Feminism and Anti-Feminism
| November 29th, 2005What if I called myself a conservative - but virtually all of my writings on the subject were devoted to passionately denouncing conservatives, and I didn’t actually favor any conservative policies to address any of today’s problems? What if I had virtually never published a positive word about conservativism (apart from “however…” type passages in essays denouncing conservatism?) What if my self-styled conservativism had the practical effect of giving myself a better platform from which to denounce conservatism?
My guess is that, if all that were the case, most conservatives would find my claim to conservatism suspect. Modern conservativism encompasses many different views, but it doesn’t encompass the view that modern conservatism is a terrible idea that ought be done away with.
On a feminist mailing list, I recently called Cathy Young an “anti-feminist journalist.” Cathy has taken issue with this:
Okay, let’s take this a bit at a time.
Is “Anti-Feminist” Always A Pejorative?
Do I use “anti-feminist” as a pejorative - that is, as the OED puts it, as “a word or expression which by its form or context expresses or implies contempt for the thing named”? I don’t think I do. I use it just as I use words like “libertarian” “republican” and “conservative” - terms which describe political philosophies.
It’s true that in the loose talk of a comments section that was (at that moment) pretty much all-feminist, I wrote that Cathy said “stupid anti-feminist things.” In hindsight, I should’ve put that more diplomatically (i.e, “endorses terrible anti-feminist ideas”), but I’m sure I’ve also referred casually to “stupid republican things” at some point in my life - and I bet many conservatives have done the same with words like “feminist” and “liberal,” when they’ve been talking casually among the like-minded. That doesn’t make any of these words pejoratives which can’t be used in a good-faith debate.
What Does “Feminist” Mean?
Before we can define “anti-feminist,” we have to discuss what “feminist” means. And here, we immediately run into trouble: feminism has dozens of meanings, depending on who you speak to. And, clearly, I have no authority (or desire) to define feminism for anyone apart from myself; people who want to think of themselves as “feminists” are free to do so regardless of if I agree.
So I’ll just talk about what “feminist” means to me. Here’s how I’ve put it in the past:
1) Believes that there is current, significant, society-wide inequality and sexism which on balance disadvantages women.
2) Advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
Cathy would presumably find that a “rigid ideological definition of what ‘feminism’ is.” One of Cathy’s anonymous readers is harsher, writing that “Anyone with whom [Ampersand] disagrees on gender issues is ‘anti-feminist’ and is therefore a complete reactionary bigot.”
I don’t think either of these claims hold up to scrutiny. Far from being “rigid,” my definition of “feminist” is a vast sprawling tent, easily encompassing countless contrary feminist opinions (radical feminist, eco-feminist, liberal feminist, socialist feminist, womanist, cultural feminist, trans feminist, third wave feminist, etc etc). And although I disagree with aspects of most of those views, I’ve never called them “anti-feminist” views - because they’re not.
What is Anti-Feminism?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines an anti-feminist as “One opposed to women or to feminism.” Cathy doesn’t oppose women, but you’d have to impossibly distort her work to argue that she doesn’t oppose feminism; virtually all her writings on feminism are attacks on feminists and feminism. The OED offers a second definition: “a person (usu. a man) who is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women’s rights.” Cathy isn’t hostile to equality (and she’s not a man!), but her writing clearly is “hostile to… the advocacy of women’s rights.” She thinks women already have virtually all the rights they need, and therefore further advocacy is unnecessary.
In the introduction to her book Ceasefire!, Cathy concedes that in one area - the family/work balance - women might still have a legitimate complaint. But virtually all other concerns that justify a “case for continued feminist activism,” she dismisses as illegitimate. There’s a big difference between criticizing some feminist views, and denying that there’s a legitimate need for a women’s movement at all. How can anyone who doesn’t see a need for a movement for women’s equality, be a feminist?
As I wrote two years ago:
So, for example, conservative “feminists” argue that we shouldn’t worry about the wage gap, because it’s merely a matter of worker’s individual choices, and has nothing to do with discrimination. They argue that the rape crisis is fiction, a result of feminist exaggerations and morning-after regrets. They argue that domestic violence has nothing to do with sexism because (as Christina Hoff Sommers argued) men are equal victims of spouse abuse.
Note the common theme - in each case, the conclusion of the argument is that sexism against women is no longer a problem, and political, activist solutions - that is, feminism - is no longer necessary.
Well, that’s nice - but it’s not feminism. Feminism is and has always been about activism; feminists are trying to change society. In particular, feminism is about changing society so that women, who are unfairly kept down in our society, can at last experience full equality.
If you don’t believe that sexism is an important problem keeping women down today, then you may be a nice person, and you may believe in equality - but you’re just not a feminist.
Why This Matters: Does Feminism Have Any Meaning At All?
The danger I see in Cathy’s views is that, if they were generally accepted, the result would be that the word “feminist” would be drained of meaning. If Cathy is a feminist, then feminism is no longer “an organized movement for the attainment of… rights for women” (to quote the definition of “feminism” Cathy cites). Feminism no longer means fighting sexism against women. Judging by Cathy’s writings, her brand of feminism involves attacking feminism at every turn while generally supporting men’s rights activists.
In Cathy’s view, being a feminist doesn’t require endorsing any feminist policy positions, or ever taking a pro-feminist stand in public, or being part of a movement for attaining women’s equality, or thinking such a movement can do any good at all. In the end, Cathy seems to think “feminist” is a term that can reasonably be applied to anyone who doesn’t explicitly oppose equality. But nowadays, virtually everyone says they favor equality, so that means nothing.
I agree with Cathy that a “rigid ideological definition” of feminism would be a mistake. But the opposite mistake - being so all-inclusive that “feminism” ceases to mean much of anything - is just as bad.
Uppdatering: There seems to be a related discussion going on here. Unfortunately, I can’t understand a word of it Swedish. If any “Alas” readers can read that language Swedish, please let the rest of us know the gist of their discussion. :-)
Uppdatering Uppdatering: There’s a translation, by the author, posted in the comments now. Yay!
