Inequality

[rowyn]

Every time I sit down to write something about this, I am either overwhelmed by the multitude of things I have to say and give up on trying to organize my thoughts, or I chicken out, or both. But it's Saturday morning and I have -- well, a dozen other things to do, but all I was doing was play Puzzle Pirates, so why not, I'll give it another shot.

I end up reading a fair bit about feminism. I am fascinated by the subject, by the myriad of little ways that gender differences continue to reverberate through my culture.

I am a feminist. To me, being a feminist means "men and women should have equal rights, opportunities, and choices". It means that gender should not be deterministic, should not be used as a stick to beat people into one role or away from another. This is not an especially controversial position any more.

But the topic of feminism remains touchy, because we don't really know how to get there from here any more, and to some it's not clear that there's a "there" to get to. Men can be stay-at-home dads, women can be CEOs, and pretty much no one over the age of twelve says "you can't do that because you're a GIRL" any more. So we're done, right? Gender roles are totally last century.

... Yeah, not so much.

One term that comes out of feminist theory that I dislike is "patriarchy". I have a strong distaste for most of the "privileged men vs oppressed women" rhetoric. For one, it makes it sound like gender roles are something perpetrated by men against women, for the explicit purpose of preserving male dominance and harming women. Like there is this vast conspiracy of men out there trying to keep the women down.

This is a beguiling notion, because human beings love nothing so much as a group to demonize, and it is entirely wrong-headed. Gender roles are perpetuated by our culture upon the members of our culture. It is all-pervasive. Women are not immune to enforcing stereotypes by virtue of being female. Men are not immune to being victimized by stereotypes by virtue of being male. It is not that simple.

In something of the same vein, I get very weary of articles talking about all the ways in which men are "privileged" and women are "victimized" and discounting the idea that there are any ways at all in which gender roles harm men. Yes, I get that men make more money and make up a much larger proportion at the top of the political and business class. Yes, this is a problem. But by portraying women as always victimized, always oppressed, they are saying "anyone who isn't at the top of this political/economic heap doesn't matter". They are saying that child-rearing, nurturing personal relationships, pursuing work-life balance, being a good follower, or seeking personal fulfillment are all trivial and irrelevant, because those things are not about ruling the world. The whole business is utterly galling. It buys into the very same notions of status and value that it's pretending to tear down. This isn't about equality: it's about deciding that A is good and B is bad and therefore if you do A you are good and if you don't you suck. That already the status quo, and it's mind-numbingly stupid. The problem with the world is not just that women don't get to be at the top of the heap: it's that we are all trained to think being at the top of the heap is so damn awesome. And it's not. Being at the top of the heap does not make people happier, smarter, or better human beings. I am not saying it's a crappy place to be, but pretending that achieving it should be the goal for every human being is just dumb. It is the way in which my culture has been making men miserable for hundreds of years. Making it the way to make women miserable is not, in point of fact, progress.

Now, if people want to ride this merry-go-round, that's cool. I am all for people of all genders becoming senators and CEOs and presidents and whatnot. But it is at least as important to recognize that this is not the highest and best use for every human being. That men need to be allowed out of the expectation that this is what they should want and strive for. Heaven knows it is not what I want for myself.

Comments

[rowyn]

I actually do agree that privilege is a real thing, and that men have a lot of privileges women do not in my culture (and likewise for white people, heteronormative, etc.) But I also feel like I have a lot of privileges men do not have: I can, for example, hug a person of any gender and not have assumptions made about my sexual orientation because of it. I can seek to be in a polyamorous relationship and not immediately be accused of forcing or bullying my partners into going along with my wishes. As a woman in geek culture particularly, it is far, far, far easier for me to find a romantic partner than for any man I know. (That last is not broadly applicable to women in other American subcultures, obviously -- it's in large measure a factor of women being comparatively scarce in my subculture). If I stay home to parent my children, I am not assumed to be a worthless leech incapable of working.

And these privileges are worth far, far more to me than a bigger paycheck would be. I recognize that not every woman has these privileges or values them, but they remain something of great value to me that I want everyone to have. When feminism focuses on the financial/political spheres to the exclusion of all else, trivializing the personal/social spheres as "irrelevant" and "unimportant" and "worthless", I feel like it's a disservice to the experience of being human.

I don't know how to explain this. I don't want to undermine the struggle for economic and political equality, because yes that's really important, and safety is an even bigger issue, and yes I absolutely want to see women be on a level playing field here. But ... it just really bothers me to see the things I value most about my own life being dismissed as meaningless because they don't have a dollar value attached. And it really bothers me that the men in my culture do not have my privilege. And I would like them to. That's pretty much all.

