Posts tagged feminism
Polish feminism? Count me in, darling | Aleksandra Szyllo | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
I’m going to apologize for my absence from this blog by declaring my continued absence from this blog until things settle down, and sharing some links.
First of all, the above article mirrors my experience in Poland so well I literally could not have written it better. Enjoy, then get pissed off.
Second, some friends and I started an ambient record label, which partly explains my absence. Enjoy: Preserved Sound.
Finally, after over a month of stuffing my face with tacos and beer in Texas and averaging maybe one run a week, I’m starting a serious strength training routine, partly because I have a Kung Fu exam at the end of the month, and partly because I’m inspired by this.
In short, it might be a while before the blogging bug bites me again (and you get to see such stellar examples of alliteration again), but in the meantime, I’ll be leveling up physically and financially, and hopefully mentally as well.
“ One of the most cunning tools of the patriarchy is the assignment of woo as a feminine virtue. Women are supposed to be intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting, unlike those harsh and suspicious men. It’s a double-trap; women are brought up indoctrinated into believing that being smart and skeptical is unladylike and unattractive, and at the same time, anyone who dares to suggest that intuition and soothing, supportive words are often unproductive can be slammed for being anti-woman, because, obviously, to suggest that a human being might want to do more with their life than changing diapers and baking cookies is a direct assault on womanhood.”
This naive imposition of unscientific modes of thought on women specifically leads to the state we have now. Assume a fundamental difference in attitude: women feel, while men think. Now declare an obvious truth: science requires rigorous thought. The conclusion follows that women will not be taking advantage of their strengths (that woo stuff) if they are trying to do science, therefore they will not be as good at science as men, and they will also be harming their femininity if they try to shoehorn their tender and passionate minds into the restrictive constraints of manly critical thinking.
Stereotyping women right out of science : Pharyngula
PZ has been my hero ever since he was expelled from Expelled, but this makes me look up to him even more.
I have always detested the stereotype that women “feel more” (almost as much as the stereotype that women are bad drivers, but don’t get me started on that now). But this all comes down to an absurd and unscientific division of universal qualities into genders, and that’s what I’m really against - and that’s what we should abolish completely.
PZ touches on one aspect of this when he says, “Women are supposed to be intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting”. And so many people, many women included, still hold this view. But why can’t we instead simply say that “some people are intuitive, some people are not,” or, “some people are nurturing, others are not”. Or even better, “Study X has shown that people who are raised in a more nurturing environment tend to be more nurturing themselves”.
We’ve somewhat got it right when saying some people are more “right-brained” and some are more “left-brained”, which does not imply gender-specific traits. But the problem begins when gender roles are assigned to traits, and this problem runs so deep and will take so long to overcome (if we ever do) because it’s ingrained in every culture.
Most of all, it will take a conscious effort. Rather than thinking, “She’s so intuitive, it’s because she’s a woman”, or “He’s so mathematically-minded, it’s because he’s a man”, we need to simply think, “That person is trusting”.
Simple. That’s the only way we can get to, “She’s a brilliant scientist” without the additional, “even though she’s a woman”.
Equalism, not Feminism
For several years now, I’ve considered myself an equalist, not a feminist. I’m sure someone coined the term long before me, but nonetheless I considered it a personal philosophy, simply because to me it signifies in the simplest, most elegant way, the goal of the movement: complete gender equality.
The reasons for my preference for this term are manyfold, and yes, one of them is the negative connotation that the words “feminism” and “feminist” have developed over the years: namely, the one of the man-hating Amazon. Many would argue that it’s our duty to take back the word, to restore its original meaning. Maybe it is; but I see this argument over semantics as just one battle in a much larger war, and it’s the war that we should be focusing on.
More importantly, I find that the word “equalist” is more inclusive. I know many men who in action and thought follow the feminist philosophy, but for a variety of reasons would never call themselves feminists. In fact, the same goes for a lot of women, particularly those of my generation who never witnessed the pride and euphoria of first-wave feminism in the 70s.
And perhaps this is a generational thing: growing up in the 90s in the U.S., I took it for granted that I could do anything a boy could do, could grow up to be anything a man could be. Those initial battles had already been fought for me, and I couldn’t imagine that the gains would ever be taken away. In essence, equalism is just post-feminism, for those who never really experienced feminism in its initial struggles.
But equalism recognizes that the war is far from won. I could cite pay inequality statistics from all over the world, but we know these things already. But more alarming are the attitudes that have yet to be changed, that cling to the old, safe ways. It should be a given that both parents equally share child-rearing responsibilities, that neither parent is forced to give up a career; that men who choose to stay at home with their children are given equal respect and workplace rights as women who do the same; that our governing bodies reflect the populations they govern; that our women in combat are treated as equals, not as targets; that a single father is just as common as a single mother, and given the right resources and support, either could successfully raise a child; that no one, whether an employer, a co-worker or a stranger on the street, should judge me by my gender rather than by my abilities; that men and women are equal in all ways, and should be treated as such.
Yes, this is a revolution, but it is a slow one, an inevitable one. And the only way we’ll know it’s over is when we forget why we needed it in the first place; when we become post-equalists.