November 29th, 2005 at 5:14 am
My favorite definition of feminist is found in Tomato Nation:
Feminism - as befits the longest and most successful revolution the world’s ever seen - is very, very encompassing.
I would think it’s fair to say that people who believe that the revolution has gone too far, that women have more than achieved equality, are people who do not “believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes” - because they are content with the present, unequal, state of affairs. If you are not capable of perceiving when women and men are unequal, or if you believe that the present inequality is inherent to women and men’s natures, then you are certainly not much of a feminist.
On the other hand… Historically speaking, the measure of the success of the feminist revolution has consistently been that radical feminist ideas turn into mainstream feminist ideas turn into mainstream ideas that everyone’s forgotten used to be radical feminism.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 6:23 am
Actually, Barry, there are quite a few self-identified conservatives who have argued that the dominant brand of conservatism today (neoconservatism) is a betrayal of everything true conservatism stands for. I haven’t heard anyone refer to them as “anti-conservative.”
This comment was written by Cathy Young.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 6:29 am
Cathy, if you want to join the discussion on this thread, I would actually be more interested in your response to this part of Ampersand’s post:
(I should admit: I am not familiar with your writings, and while I tend to trust Amp’s judgement, I’ve no direct knowledge of the kind of thing you write.)
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Jesurgilac — yes, I do intend to reply to that. In the meantime you might find it interesting to read my post which Barry links, which explains what my understanding of feminism is.
This comment was written by Cathy Young.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 7:00 am
Amp, I’m not sure that I agree with you about iFeminists. On McElroy’s site she says
Sounds good to me.
She goes on to add
Now, I don’t agree with that. I think you’re right that it assumes women are already equal. but I don’t think this is anti-feminist. The goal is the same, the methods are just different. Nor do I think having people like iFeminists are hurtful to the feminist movement. While they’re not always right, I think they serve as an important counter-point to feminists who view women as the eternal and unwitting victims of patriarchy. We have made progress, and we still have a ways to go. I think this tension keeps me honest and realistic about that state of women right now.
I know this is a little bit off-topic, because everything I’ve read from Cathy I do consider anti-feminist because I find her writing disrespectful and dismissive of women who don’t agree with her, but I don’t think it can be applied across the board to others you mentioned in your post.
This comment was written by just a thought.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 7:06 am
which explains what my understanding of feminism is.
I read it.
If you wish to let that stand as an expression of your beliefs, yes, of course you are anti-feminist: I’m a little bewildered that you should want to claim yourself a “feminist” when you plainly dislike feminism so much.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 7:19 am
I guess one of my problems with Amp’s characterization of Cathy is the claim that most of her writings attack feminism. I don’t see that this is true. Have you tried to quantify that claim, Amp? I would say that just as many of Cathy’s columns, etc. attack the loony right as much as the loony left.
Cathy is right, too, re:” paleoconservatives. Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan are 100% against the war in Iraq and hate Bush to boot, but nobody in their right mind would call them liberals.
This comment was written by Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 7:47 am
Actually, Barry, there are quite a few self-identified conservatives who have argued that the dominant brand of conservatism today (neoconservatism) is a betrayal of everything true conservatism stands for. I haven’t heard anyone refer to them as “anti-conservative.”
That’s because you’ve flipped the ends of Barry’s analogy. The “self-identified convervatives” are the old skool, concerned that the neoconservative use of “conservative” as a buzzword to cloak a decidedly non-conservative agenda is, well, damaging the meaning of conservatism; who on earth is left to stand athwart history and yell stop? —It’s those neoconservatives who are stretching the word into meaningless taffy. And trust me, demonstrating that the “dominant brand of conservatism today” is anti-conservative is something of a cottage industry.
This comment was written by Kip Manley.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Cathy,
This comment was written by Broce.I just moved from Boston to Colorado, and have been a Globe reader all my life. Sometimes you make sense, but far too often I would agree with Amp that the positions you espouse are anti feminist. Many, many times, your writings have made me want to put pen to paper and let you know where I think you’re off track.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Cathy, I’m based in Boston and am familiar with your Globe columns. Everything you’ve written pretty much dismisses feminism and its ideas. How, exactly, does this make you a feminist?
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 8:54 am
Well, I guess the issue is whether feminism is a “set of beliefs” or a “direction.”
In 1970, people could say “I’m paying John more than Mary because he’s got a family to support,” or “We’ve really got to hire a man for this position, to create a sense of group cohesion,” and that was completely legal. There used to be different classified sections for Men and Women.
Today, that is all obviously illegal, and I think todays “feminists” and “anti-feminists” both think this is a good thing.
The question becomes, once you’ve achieved “de jure” equality, do you declare victory and go home, or do you keep fighting until you get equal outcomes. If you stop, were you a feminist before you achieved legal equality, but stop being one after you have? Can a person, without changing her beliefs an iota, be called a feminist in 1960 and an anti-feminist in 1980? Under Amp’s definition, it seems so.
I can certainly see why someone who was identified by everyone as a feminist at Point A would think that the definition should stick.
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Richard: Can a person, without changing her beliefs an iota, be called a feminist in 1960 and an anti-feminist in 1980? Under Amp’s definition, it seems so.
Under the dictionary definition of feminism, you are a feminist if you take part in “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”. (I’ve never met a feminist who didn’t agree with the Tomato Nation definition of feminism, after all.) If, in 1960, you take part in “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”, if you “believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes”, then you are then a feminist. If, by 1980, you have stopped doing any of that, then you have stopped being a feminist. If by 2000, you have started working and/or fulminating against people who “believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes”, then you are an anti-feminist.
Had Phyllis Schlafly lived in 1864, with the same beliefs she held in 1964, Schlafly would have been a feminist. Mainstream feminist beliefs in the mid-19th century became normal ways of thinking a hundred years later. Does this mean we should refer to Schlafly as a feminist?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:10 am
On the basis of that definition, I’m a feminist.
