason to not want them.

Second reason is time.

Consider law (because that's the field I know). Law school is 3 years, and it generally takes 8-12 years now to make partner. Women have been 50% of the law school population for years now, but still lag in partnership numbers. Is the institutional bias over? Maybe.

When the bias ends, it may be another 11-15 years before we get a clear sign. Getting rid of bias in law school admissions, doesn't immediately create thousands of female senior associates ready to be promoted to partner.

 

I'll point to my above explanation of evolutionary psychology.

As a male, becoming a movie star probably means you will fuck thousands more women in your life that you otherwise would have. As a woman, becoming a movie star probably means you'll fuck an equal number of men.

The payout for men is bigger, so more men pursue it, thus it's likely movie acting will be dominated by men.

I'll also concede that the above explanation doesn't feel right to me. I do tend to find women talking in movies to be fucking boring/shallow/not enough about blowing shit up. But, I also loved The Devil Wears Prada, so I'm not all bad.

 

It almost doesn't even matter WHY female characters aren't well-written; the effect is enough. If you're growing up and you don't see any movie characters worth emulating, won't that have an effect?

THAT'S what feminism is trying to correct; not the outcome, but what goes into producing the imbalance.

Some stuff, said better than I can say it (from Feminism 101)

Why Women focusing on Women’s issues is not sexist (or irrelevant)

Spoiler

 

So what is your position on the entire issue of maternity leave and family desires? Should it be taboo when calculating wages, considering promotions, etc?? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'd appreciate some clarification.

It seems patently obvious to me that the more dedicated you are to your work - which may include the lack of a social life, kids, fulfillment, sobriety, etc. - economically should get you paid more. It should also be obvious that this is not the be-all end-all of life, or even of work. And men pay this price too - how many guys neglect their family life to focus on their career? No one's exempt from capitalism.

A lot of people who get to the top are fundamentally flawed/broken people. It's not something that's just given to you (unless you were in Skull & Bones); it's something you work towards, and make a lot of sacrifices that other people were unwilling to make.

That's one thing. The other thing is - to build on BL1Y's ev-psych point above - genetically, males have more outliers on both ends of the spectrum when it comes to various psychological factors (read the second paragraph, there are proper sources elsewhere). Males are more likely to have an IQ 2 standard deviations above the norm, for example, but are also far more likely to be mentally disabled, or criminally prosecuted. So to point to (what is ideally) the cream of the crop, the leaders of companies and countries, and say "Women are under-represented here" - I could just as well point to the jail cells and say the same.

Is there anything stopping properly competent and skilled women - which is to say in this case, supremely confident, extremely skilled, cause otherwise you're not getting that high - from achieving these levels of career achievement? It's not the kind of question that can be answered by going "Look at the numbers! Isn't it obvious!?"

Who's stopping these movies (the ideal Bechdel movies, let's say) from being made, in your opinion? Or does the whole system hate women (who, I assume, are 51% of their possible market)?

Also, what does this have to do with the previous comments? Unless you assume it's the same dastardly people running Hollywood and Big Business and the government.



It's also interesting that you say men should be discussing men's issues, because inevitably when men do that very thing they get called all manner of hateful terms. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

 

A disabled writer on a feminist blog was writing about how awful it is to never have people compliment you on your body, and to think your shape looks weird and poorly presented.

When I said she was describing what 90%+ of men go through every day, I was ban-hammered.

 

That is a perfectly reasonable response to your comment. Seriously. If a commenter were demonstrating blatant (possibly intentional?) ignorance of the vast differences between the treatment of a disabled woman's appearance and the appearance of an able-bodied male and had more than likely made similarly disparaging comments in the past...fuck, I'd ban him too. That's awfully close to trolling; I'm not sure it isn't.

I really don't know how to explain this to people who do not want to see the inequality. If your mind is closed, it's closed.

But let me try to put this another way: Women are always being judged on their appearance. Really. It's so ingrained in society that we women even do it to each other. The first thing a large majority of the population notices about a woman is her shape...how her ass is shaped, how her legs are shaped, how her breasts are shaped, how in/out of "shape" her stomach appears (this practice is wrong for so many reasons and fraught with culturally-mandated standards that idealize- fuck it, y'all don't care), how her arms are shaped, how her hips are shaped...I could go on, but you get the picture. And you really cannot deny that this is the case. The value judgements that we assign to a woman's shape are then the basis for what some people refer to as "beauty privilege." Some women have the ideal/near ideal shape of XYZ body part, and are thus judged as being "hotter/sexier/prettier/more smokin'" while those without that particular shape are judged as being "less than/not as hot as/too heavy in this area/too lanky in this area." This is standard practice in society today, and there is absolutely no denying this fact.

With me thus far? Good. Now imagine a world where you, female, have been socialized to normalize this behavior. You are woman and therefore you will be judged on your appearance. Always. Oh wait- unless you're disabled. Then you become virtually invisible to this sort of judgement- which sounds like a good thing, yes? Like, you're no longer being constantly evaluated on the sack of skin and muscle that you lug your organs around in...heck yes, right?! But no, not really. Because you're being told, via pointed ignoring, that you aren't worthy of even a passing gaze due to your disability.

