Posts tagged gender
“ 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”.
“ Some of these women probably are gay. And some, one can fairly assume, are not. But what’s interesting — and depressingly clear — is that a disproportionate number of women who’ve made it to the tippy-top of the executive and judicial branches in the last three administrations have shared a similar profile: unmarried, outspoken, partial to pantsuits, and child-free. Which would seem to suggest a few things, right? Like, No. 1, that it’s these women who survive the vetting process. And, No. 2, that something about being unmarried, outspoken, partial to pantsuits, and child-free has made it possible for them to get to the top in Washington … or that getting to the top in Washington, at least for this generation of ceiling-crackers, has resulted in being single, outspoken, partial to pantsuits, and child-free.”
What We’re Really Not Talking About When We Talk About Elena Kagan — Daily Intel (via peterwknox)
This problem could be solved easily with simple legislation that requires equal leave for mothers and fathers when a baby is born. Of course, this wouldn’t be a quick process, as mentalities take longer to change than legislation; however, legal action has to be the first step.
It’s obvious that having children narrows one’s career options; the problem is that until now, it was almost always the woman in the partnership whose career suffered. But if men had to take equal time off when babies are born, pregnant or newly-married women would not be the only ones discriminated against in the workplace. At that point, it would be up to the couple to decide together what they would rather have: the careers they’ve dreamed of, or the family life. Sure, a select few (usually those with generous resources) can have it all, but for the majority of humanity it is a choice between the two. It shouldn’t, however, just be a choice for women.
Equality Myth: If I Had a Hammer, I'd Smash Patriarchy: The Equalism v Feminism Debate
Anna Spysz of the Krakow Posthas a nice post on her blog about embracing “equalism” over feminism, because, as she puts it, “to me it signifies in the simplest, most elegant way, the goal of the movement: complete gender equality.”
Equalism, of course, has had various waves of…
I don’t like the idea of equalism because I think using it will a) appear to give way to the people who currently stereotype feminists as femi-nazis, etc which could then rebound onto however they would then criticise equalism, they could go “oh, but everyone knows we were right about feminism in the end so we’re right now!”
b) I’m curious: how would equalism deal with people who might qualify and support the ending of one area of discrimination but still discriminate against other areas which were included as part of equalism? e.g. a white woman who was pro-ending discrimination against women, but not against black people. I could see certain discriminated minorities taking place while others got ignored, especially as that’s something feminism doesn’t even know how to deal with yet.
What I’ve never understood about women that claim to want total gender equality is the complete misunderstanding of what that means. I’ve literally heard women say “I want equality but he should still have to pay for me”. How does that make sense? If both are getting paid the same amount, then why is the man expected to pay out of his pocket each and every time? Why is the woman holding on to her money while the man is being forced to spend his? The whole idea of paying the man more stems from the covention of him being expected to stretch his dollars further. He has to pay for dates, bills, exuberant gifts, etc with the woman being the benefactor of all of this. She undoubtedly will have to take care of some things. But whenever she doesn’t have enough to cover it, she’s to be able to go to him and get help. So he needs money to take care of himself, any emergencies he may have, and any emergencies SHE may have in addition to her whims.
If we are going to go for complete equality in which a man and woman have the exact same expectations of each other and neither is seen as being beneath the other or dependent on the other, then we have to relinquish the idea of one being more responsible than the other for financial matters or “being the head of the house”. We have to become total equals in every aspect. So, if women get maternity leave, then men get paternity leave that is just as long. People that don’t reproduce should also get a comparable leave of absence without penalty. This also means that the crap that we as women get away with for being “emotional creatures” would no longer be accepted. Scratching up the car, busting the window, acting out at the job, breaking down in tears, making threats, slapping him out of anger would all have to be punished just as a man would be punished for the same offenses. This is how I think it should be anyway. But you have no idea how many times I’ve had arguments with women about how “he shouldn’t do or say anything that gets me that mad anyway”….Isn’t that the same thing abusive men say to their girlfriends/wives “Why do you make me do this to you” ? I’m just saying…let’s not make excuses for foolishness based on gender bias and then try to make an argument for equality.
Be real with yourself for a second. Do you truly want gender equality? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
I agree with you on pretty much everything, including stopping violent behaviour, but why do we need to punish people for crying? why can’t we allow both men and women to feel okay about crying/expressing whatever they feel like?
Crying in the workplace or another professional environment was what i was referring to. The problem is that women will often use tears as a way of not having to deal with their inadequacies. She won’t get drilled as hard on a presentation if she sheds some tears when the questions become harder than expected. She might not get fired if she cries about the bills she has to pay. But men can’t use the same tactics. So it isn’t fair. And equality is all about fairness right?
The female crying also makes the men uncomfortable because they’ve “broken the fragile woman” and it makes the company look weak for hiring someone that couldn’t handle herself… when in all honesty she might just be a user. I feel like unless there’s some major tragedy occurring in your life, keep those tears at home or in a private corner where no one can hear or see you.
Although I would agree about not letting your emotions unecessarily interfere in the workplace or exploiting them, I’m curious as to why you think the traditionally masculine behaviour is better. I probably don’t agree, because I think it’s extremely masculine fields end up with crisises as a result of the competitive and stoic behaviour.
It isn’t stoicism. It’s logic. It’s being rational. When we relegate femininity to irrational, overly emotional behavior, we relegate women to child-like status and perpetuate the idea that women are like children in that we cannot control ourselves and thus need guidance and protection from men or we should fail to succeed. The fields that end up in crises are not there because of competition. They are there because of greed. Greed is not restricted to males. Competition isn’t either. Women are constantly competing for men to our own detriment.
Christyleakanjection, I agree with you in principle, but your method of argument betrays your ingrained prejudices. Of course someone who calls themselves an “equalist” and follows the philosophy should not then expect to have their dinners paid for - that goes against the very principle of of equalism, and would be extremely hypocritical to follow. Yes, there are women out there who claim to want equality of the sexes, but the second they expect a man to pay for their drinks*/support them financially, they cannot be called equalists, as they are not acting in accordance with those principles.
As far as getting emotional at inappropriate times: that is a very damaging stereotype. First of all, no woman I know, myself included, would ever break down in the workplace or even in public except in extreme circumstances like witnessing a murder, which I think would equally affect a man’s mental well-being. In reality this is a rare occurrence, but the portrayal of women as emotional nutjobs on TV, in movies, and in the media has probably encouraged those who would otherwise have been more reserved in their emotions to act out in order to seek attention. Granted, this is just a hypothesis, based on my own experiences, but the stereotype of women as being more emotional than men just needs to go. Personally, I’m like a robot compared to a lot of guys I’ve known.
*A side note on drink buying: It’s perfectly ok for friends to buy each other drinks, so if a guy is just being nice and volunteers to buy the first drink, I don’t think a girl should automatically get offended. However, a woman should never expect that the guy will buy the drink, and should insist on splitting the bill if it’s more than just one drink.
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.