BTW, Amp, I’d second Cathy’s analogy of neo-conservativism vs. “classical” conservativism.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:16 am
But, as Amp says, it’s OK to be an anti-feminist. That’s not an insult (except on this blog I guess, and in certain other places). It’s merely descriptive.
It can be a virtue if you think there’s something gravely wrong with feminism (a legitimate opinion, even if I don’t agree with it), just as being anti-Republican is either a virtue or a vice, depending on your opinion of the Republican party.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:21 am
I don’t claim that most of her writings attack feminism. I claim that most of her writings about feminism attack feminists or feminism.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:22 am
It seems to me the issue is one of complex , or systems ,thinking opposed to simple,or reductionist. Feminism , like every ism or conceptual structure ,is a matrix of interrelated aspects, theoretical, organizational etc and any definition WILL have an ideological component. Thats part of the tension (and a good thing). So we don’t argue yes or no whether women are oppressed but to what degree or in how many aspects of that matrix. A capitalist, white, Protestant woman is certainly less oppressed than a working class, colored, Muslim woman, or ,for that matter (here is where it gets interesting), man. Take all these variables, shift them around and arrive at different levels of subjugation, oppression,exploitation etc..
This analysis is not cookie cutter and therefore hard to sell as a program but I believe feminism as a movement for “equal rights”needs to see itself as a subset of “humanism”, or the movement for the much more magnificent concept of Justice. Here is where Left leaves Right and if you can’t go there….
This comment was written by Troutsky.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Ifeminists consider formal equality under the law the be all and end all of feminism. I don’t think that’s enough - and neither do most dictionary definitions of feminism, for that matter.
More importantly, Wendy’s record is more than just what you quoted. And, like Cathy, Wendy virtually never uses her column to say anything pro-feminist; only to attack feminists and feminism. Check out some of the “Alas” archives about Wendy McElroy to see what I mean.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:29 am
A feminist:
1) Believes that there is current, significant, society-wide inequality and sexism which on balance disadvantages women.
2) Advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
It seems to me that Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young would agree with you on (2) (At least insofar as they are fighting for whatthey see as equality) but not on (1).
The question becomes, once you’ve achieved “de jure” equality, do you declare victory and go home, or do you keep fighting until you get equal outcomes.
I know this will sound snarky, but the way I (and a lot of people, I think) see the difference between people like Cathy Young and Wendy McElroy and people like the “Alas” writers is that the former advocate equality between the sexes while the latter actually favor feminine supremacy.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:42 am
First of all, what Kip said. :-)
Secondly, I don’t think anyone - either on the neocon or the traditional con side of that debate - is saying anything like (to paraphrase what you say about feminism) “the case for continued conservative activism is based on claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.” None of them are claiming that conservatism itself no longer has any reason to continue; they’re just arguing over which branch of conservatism is best, Ralph Reed’s or Richard Cheney’s.
You’ve overlooked the huge difference between saying “our movement, which is still desparately needed, has taken a terribly wrong turn,” and saying “the case for our movement’s continued activism does not stand up to scrutiny.” That difference is the difference between being part of a fractious movement, versus being against the movement itself.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Yes, I agree, they would. But (1) isn’t skippable (at least, not in my opinion).
I think it would sound less snarky if you could actually come up with a single post of mine, anywhere, where I advocate for feminine supremacy.
The odd thing about this dispute is that Cathy and I actually agree on quite a lot. Cathy writes, “I believe we still need a philosophy to guide us on the journey of an unprecedented transition: a philosophy that is not pro-woman (or pro-man) but pro-fairness; that stresses flexibility and more options for all; that encourages us to treat people, regardless of sex, as human beings.” And I agree with all of that. It’s just that I think feminism at its best is that philosophy, and Cathy thinks that feminism is “the biggest impediment” to that philosophy.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:52 am
She quit. She got what SHE wanted out of it, and when feminists started advocating changes SHE didn’t give a damn about, she decided “We’re equal now (equal enough for me, anyway), so feminism is no longer necessary.” She simply refuses to understand what I think is the basic idea of feminism, and that is the idea that women are all different, and have different ideas of happiness and fulfillment, and that they deserve to persue their own happiness and fulfillment, without having to take shit from or be limited by people who disapprove of their choices.
Patriarchy puts women into two boxes (wife/mother and whore) which are really two sections of one box (chattel). Phyllis Schlalfly’s ilk lifted wife/mother out of the chattel box, put it on a pedestal, declared “mission accomplished,” and proceeded to piss on the feminists who are attempting to set the box labeled “chattel” on fire, replace it with a non-box labeled “humanity,” and give each woman (both the whores and the wife/mothers) a blank name tag and pen so that they can define themselves.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Glaivester Writes: I know this will sound snarky, but the way I (and a lot of people, I think) see the difference between people like Cathy Young and Wendy McElroy and people like the “Alas” writers is that the former advocate equality between the sexes while the latter actually favor feminine supremacy.
It is by now traditional for anti-feminists to claim that equality is really “feminine supremacy”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 10:16 am
I think Richard Bellamy got it right.
There’s a difference between camps as to what kind of equality they feel is important. Some feminist do feel it’s acceptable to pay some people more than other on the basis that they have a family to support. They feel this will help alleviate systematic disadvantage against women caused by their caring responsibilities. Others would disagree with that, because they feel other types of justice (such as “equal-pay-for-equal-work”) are important.
It just depends what you mean by equality. Do you mean treating everyone the same, do you mean equal outcomes, do you mean equal respect, or what? The narrowly defined “treat men and women the same” form of equality does have a distinguished pedigree in feminist though: particularly early feminism.
I don’t think the sort of definition war above really helps to clarify things. But I think both schools have a claim to call themselves feminist and I think there are important differences between them.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Legal equality is not the only thing we need. Cultural equality is important as well—for women to be truly accepted as the equals of men, assumed equal until proven otherwise and not vice-versa.