I somewhat "understand"- it's an easy enough mistake to make- assuming that all women like/enjoy this type of objectification and beauty pageant judging. I mean, clearly she misses the attention, amirite!? Again, no. What she dislikes is being made to feel as though she is less than the popular conception of "woman" because she happens to have a disability. Even a conventionally "hot" woman with a disability still feels marginalized, because she has to overhear comments like "...and it's a damn shame she's in that wheelchair, because she's hot as shit and I'd totally fuck her if she could walk." If you haven't heard such a thing directed towards a disabled woman, I am grateful for your decent upbringing and excellent choices in choosing friends/family/co-workers/poker buddies.

So you take this feeling of invisibility and marginalization that this woman experiences, and you tell her that 90% of men feel that way. The implication, of course, is either that A) Men feel this to the same extent, and more of us feel it, so...you're a whiner, or B) Being poorly judged on your appearance based on a disability is totally not that bad of thing. Either way...wrong.



EDIT: Just realized that I might have been making an uncharitable assumption. If you were genuinely interested in bringing up the topic of how to change the way women are judged based on their shape/appearance, and your vehicle for doing so was a comment noting the lack of systemic social judgement on the shape/appearance of men...that's a good observation, but a thread about the marginalization of disabled women isn't the place to bring that particular observation. If HotWheelz wanted to share his experiences with being marginalized as a means for comparison, that would be acceptable. But to "threadjack" a comments section in such a fashion is usually frowned upon, and I would suggest alternative means of bringing that topic to attention.

 

I thought my mom's career choices and experience fit here pretty well.

She's a chartered accountant and took 10 years off to have me and my brother. She went back to work and over the next 15-20 years worked her way up and is now the controller of the largest corporation in Canada, and sits on the board of Queens Business school. If the CFO ever retires, she will in all likelihood be promoted to CFO. She was also short-listed for comptroller general of Canada a few years back.

She firmly believes any woman can have kids and a career, a few years off in all likelihood isn't going to hurt your career if you're going to put the work into it when you go back, you just need to proper support from your partner. My father worked from home most of those years to raise us after she went back to work.

She is also the first to admit there are almost no women at her level in Canada. Most boards and corporations would love to be hiring more qualified women, but there aren't any to be found. She says the main reason for this is most women leave work to have kids and either don't back back, or are not willing to put the hours in needed for career advancement because they would rather be home with their kids, while the father works. This coming from a woman who very activly looks for woman to promote not only in her group of employees, but also other groups in her company.

All the woman who work for her in VP and SVP positions have no children, and most are unmarried.

This is a pretty narrow demographic mind you, accountants in Canada, but probably is a pretty accurate idea of what happens everywhere else. I should also point out that her best from college, who is now living in England who would be as successful, but in a different field, has found the exact same problems there.

 

(Edit: This is in response to Pink Cup's post.) This brings up one of the aspects of feminism that I'm most passionate about: that it's commonplace for women to be thought of as public property, especially concerning their appearance and sexuality.

This was mostly what I was referencing in the first thread about how I think a lot of men's disagreement with feminism can be attributed to ignorance instead of blatant misogyny or being an asshole. (Although, there are plenty of guys out there who are just plain assholes.) I think it's so difficult for men to wrap their heads around women being upset by sexual harassment because I think guys would love it if their attractiveness was constantly reaffirmed. They also don't even realize, I think, that harassment is actually still an issue and not something to kind of joke about from the fifties. I don't think they have a full understanding of how unsafe women can feel. My guy friends have been genuinely shocked when I tell them about the level of harassment I encounter on a day-to-day basis and how this is the reality for tons of women. Two out of three times that I leave my house, I experience something ranging from mildly annoying to fearing for my safety. The level of abuse and harassment I've heard of (and experienced) women letting men getting away with simply because they were scared is horrifying. Men hold power over women, and a lot of that has to do with them being stronger and more prone to violence. And then there is this bizarre aura of protection surrounding them legally, where an appalling number of rapists either get let off easy or entirely. Blaming the victim is disgustingly rampant. One particularly dickish member red dotted me for bringing up rape culture in the first thread, doubting its existence. It can't be ignored. In case other people are equally in the dark, examples of rape culture are:
Blaming the victim
Trivializing sexual assault
Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history
Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television
Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive
Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive
Pressure on men to “score” / measuring manliness on sexual history
Pressure on women to not appear “cold”
Assuming only promiscuous women get raped
Refusing to take rape accusations seriously
Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape

I'm hesitant about this next part, but I feel that abstract theories and phrases and statements just won't have the same effect as getting personal. So, before anyone dares to claim that this is all some feminazi man-hating bullshit with no concern for reality, these are the highlights of my experiences as your average, white, educated, middle-class American living in an urban environment. In the past year alone:

