Violence is never acceptable, whether emotional or physical, against man or woman. I'm sorry that you suffered violence, Vikarion; that's a terrible thing to face coming from family. Thank you for being able to share it. I understand, I think; my dad was a verbally abusive alcoholic. I'm still dealing with it.
I appreciate the sympathy, but, understand that I don't really feel bad about being attacked or abused, so it's not really hard to share what I did. My sisters do feel bad, both for themselves and, oddly enough, for me, but I'm fine. My only regret is that I never had the chance to take the SATs, so that I might achieved a higher education.
My point isn't sympathy, it's this: feminism has a large "range" of ideas. Some feminists are just interested in women being treated fairly. I understand that.
But a fairly large range of the ideas I've read seem to attribute the "unfair" actions of society to men, and to assume that society, as it is currently formulated, is designed to favor men. Many advocates of this sort of view seem to also attribute the "bad" actions of women at least in part to this sort of society. And, lastly, it seems to be frequently held that the inherent nature of men upholds and supports this sort of society.
It could be. But it seems to be used to explain too much, too often. I don't actually believe that my actions, or the actions of my father, had anything to do with the way my mother acted. I don't think that my mother's strong religious beliefs were the result of male influence - she was the one who originally chose them (as my father and mother were not originally that religious), and who radicalized them within our home. Or, to put it another way, my mother adopted a radically traditionalist narrative for our home, against the desires of virtually everyone else in it. And she was not the only one - in many of the other families in our little cult, I observed that it was most often the mother who drove the family in that direction.
Why did she do this, if it is an inherently patriarchal man-favoring structure? Because, in many ways, it isn't. The same idea that gives the mother the home as her sphere of influence also gives her authority within that sphere, as historians such as James McPherson have noted. My mother did not want to work. She wanted security, a house, higher social status, the ability to show off her family, and an income. She got that from my dad - who, incidentally, she used to work with, and he would have preferred her to have kept working.
As a note, I'd point out that the image of the dominated housewife is no less real - the fun thing about the "traditional family" is that power in the relationship flows to whoever is more aggressive and less caring.
What relation does this have to the topic? Simply this: I am extraordinarily skeptical of the theory that men have had it all their way up to this point, that women have only been the victims, and that society is biased against women, full stop. One might say that I have a slightly higher opinion of women than to think that they were entirely
the oppressed class for the last several thousand years, everywhere in the civilized world.
Probably about 750,000 American soldiers died in the American Civil war. They were, almost to the last one, men. Many of them were encouraged or nigh-forced to go by their wives, especially in the South (again, reference to McPherson) - and this in a society where white women were nearly property in some areas. Millions of soldiers also died in World War One, where the contribution of at least one feminist group was pinning white feathers on men who did not wish to participate in that entirely pointless war. If most CEOs are men, it is also true that a large majority of the homeless are men, too.
This sounds a bit mens-rightish, but I do think it is a reasonable question: if we live in a patriarchy, a society which moves to oppress women, why are the biggest losers often also men? The ones who get dead, diseased, who are provided no help when down, and are otherwise disposable to society tend to be men, especially single men. Is it then a "patriarchal" system, a system for the benefit of men and by the design of men? I don't see how one can conclude that without thus concluding that men are therefore inherently violent, self-destructive, and inferior to women.
Or one can conclude that systems of societal oppression are more complex than can be attributed to such simple drivers as gender, or social constructions, or class. If all of history has not, indeed, been the war of class against class, or race against race, then it probably is an error to conclude that we can construct a model in which men against women is the accurate explanation.
None of this is to say that women should not be equal. But it is difficult to see that women would want to be equal in all areas. Do women really want to be funneled into the military machine as men are? Do single women want to be homeless as often as single men are? Do women want to be equally represented in dangerous and shitty jobs? Do women want to be sentenced exactly the same as men are? Do women want to be the ones who ask men out on dates and pay for the meal (if we want to get petty). I haven't met many men who would be pleased to seek representation for their gender in these areas, and I rather doubt that women would. Having been often treated favorably in these areas, I doubt that many women would want to change that - and it shows.
Now, I think women should be equal, and across the board, at that. But if you don't want to embrace the ugly side of equality, we can put all this talk of feminism being about equality by the boards. What it then becomes is the desire to be equal in all the fun areas - the CEOs, the pay rate, etc. As I've said before, I think that that is a normal reaction. Still, it's not good for a movement that tries to use equality as a calling card.
Of course, there is another response that is taken, and that is the one of portraying women as the victims of whatever happens, and thus deserving of special treatment. You can see examples of this all over the place. Here's one from Hillary Clinton:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
Now, as insensitive as I am, this still seems hilariously stupid. In general, we tend to act as though being dead is probably the worst thing that could happen to us. If grief, or raising children alone, or becoming a refugee was worse, well, then, the logical thing to do would be to off yourself as soon as you lost someone. But aside from that, this sort of thinking completely skips over the cost to the men - to lose their friends, brothers, and buddies, and, also, to lose their life. That's not to say that women have not - especially in more modern wars - been major victims. However, one might suppose that it is a bit more likely that the ones who tend to get dead the most (men, civilian and military), tend to be the biggest victims.
That's just an example, but others can be found upon request. I've seen varieties of it myself - if a women hits a man, she must have had a good reason/he must have provoked her or threatened her. Actually, that was my mom's favorite defense. The irony of the fact that it is also a favorite of male abusers is not lost on me. And this thread stretches both through some forms of feminism and traditionalism. Consider this following article:
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/In this article, a woman defends the idea of treating men as potential rapists until proven otherwise, because it is impossible to tell what man might be a rapist - and rape has a high cost for women. It's well-argued, I think, and I actually agreed, until I tried substituting other terms - for example, "black man" and "mugger", or "woman" and "shoplifter". When you realize that placing other nouns into the argument makes it incredibly racist or sexist, one begins to wonder if one isn't accepting a flawed method of thinking.
And I think that that is what really tends to piss some people off. Not the idea that women should be equal, but the idea that the historical position of women justifies placing them in a special class now, a class not subject to the sort of criticism or clear-eyed rationality that we enforce upon others.
All of this, however, does not deny that equality is a rational goal, and that women around the globe are treated very badly indeed in some places. So are many men. So are gays and lesbians, Christians, Hindus, indeed, virtually every creed, color, gender, and unmentioned minority is persecuted somewhere. I think that in reducing this irrational state of things, feminism is a necessary part. But the fact that it is necessary does not mean that it is perfect, or that it is special. And it is possible to, in the pursuit of fairness, wind up maintaining privileges.
Author
Topic: Equality: is it really what we all want? (Read 9706 times)