Equality under the law is all well and good, but it is not equality in practice. THAT is what’s important. And saying “you’re equal, now shut up” is not feminist. (Where, precisely, does one find the Equal Rights Amendment in the constitution?)(And don’t say “women have cultural advantages that make up for that,” because they are not advantages to all women, nor do they come anywhere near compensating for all the inequities that far too many people dismiss, ignore, or refuse to see.)
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Cathy:
Obviously you haven’t been reading any of the conservative verbal tar-and-feathering of Andrew Sullivan for deviating from the party line on issues such as torture, gay rights, and the way the current Iraq occupation is being mismannaged.
But *IF* Sullivan also advocated for socialism, gun control, a stronger EPA, anti-globalization measures, abortion rights, afirmative action, oacifism, etc… and called himself a conservative, what then?
You totaly side stepped Amp’s argument with a diversion over the conservative/neo conservative split, which is actualy mostly over deficit spending. Unless you’re trying to claim that the areas in which you deviate from mainstram feminism are that small. To which I say: bullshit.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 11:05 am
I agree that this is what self-professed feminists typically believe. (I myself do not believe it.) I make no comment on whether Ms. Young believes this, or whether it is necessary to believe this to be reasonably considered a feminist.
Most self-professed feminists would claim that this is what they do. In practice some advocate for the advantage of women, while most advocate for the elimination of what they perceive as disadvantages affecting women. Very few recognise, consider, or advocate for the removal, of disadvantages affecting men. It’s not true, therefore, that they advocate for equality, since the result of what they advocate would leave men at considerable disadvantage.
While most professed feminists would probably claim to meet both prongs of your definition, and there undoubtedly some who actually do it begs a rather important question to assert the second prong as part of the definition.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Individuals who subscribe to a philosophy but eschew its wilder, wackier extremes are typically called “moderate,” not “anti.” We have moderate conservatives as contrasted with arch-conservatives and moderate libertarians as contrasted with anarchists. Why not have moderate feminists and arch-feminists? Or classical feminists and arch-feminists? Or classical feminists and neo-feminists.
It’s typical of zealots to think that any non-purist as “anti.”
This comment was written by Karen.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 11:11 am
nik Writes: It just depends what you mean by equality. Do you mean treating everyone the same, do you mean equal outcomes, do you mean equal respect, or what?
Nik, I think the acid test (so to speak) of contemporary feminism is: Do you look around at the way women and men are treated in the world today, and think “Women and men are equal now, there’s no need for feminism!” If so, then you are not a feminist. That would appear to be Cathy Young’s viewpoint: and if, any time she writes about feminism, she spends all her time attacking it, she is not only “not a feminist”, she is an anti-feminist.
I think the attempt on the part of anti-feminists to claim that they are feminists is akin to the thinking that leads homophobes both to express deeply homophobic views, and to claim that being identified as homophobic is an insult - that they are not homophobic, they just believe it’s a bad thing to be gay. Equally, Cathy Young appears to wish to argue that she’s not anti-feminist, she just believes that feminism is bad and wrong and bad. :-)
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Barry,
This comment was written by Amy Phillips.Let’s assume for a moment that your definition of feminism is correct, that one must believe that there exists “current, significant, society-wide inequality and sexism which on balance disadvantages women” in order to be a feminist. Feminists, by your definition, would like to see that inequality eradicated, and hope that someday it will not exist. Will you, when you feel that goal has been reached, stop using the word feminist, reserving it only for descriptions of historical figures who lived during a time before the pervasive sexism you perceive was eradicated? How will you know when that goal has been reached? What criteria will you use to determine when it is time to retire the word “feminist” in favor of another word that doesn’t require belief in current, pervasive gender discrimination? And what word will you use to describe yourself when you satisfy the second of your criteria, but no longer satisfy the first because your feminist goals have been achieved?
Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
this really will sound snarky, even though i’m refraining from using the language that first popped into my head: someone who believes in equality between the sexes and also truly believes equality has been achieved, may or may not be feminist, but certainly is not living in reality. anti-feminism is secondary; the primary problem here is either ignorance or a lack of logical thinking.
amy: i obviously can’t speak for anyone else, but think once equality (both legal and actual) is achieved, feminism will be moot. feminism is a solution to an existing problem, like affirmative action. it’s all about context- affirmative action only makes sense because of institutional disadvantages that exist, the same way that antibiotics are (should be?) only taken when there’s an infection. after the infection is gone, taking antibiotics is no longer necessary, and would no longer be considered medication. when women are not oppressed, feminism is no longer prescribed.
maybe ‘feminism’ should be renamed ’sexual equalism’ or something non-sexed or non-gendered, but i think someone would have to be pretty disingenuous to suggest that equality is not what the vast majority of feminists are working for. it’s ‘feminism’ because women happen to be the ones who have to overcome the societal disadvantage. again, it’s about context.
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
In general, especially since this thread is obviously going to include people from a wide range of views, I’d like to remind everyone to stay polite.
* * *
But Karen, by any reasonable survey of the philosophy of feminism, I am pretty much at the center, and Cathy - if she’s a feminist at all - is at the wilder, wackier extreme.
And it’s simply not true that I think any non-purist is “anti.” However, there’s a big difference between a “non-purist” and someone who’s entirely opposed to feminism, and I’d argue that Cathy falls mostly into the latter category.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Kyra writes: Legal equality is not the only thing we need. Cultural equality is important as well…for women to be truly accepted as the equals of men, assumed equal until proven otherwise and not vice-versa.
While I agree with you that cultural equality would be a good thing, I do not think it is feasible. Legal equality is something we can enforce, but cultural equality is a mixture of personal experiences, sub-cultures, and opinions, philosophies, and morals. One would have to affect and manage all of those in order to truly have cultural equality. Such a society would not be one I would enjoy living in.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
If I may, because the definition was rather vague, what is meant by ‘ opposed to feminism’? Is it lack of support for the ideaology, or a concerted effort to undermine feminism?
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
oacifism?
This comment was written by djw.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
jaketk: One would have to affect and manage all of those in order to truly have cultural equality. Such a society would not be one I would enjoy living in.