-I was raped, assaulted, and harassed multiple times within a two month period of time. (Clarification: only the harassment occurred more than once, thank god.)
-I was at a packed outdoor concert in Paris when the guy standing behind me, who I had not exchanged one word with or even laid eyes on, thought it was okay to stick his hand up my shorts and finger me. (This was the assault, not the rape.)
-The rape was a date rape, and when I finally confided in my two best friends (one female, one male) what had happened, their immediate reaction was doubt.
-In fact, it took me weeks to come to terms with the fact that I had been raped. I had been desperately attempting to rationalize it away to mean anything else. Rape culture had been so embedded in my brain that I, the one who had been raped, tried to convince myself that it was my fault because I had flirted with him first, gone over to his apartment in a sexy dress, and had previously had noncommittal, emotionally unattached sex with men for fun. No. After being thrown around his apartment during "foreplay," I said no, he refused to accept that, - this exact conversation happened: me "I don't think so" him: "I thought you weren't allowed to say no, isn't this how it works?" me: "actually, it's illegal for it to work that way. No."- proceeded to clamp his hand over my eyes and then mouth and fuck me, and when I walked home I had bruises and scrapes all over my body and blood was running down my legs. And it still took me weeks to be able to say the phrase "I've been raped." (And I'm still able to get into enough of a mindfuck where I still wonder if maybe I did deserve it for all sorts of reasons.)
-Ever since I started living in apartments the year before, as opposed to the relative feeling of security in a dorm or in your parents' house, getting catcalled and followed on the street or subway became much more of a threat, even though I've been dealing with the same shit since before I hit puberty. But, in the next couple of months, it was heightened so much that I became afraid to leave the house, and I would avoid male grocery store workers or bank tellers or cashiers. If I'd get catcalled, I'd start crying. I'd unfortunately fallen into the victim mindset of seeing men as "would-be rapists" (a mindset which I have thank-fucking-god moved on from).
-I had a full blown panic attack the first time I attempted to have sex again, and this was with a guy I had known for years, had been in love with, and considered one of my best friends. This happened again months later. With the exception of one guy that I was dating, the only people I've hooked up with on any level have been guys I've known for years. It's been almost a year and I still can't imagine having a one night stand, and even the thought of having sex with someone new, even if I'm in a relationship with them, is scary.
-When I attempted to date again, the guy asked me to come to his house on our second date and, instead of being alone with him in his house, I stood him up and stopping seeing him.
-I have purposefully uglied myself up to avoid being harassed on the street.
-I live on the edge of one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city. Ironically, this is the one place I've lived since leaving home where I've experienced the least amount of harassment. Once I started feeling comfortable being outside/in the presence of men again, I had the thought "This is the best place I've ever lived. I may be scared of being mugged, robbed, or shot, but good god does it feel good to be left alone by men when I'm walking down the street." I know that this is hard for men to understand, and I wish I could accurately describe why it is that street harassment is so harmful, annoying, and terrifying. You're just going to have to accept the answer that it "just is."
-For all of the things that have happened in public - at the concert when I responded with practically breaking his ribs with my elbow, in the street when I was physically fighting off a man, crying, and screaming "Get the fuck off me," in the subway when men have been shouting sexually explicit tirades- not one single person came to my defense, helped me fight back, asked me if I was okay, or barely even looked at me. They just rushed past or averted their eyes and just let it happen. Men, women, young people, old people, white people, black people, poor people, rich people...it's happened across basically every demographic and not a damn thing happened.

Thankfully, not every woman's experience with harassment is as extreme as mine has been, and unfortunately many women's experiences have been more extreme. Nearly every woman has their stories about harassment, and if they don't then I am so fucking happy for them. The thing is, it's a near-universal reality for women that they have to deal with this shit on a regular basis. You can say what you will about radical feminists, Women in the Workplace, the media, or even reproductive rights and could potentially have a valid point negating feminism and its many causes, but if you deny that or don't see a problem with it or don't consider it inequality, then you're a piece of shit and don't deserve the air you breathe. I really don't know how else to say it.

 

One thing that has bothered me for a long time, and from a scientific perspective not a political one, is the Schrodinger's Rapist argument. For those unfamiliar, it basically says that life, being a game of incomplete information, means that any man a woman encounters has a non-zero and non-1 probability of being a rapist, and thus she is justified in treating him as a "Schrodinger's Rapist" aka a man who is both a rapist and not a rapist, seeing as she does not know.

Now, here's my issue. The famous Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, contrary to most layman's understanding of a cat this is "both alive and dead" was to point out the exact opposite, to say explicitly that the cat is either definitely alive, or definitely dead, and regardless of your observation point any theory of quantum mechanics that requires it to be both is flawed and cannot be a valid theory.

That is to say, Schrodinger's Cat exists entirely to reject the idea of duality of states, and to assert that the cat is either one or the other, full stop. Thus it is the exact opposite of the name you would want to choose for a theory that is at its core a risk assessment based on incomplete information that treats an individual as a probabilistic superposition of states. A naming convention from poker or something similar is much more apt.

Please bring this up at the next big feminist meeting if you get a chance, thanks.

~Physic Pedant