[alltoseek.livejournal.com]

I knew there was something I was forgetting, and that is your strange notion that the oppression/privilege model excludes valuing traditional "feminine" qualities/characteristics/interests equally to traditional "masculine" qualities/characteristics/interests. Oppression and privilege exist in all spheres, not just in economics and politics. I think about how difficult life is for women in fundamental Muslim countries as Sharia law is being interpreted - women are oppressed everywhere, in social and private life as well. There is no escape.

Even in America gains made in social and private spheres are not immune - I recently read about how the tradition of marriage was undermined long before the gay rights activists, by the sexual revolution defining marriage not as a stable institution for raising children but as construct for pursuing personal fulfillment and pleasure (which the more I think about, the less sense it makes, but that was their argument). Evidently the high divorce rate makes this person's case that we should go back to rigid traditional religious marriage for 'stability'. Never mind the vast amount of abuse that was (and still is) perpetrated in that model; the abuse that women won't put up with any longer, which is the real reason for the high divorce rate - women have higher standards for lives now, and won't put up with shit. And now they have the political and economic clout not to have to.

Your privilege to chose a polyamorous lifestyle is in part due to your ability to earn your own living, and not rely on your lawful husband. Also due to laws, or rather lack thereof, that would prosecute you for pursuing multiple loves.

The hugging people is a product of our particular age and culture - there are many around the world and in many times in which men are perfectly free to hug each other and do all the time. This has nothing to do with tolerance of non-heteronormative types or how constricted gender roles are or how strictly they are enforced. Yes I agree that feminism is working to expand tolerance of affectionate behavior of all kinds on the part of all genders, rather than having strict gender roles and manners that correspond to them.

Even within geek culture women have specific problems like being accused of slutty behavior when they dress up like their favorite (female) superheroes (since such female superheroes are naturally depicted in revealing costumes); or of not being 'true' or 'real' geeks, but just looking for men(?) (I dunno, I just see all this stuff on tumblr.) And don't get me started on the gaming culture and how women are depicted in them. Makes me glad I still steer away from that stuff, but that just reinforces the problem, as the lack of female perspective keeps the men in the industry right on depicting women as the 'other', some object to be won or desired or made fun of or whatever. So privilege and oppression are not economic/political issues. They are present in all spheres of life.

cont.

[alltoseek.livejournal.com]

Part II again:

It's so odd to me to hear you say that feminisim focuses on the financial/political sphere thus 'trivializing' personal/social as 'irrelevant', 'unimportant', 'worthless'. I'm only 2 years older than you - do you really not remember "the personal IS political"? That was feminism in the 70's. Making the social/personal spheres - right to control one's own body, right to divorce, right not to be blamed for being a victim of assault, the right to safety in one's own home - feminism MADE the social/personal spheres into the political/economic ones just so we could have more control, more self-determination, more respect in social and personal spheres.

You can only choose to stay home to parent your children if you can choose to work instead. Else it's not a choice.

And if women can work, then more men are free to parent and otherwise help around the house. So now there has been a much quieter, much happier revolution in men being more involved in parenting. Do you remember how much Dad was involved in parenting? Not much. I have like maybe a handful of memories of him parenting before I was 12 or so. He did more with the boys, perhaps. Maybe you had a different experience. But I contrast that with my husband and our boys, and the difference is HUGE. And my husband works full time, as well. He does both. There's a lot contributing to the contrast in these individual examples, but one is the expectation that men parent their children. That wasn't the case a generation ago. Feminism is a huge reason why - I'm not sure there's another explanation, really. Feminists may not have actively worked for it on a political/social scale, but I'm sure they did A LOT on a personal scale, for a whole bunch of reasons. But one is that feminists know better than to think money is everything. No, it's not everything, but it's a lot easier for you and me to say that since we have food on the table every day and a home to sleep in every night. You lose those things and money starts seeming important. The economic/political sphere may not be the only important sphere to feminism, but it is AS EQUALLY important as the social/personal sphere. Not to mention how closely linked they are. Marriage and sex are personal and social, but the law sticks its nose in marriage, and if rape isn't outlawed then women are a whole lot more vulnerable to it. Choosing not to marry, or who to marry, is only possible if women can earn their own living and own their own property. The economic and political spheres are intertwined with the personal and social. The differences between them are tiny compared to their similarities - they are aspects of How People Interact With One Another. Which is what feminism is all about.