Privileged people frequently feel they would not enjoy living in a society where they were no longer privileged.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Hey, Amy. Nice to see you here.
In a future in which women are fully equal, I don’t think it would make any sense to be a “feminist.” It would be like being a suffragette in the US in 2005 - what’s the point?
Or perhaps “feminist” would come to refer exclusively to people who are actively trying to help women abroad who are oppressed.
What would a world with no need for feminism look like?
I’m pretty positive it would have more female office-holders, more female CEOs of the big companies, more fathers spending more time with their families, much less rape, much less intimate violence. It would not be a world in which there had never been a female president or even a serious female contender for president (no insult to Victoria Woodhull or Hilary Clinton). Men and women might not have identical career paths, but there would be much more overlap, and far less of the huge inequalities we currently have - be it women’s low pay or the disproportionate chance of male workers suffering deadly injuries. If there had to be selective service, it would apply to both sexes. Men would be almost as likely as women to take time off when a newborn arrives. In gneeral, there’d be much more social support for combining caregiving and career. While some people would be active in trying to reduce abortion, they’d be doing so by trying to reduce demand for abortion, rather than by trying to use government force to cut off the supply side.
And what if women had all the rights, but men had been left behind? I don’t think that’s too likely to happen, because in my view sexism is a two-sided coin; in most cases (aboriton is the big exception) it wouldn’t be possible to reduce harm to women without reducing harm to men, as well. (For instance, getting rid of the ways the breadwinner/homemaker dichotomy harms women’s interests would necessarily involve benefits for men - less time spent at work, more time spent with family).
But if women were fine and men were oppressed, then I guess the movement I’d join would be called the men’s rights movement. Or at least, that’s what it’s called right now. It’s actually very hard to predict what words end up being picked up and used by a culture, so I don’t feel there’s really any way to say what the word will be.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
i hope i wasn’t impolite. i just think that people who don’t see the (anti-female) sexism in our society (and other societies) just don’t get it. i want to be open to other’s ideas, but i have a hard time with people who actually believe we have sexual equality. it seems that they’re either not really paying attention, or they’re somehow benefiting (or think they’re benefiting) from the inequality and/or the denial of it.
daran: i don’t think you’re being fair to feminists. i don’t have statistics on what all self-proclaimed feminists believe, but all feminists i associate with would like sexism-based disadvantages to be removed for men, too. especially my very ‘femmy’ male friend who is teased and insulted, a friend who is treated unfairly in his child custody case because he’s male, guy friends who worry about being drafted, etc. but a lot of these disadvantages for men result from the very beliefs feminists want to abolish. once people accept that being femmy isn’t bad (female is not bad) and that women don’t have to be the primary childcare givers, things will improve for both sexes. right now i can’t think of disadvantages for men that are not caused by the type of sexism feminists want to overcome, but i’d like to think i’d support the abolishment of them, too.
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
umm, sorry for the reiteration of amp’s ideas- i’m a slow typer.
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
I said:
I should clarify. It’s the ‘on balance disadvantages women’ bit I disagree with. There are certainly current, significant society-wide inequality and sexism that disadvantage both sexes, men to a greater degree.
Nor am I convinced that most feminists would insert the ‘on balance’ rider. It seems that most deny, trivialise, and/or dismiss the disadvantages faced by men.
The -ism I subscribe to, recognises that both sexes suffer in different ways from society-wide inequality, and seeks to understand and remedy this for both sexes. That -ism does not appear to be feminism.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
by any reasonable survey of the philosophy of feminism,
I haven’t surveyed feminism. I simply lived it. I remember well the bad old days. I have plenty of war stories. And plenty of “firsts.”
Once upon a time, feminism was about equal rights for women, equal access, equal treatment. There are still a few areas in which women do not have equal rights, for example, the right to serve their country in military combat, but only a few.
I do not recognize what some today call “feminism.” I don’t know what happened while I was off living my hard-won, equal-righted life confident that the cause had prevailed and I could retire from it. I am at a disadvantage in this discussion because I’ve obviously missed a lot of activity. From what I see, though, it seems that something went wrong about the time of the great equity feminist/gender feminist debate. It’s all well and good to engage on the subject of spousal abuse, for example, but don’t call that feminism. Call it “women’s issues” if you insist that it be gender-centric. Or “post-feminism” if you’re attached to the label. But don’t exclude equity feminists from feminism. It is dismissive of the good work of the pioneers and it reduces the pool of supporters going forward.
Re Cathy Young, I discovered her only recently. I found her general political commentary smart and it resonated with me so I now read her daily. If you find her “attacking feminism,” I submit that she does so in the same context that conservatives attack Pat Robertson for some of his utterances.
Movements have stages. An important marker in any movement is the determination of when to declare victory and move on. If that cathartic event doesn’t occur naturally, movements can spin oddly. They can beat dead horses or overreach or go off on some tangent or morph into something else or become a parodies of themselves, among other possibilities. It seems to me that current feminism has lost it’s touchstone and should try to find it and revisit it every now and again.
This comment was written by Karen.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Daran,
I am interested to know more about where you see anti-male discrimination. I certainly think it exists, and I have some ideas about the shape of it, but would like to hear more from others about where they see it. When thinking about equality, I do feel that there are places where women have an edge. Are different approaches needed to combat anti-male discrimination, or is it just that feminist ideals are not being applied to practices that discriminate against men?
That said, I think that in general, women’s position in the world (in this country but more dramatically in others) is materially worse then men’s position in the world. Men have more explicit power (power to command) while women’s power tends to be implicit (power to persuade, charm, cajole). Men have more money, more sexual autonomy (even without abortion/childbirth, look at women’s inability to insist on a condom in much of Africa plus general slut/stud dichotomies), and more men are in power in the business world and in politics, as pointed out by Amp. This implicit/explicit power divide is particularly problematic because it allows women to be painted as morally inferior–”sneaky,” “manipulative,” “dishonest” and men to be congratulated for being straightforward.
However, I also think that anti-male discrimination should be abolished as well–but I’d like to have a better idea of how men are discriminated against and start talking about what we can all do about it.
This comment was written by Ismone.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
But, as Amp says, it’s OK to be an anti-feminist. That’s not an insult (except on this blog I guess, and in certain other places). It’s merely descriptive.
I don’t consider it to be an insult, although I am a feminist. It’s simply a statement of fact. It may make some folks uneasy (I’m thinking of the folks who run the site Ladies Against Feminism) if they soley identify/define themselves by what they oppose.
Karen, I’m glad you think that feminism’s done it’s job and everything is hunky dory now.
It’s all well and good to engage on the subject of spousal abuse, for example, but don’t call that feminism.
You know, even Richard Gelles, the researcher that the anti-feminists cite, has made it very clear that the majority of intimate partner violence is perpetrated by men, and the majority of people targeted and injured by these acts are women. To say that’s not a feminist issue, and that it does not point to a serious power imbalance, is ludicrous.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
I think I am in love with this blog. I would marry it if I believed in that sort of thing.
When I use the term anti-feminist is is prejorative because being anti-feminist is being discriminatory against women. That is a bad thing. Just like being racist is bad.
Young, McElroy, Sommers and Patai are cut from the same cloth of women paid and otherwise rewarded by right wing organizations to pump out antifeminist drivel. Without feminism none of these cheecky monkeys would have a job writing anything with their names attached to it.
What is ironic is that so many of them stump for FIRE and other reactionary organizations while consistently and strenuously trying to tell other women what they can’t say and viciously attacking them if they won’t shut up. Sommers tried to get a feminist philosopher kicked out oher her professional association because she didn’t like what she talked about. Patai spends a significant part of of her time complaining about what other professors (who she has never met nor observed teaching) are doing in their classrooms. McElroy and Young write the same boring articles every month making such inane claims as women are as violent as men. Give us a break ladies! How is this productive?
This comment was written by MAD.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
That language in the blog update link is Swedish. I don’t know it well enough to make any reasonable translation.
My impression of Young, McElroy, and other “iFeminists” is that they tend towards the libertarian wing of the Republican party and not towards the religious/Big Nanny wing.
Libertarians tend to believe in the absense of informal discrimination, and in blind meritocracy, ie, that if government was minimized, the talent rising to the top would be predominantly white hetero male upper-middle-class-upbringing because those individuals must be naturally smarter and harder-working than all others of different gender, sexuality, color, or economic origin. Libertarians who happen to be female or persons of color tend to view themselves as exceptions to their gender or race, and hold most members of their gender or race in contempt as lazy, stupid, etc.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Libertarians do not, in fact, believe any such thing.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
They must, or else there’s no explanation for the fact that most of the government, media, and most corporations are ruled by rich white men. If women and minorities “can’t even” succeed with the government helping them out with the occasional affirmative-action law, there’s no reason to believe that they’d succeed if we just let things go on as they have.
I am open to an explanation of how this is not true, though.
This comment was written by nerdlet.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Jesurgislac writes: Privileged people frequently feel they would not enjoy living in a society where they were no longer privileged.
It has nothing to do with ‘privilege’. I do not know of anyone who would enjoy living in a society that dictated what you could think, feel or express, even if the society were considered a utopia. I do not think removing bias is worth removing or controlling people’s thoughts.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
I’ll be glad to derail Amp’s thread with a lengthy exposition of the libertarian philosophy and position, but right now I’m slamming on deadlines. Raincheck?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Thank you for articulating this so succinctly. I have often found this to be the case in personal interactions with Libertarians infuriated by any efforts to correct discrimination. Since they obviously believe white male superiority to be the natural order of things, any efforts to correct for institutional bias are somehow “cheating” and unfairly favoring the assisted group. You will never, ever hear them admit to this, despite the intellectual dishonesty required to argue for this position while simultaneously denying any personal bias.
This comment was written by Lizzybeth.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Arrgh, I can’t *believe* I actually feel compelled to jump in and take this position, but:
I do think it’s possible to hold libertarian and feminist views at the same time. By Amp’s definition, no less.
I find it perfectly plausible that someone can recognize gendered discrimination and work to fight that inequality, while at the same time believing that the government is an inappropriate or counter-productive place to have that fight. One might believe that the inherent nature of government is to protect the powerful, and that attempting to create change through it will always inevitably lead to perversions of what is intended. (See, for example, what happened in Canada after MacKinnon and Dworkin passed the anti-pornography law. You know the only businesses that have been gone after with this law? Feminist- and gay-oriented bookstores. The master’s tools, etc.) Instead, they may believe that you need to have grassroots change, change attitudes rather than laws, etc.
Not saying that most, or even many, libertarians believe this. But I do think there’s some value in keeping this viewpoint in mind when thinking about how to effect change, although I certainly don’t subscribe to it whole-heartedly. (Whether this is what iFeminists actually believe, I have no idea. Someone else will have to make that judgement.)
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
jane:
Of course. Just about everyone agrees that there should be equality between men and women, and that nobody should be disadvantaged or discriminated against because of their sex. There are very few people who are explicitly supremicist.
It’s when you go beyond the bland statement of equality, and look closely at feminist discourse, that this laudibly gender-neutral stance gives way to highly one-sided analysis and advocasy.
I assume you’re in the US
Indeed, these men have a real and justifiable fear of being enslaved by their own government and sent, possibly to their deaths, and at the very least to kill other men.
Your female friends do not have that fear, or anything remotely like it. In my opinion, this trumps every significant society-wide inequality or sexism that disadvantages women in the US today.
Not only do you apparently hold the opposite view, but you regard the expression of mine to be ‘disingenuous’.
You attribute the persecution suffered by your femmy male friend to the notion that “female is bad”, yet you don’t attribute the discrimination against fathers in family courts to the idea that “male is bad”.
You do not appear have an explanation for why it is that men and not women are generally subject to conscription. I give mine below.
I see little evidence that feminism generally has recognised that society regards men as expendible cannon-fodder. As children we watch men being casually wasted in a thousand adventure films and television shows, and it doesn’t matter. The death of a woman by contrast is almost invariably depicted as shocking or tragic. As adults we are always reminded in the media to shed an extra tear whenever there are “innocent women and children among the casualties”. It is this which conditions us all - men and women alike - to accept as normal the conscription of men, the high rates of male death in the workplace, the disproportionately high proportion of men excectuted, the millions of males selectively killed throughout the world in wars where they were either not combatents or or no choice but to be combatents.
If this is “the type of sexism feminists want to overcome”, then why aren’t feminists talking about it? Where are the feminist media analysis that discuss it? I can find any number that look at the same media, and complain about how men are depicted as being proactive, in positions of power, etc. There is a lot of feminist attention (rightly) paid to the rape of women as a war attrocity. Where is the comparible attention to gender-selective murder of men as a war attrocity?
Feminism is not the cause of these problems, of course. But feminism has been sucessful in projecting its message into the mainstream in a way that is detrimental to any solution.
Jane (in another post):
As long as it maintains it’s gendered focus, any attempt to rename it would be dishonest.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Jaketk, I agree, but I don’t think anyone here has proposed removing or controlling people’s thoughts.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
I think people here should be cautious about assuming too much about Cathy’s views - especially the stereotypes of what libertarians think. Here’s part of what she wrote in a comment on the thread at her blog:
There’s almost nothing in the above quote I’d disagree with - although I’d point out that the “soft discrimination” of societal and family expectations is a form of sexism, as objectionable in its own way as direct employer discrimination.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
jaketk Writes: It has nothing to do with ‘privilege’. I do not know of anyone who would enjoy living in a society that dictated what you could think, feel or express, even if the society were considered a utopia.
Nor do I, but no one’s proposed it. What you said you would not enjoy was a society in which personal experiences, sub-cultures, and opinions, philosophies, and morals had been affected/managed by feminism to create cultural equality: that is, a society in which men were no longer privileged. That would affect personal experiences, sub-cultures, opinions, philosophies, and morals - but not because anyone was dictating what you could “think, feel, or express”.
A hundred years ago, you would almost certainly have thought that the idea of women having the vote was absurd and ridiculous. You would probably have thought that the idea that when a woman did the same job as a man she should be paid the same wage was absurd and ridiculous. You would undoubtedly have thought that when a woman marries a man she ought to take his surname and all her children should take his surname, too - and that anything else was possibly illegal, and certainly subversive. All of these things were radical feminist notions then: they are now part of mainstream thinking. I am willing to bet that your “personal experiences, sub-cultures, opinions, philosophies, and morals” with regard to these (and many other) areas has been affected/managed by feminism - but not because anyone ” dictated what you could think, feel or express”. Just because society changed, bringing radical feminist ideas into the mainstream.
Feminism is a revolution that’s been more successful than any other, in the long term, and all without killing anyone or brainwashing anyone.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
AB, this is the reason I can’t get on board with many anti-porn feminists: as long as the folks who get to decide how to use the power to censor think of “man fucks woman, subject verb object” as the norm and think of kinky lesbian sex as deviant, they’ll never use that power as I would have them use it.
(Not to get off on a tangent, but I always thought Lorde’s metaphor was wrong. A tool has no agency. Either a hammer of a screwdriver can be used as a paperweight, a doorstop or a dildo. No matter how ill-suited they are for those uses, they will not complain. Nor will they complain of who uses them, or of who benefits from their use. The master’s tools will tear down the master’s house. It is the master’s servants who won’t. )
Statutes always leave a fair amount of discretion in application. If they create private rights of action, they’ll be used by anyone with standing as they see fit. If they create regulation, their implementation and enforcement is in the hands of the regulatory agency. If they impose criminal sanction, they leave the enforcement in the hands of the prosecutor. It is in my view not only acceptable, but really necessary, for feminists to consider whether giving the government power to do something will really result in that something getting done, or if it will merely result in the government using more power for ends we do not support.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
daran mostly-
to start, i’m sticking with my “it’s about context” theme- as in “it’s called feminism because on the balance, throughout the world, women are more disadvantaged than men.” that’s why it maintains its gendered focus. when men are more disadvantaged, we’ll work toward a masculinism movement.
i’m not sure if you’re saying that *my* gender-neutral stance gave way to one-sided analysis and advocacy, or if that’s feminist discourse in general. but in case you are addressing me specifically, i will point out that i noted that i couldn’t think of any disadvantages men have that wouldn’t be at least partly addressed by feminism/ attention to women’s issues. and you didn’t give me one, so all i’ve got to work with are my own examples. and i still believe each one is related to anti-female sexism.
i don’t want to belittle your fears, but very few men of my generation confront the fear of the draft as often as women of my generation confront anti-female sexism. no-one in my generation was alive and over 18 for the last draft. and none of my male friends were/ are seriously worried about it happening. i’d be scary if it happened, but it hasn’t. no-one in the us today faces forced conscription.
it’s hard for me to accept that men’s abstract fear of a draft trumps the lower wages, rape, etc that women face every day.
and, while i think conscription is bad in general, if it does exist, women should be included.
but i still think all of these things are related to underlying sexism that is set against women. at dictionary.com, a synonym for ‘female’ is ‘weak.’ of course, if female=weak, we don’t want to send women into the military. and as a man, you must prove you are not weak, because to show weakness is to be feminine. the underlying assumption is still female=weak=bad. the end result is that men are conscripted, which is horrible, but still, the reason men are fighting is because man=strong. and feminists *are* trying to overcome this. feminists don’t believe that female=weak, male=strong.
(i’d like to point out here that there is forced female conscription in many places, although not usually enforced by the gov’t- the maoists in nepal, for example. also, i’m too lazy to look this up- what are the number of women killed in war these days as compared to men? a lot of women are killed as civilians.)
the childcare thing is an extension of this: if men take care of children, they are feminizing themselves. again, men suffer here– they don’t get custody of their kids, they lose out on relationships with their kids– but i’d argue that the underlying assumption is not that man=bad, but that man-acting-like-woman=bad.
this is also why there’s so much horror about gay men (and much less worry about lesbians): one of those men must be putting himself in the position of a woman, either in the relationship as a whole, or just during sex (being on the receiving end). a real man should be doing the fucking, not getting fucked. women are the ones who are supposed to get fucked (preferably by a man).
**in the end, even if you don’t believe the feminists are working towards these issues for men, i think that they will be resolved by feminism.**
so, give me an example where men are disadvantaged for reasons other than the anti-feminization of men, where feminism won’t help the situation, and i’ll try to fairly deal with it.
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Yay, I get to correct this common Dworkin-MacKinnon misconception.
1. MacKinnon & Dworkin not only never tried to pass any laws in Canada, no form of the ordinance they proposed in the USA was ever adopted by the Canadian government.
2. Dworkin has written against obscenity laws such as Canada was discussing in the Butler case.
3. Books detained for inspection by Canadian Customs officials were done so under guidelines in effect for years before 1993 and these guidelines were unaffected by the Butler decision.
Thomas, you’re confusing giving individual citizens hurt by pornography the power to sue pornographers (the Dworkin-MacKinnon ordinance) with giving governments power to censure pornographic materials (the inadequate ‘obscenity laws’ we’ve got right now). Corporations and governments are already abusing their powers of censure in all the ways you express fear about, but since the proposed solution to addressing the harms of pornography is a civil remedy it would not put any more power in government or corporate hands. Quite the opposite.
Now that’s outta the way…
The first letter to the editor I ever had published was a response to a Salon.com article Cathy Young wrote in 2000 dismissing the wage gap between men and women as evidence of sexism. I agree with Amp that of the most known anti-feminists Cathy Young is one of the more cogent, but in my opinion that’s not saying too much. I also think the ideas expressed in her writings on feminism are easily identified as antagonistic to the basic concept of a feminist movement and thus are rightly called anti-feminist.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
This has all gone rather far from the point that I intended to make, which was that one of the prongs of Ampersand’s definition was contentions because some people would argue that many feminists do not meet it.
Ismone:
I’ve already given a few answers.
I do not agree that equality is a feminist ideal. It seems to me to be a fundamental contradiction to suggest that equality is not in practice being applied be applied equally. Sure, most if not all feminists espouse equality, but so do most non-feminists.
The problem is that most feminist discourse is one-sided, focussing upon the advantages enjoyed by men and disadvantages suffered by women, both percieved and real, while ignoring, dismissing or trivialising those that operate in the oposite direction, If it didn’t, you wouldn’t need to ask me how men are disadvantaged. You wouldn’t need to look beyond feminist discussion.
Explicit power is power that can be easily taken away. Consequently men are also more likely to be powerless. Men, not women, are conscripted, and conscripts are not typically given the power to command. More men than women are subject to forced labour (and international law permits this, for men only. Women are protected (in theory, anyway)). Men who do cannot fight are more likely to be massacred.
This doesn’t contradict what you said, but is the flip side of the coin.
I can’t comment about the situation in the rest of the world, but in the west a wift, with her smaller household allowence may have more freedom to choose what to spend it on than the husband, who has to pay the rent, pay the electricity, etc.
Again I can’t really comment on the situation in the rest of the world, nor even the power dynamics that take place in western bedrooms. It’s certainly not clear to me that women are in practice less powerful than men.
Childbirth options vastly favour women in the west. After intercourse, she can take the morning after pill, have an abortion, give birth and put the child up for adoption, or bring it up herself and demand that the father financially support her to do it. In some states she can even legally abandon the child in a designated safe place. The father can only wait to see if he has to pay for it, and maybe get some access rights if she decides to bear it.
The flipside of the slut/stud dichotomy is that a woman who choses not to have sex is regarded as chaste, while a man who choses not to have sex, or worse, who “can’t get laid” is less of a man for it.
Many more men are not in power in the business world and politics. That the Bushes are a powerful family in the US, does not mean that Dave Bush, the New York rest-room attendent, is powerful or that he derives any benefit merely because he has something in common with some powerful people.
It also allows men to be painted as abusers with women their victims.
That would be a great start.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
How come men’s rights advocates nearly always ignore the substantial disadvantages that come with pregnancy?
Yes, only the pregnant person can choose to get an abortion - that’s an advantage for women, in a way. But it’s also true that only the non-pregnant person suffers the considerable difficulties of being pregnant - including a small but real chance of injury or death.
When will your posts acknowledge that men aren’t the only people in the world with problems? Do you really think that pregnancy confers nothing but advantages on women?
If the father brings up the child himself, he has a corresponding right to be paid child support (one of the former employees at my workplace has her paychecks garnished and paid to the Dad). That’s equal rights, not extra rights for women.
In some states, so can the father.
In practice, of course, it’s mostly mothers who end up in this situation - but that’s because the father, unlike the mother, is biologically capable of abandoning a child during the pregnancy. I think it’s obvious that the situation contains advantages as well as disadvantages for fathers.
Legally, an adoption is not valid if the biological father doesn’t approve of it.
Of course, biologically fathers and mothers are not identically situated; it’s possible for a mother to keep a pregnancy and adoption secret from the father, but not vice versa. However, I think it’s clear that the biological inequities (1) probably can’t be solved by legislation, for the most part, and (2) contain advantages and disadvantages for both parties. To describe them as favoring women, as if being the “pregnant party” didn’t also have substantial disadvantages, is silly.
Another thing that must be asked in these discussions is, what’s fair for the child (assuming the child is born)? Most of the solutions proposed to make things “fair” for Dads - such as giving fathers the right to cut and run without obligation (i.e., “choice for men”) - would obviously, in a society as bad at supporting poor children as ours, be unfair to children. Furthermore, because men would have fewer incentives to use birth control, we’d end up with more fatherless children then we currently have.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
AB wrote: