The fatal flaws of feminism – whose equality is it anyway?
Sarah Cheverton
WVoN co-editor
Deborah Orr’s article in today’s Guardian raises some important issues for women who identify as feminists, and for those who don’t.
But let me start with an issue she doesn’t raise – and that’s what exactly feminism is.
This is a problem we all face when writing about this crazy little thing called feminism – the breadth of interests, opinions and areas of focus that make up the so-called ‘movement’.
In referring to a feminist movement, we create the temporary illusion of an organized community, where there isn’t one, and arguably, never was.
To refer to a ‘feminist movement’ is an intellectual exercise that is part convenience – because it’s easier to refer to ‘feminists’ or ‘feminism’ than to refer to, say, ‘the diverse groups, campaigns, and individuals that comprise the women’s movement, which – whilst not always in agreement with each other – do share many areas of common interest”.
It’s also part necessity, because there are many areas of overlap between these groups, campaigns and individuals, and it is just as important to maintain an awareness of our common ground as it is our separate interests, ideologies and ideas.
And it’s part laziness because it is simply easier to think about one feminist movement, than to engage in the acknowledgement of the complexity of the many factions within it.
In reality, a quick glance at today’s so-called feminist movement reveals a landscape that reminds me of the battles between the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean Popular People’s Front found in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, but with fewer laughs.
Again, this is necessary, but also often divisive, and I would identify it as one of feminism’s biggest challenges. I say challenge because I consider it to have too many potential strengths – namely diversity – to be considered a flaw.
The recent debate and sometimes debacle over Slutwalk London reveals this only too clearly.
I recommend Tamura A. Lomax’s excellent article on the complexities of Slutwalk from the perspective of a woman of colour as a first class example of how we can all, as feminists activists and thinkers, consider the inherent complexity in the ‘feminist movement’.
So ‘feminism’ is a construct, but a necessary one, and maybe the best any of us can do is to make sure we use the term mindfully, knowing and stating its limitations.
But the fundamental problem for feminism, says Orr, is “the blunt and somewhat stubborn emphasis on ‘equality'”.
To an extent, I would agree with this. The emphasis on equality is, frankly, a tricksy little hobbit for feminism.
For one thing, it’s really hard to pin down what it means, without heading back to Monty Python.
Should we be aiming for equal opportunities? Should we be aiming for equal outcomes? Does equality mean creating a world where men and women are the same?
Or does it just mean creating one where we have equal rights across all areas of our lives? And even if and when we agree, how do we then address the layers of complexity compounded by race, ethnicity, class or disability, for example?
Personally, my feminism has never been pinned on the concept of equality, but rather a concept of justice, which I find easier to define and to navigate by on instinct.
It’s hard for me to define what sexual equality ‘looks like’, but I know in my gut that a rape conviction rate of 6.5%, for example, means something is going wrong for women and men in our society.
Having raised the concept of equality as problematic, Orr goes on to employ it:
“Equal opportunity in the workplace has not resulted in equal achievement….”
This raises a lot of problems for me. Even assuming we can define equality in the workplace, is there a consensus that we’ve achieved that?
Really? Did I miss a meeting?
What I do know we’ve achieved is equalities legislation, the central ethos of which is not yet reflected in our social or cultural attitudes, and which is, in any case, only as good as its implementation.
I’d recommend a quick scan of the CEDAW Committee’s last observation report on the UK as a good starting place for assessing that.
Orr then asserts:
“Worse, feminism has accidentally promoted the idea that it’s pretty easy to work and have children, with the right support in place.”
Again, really? And another meeting?
Here, it feels to me as if Orr is talking about a ‘feminism’ I find hard to recognize. So as not to fall into the Monty Python trap myself, let me be clear. I’m not saying she’s wrong, I’m just saying that this isn’t my experience.
My experience is of feminist thinking and understanding that has contributed to a clearer understanding of the problems for women in working and having children – and an identification that however you think we should be dealing with that, what we’re doing now isn’t working: for women, men or children.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually enjoyed this article. Orr has picked a really difficult subject, and I don’t think there is any one right way of tackling it.
Moreover, I think in writing it, she’s raised some really interesting issues about the complexity of ‘the feminist movement’ that we could all do with thinking – and most importantly talking – more about.
Fundamentally though, Orr and I part ways.
Because when she states that: “Feminism is – or can be – so paranoid that it cannot acknowledge that there is a difficulty with being less than forthright about the genuine and intractable dichotomies in the lives of many women”, I have to disagree.
Because for me, at least, acknowledging these dichotomies is what feminism – in all its glorious diversity and tragic divisions – has always been best at: acknowledging complexity.
And in the era of globalization, where engaging with complexity has never been so important, I think we need feminist thinking – however flawed, and however you want to define it – more than ever.
Thank you for this. I’ve just spent far more of my life on the comments section of the Guardian than I should have, not least for my own personal health! I have now posted a link there to your piece here.
Mazzawoo, thank you so much for that, you and others who brought the piece to Deborah’s attention have linked us up on Twitter, too, which is great.
I’m really glad you liked it 🙂
Thanks for this excellent piece Sarah. I agree the Women’s Movement / Feminism is diverse and sometimes contradictory (for example the debate about porn) and while this sometimes concerns me, I agree its strength is in its breadth of opinion and perspectives. Like you, feminism for me is more about justice than equality. Treating everyone the same regardless of their structural advantages or disadvantages, social, community experiences, which all intersect with how people experience the world and live their lives can only mask inequalities based on gender, race, sexuality, age etc.
But establishing commonalities between women is essential for effective campaigning and activism to improve women’s social situation. Thanks therefore to the link to CEDAW, I have downloaded the shadow report which I think says a lot more about the reality of many women’s lives in the UK than the official government one.
Its a scandal that the Women’s National Commission has been abolished, as it really helped make the links between women’s lived experiences and wider oppressive institutional practices and social attitudes that are inimical to women. I don’t know how it will be replaced but in the meantime, women like you are doing a great job of drawing attention to these issues!
You know what really pisses me off about this article is that it expects things of feminism and criticises it for not being able to achieve things that no other political movement has either – a totalitarian, uniform belief that is understood by everyone in exactly the same way. People don’t work that way. I as an interior designer can describe a colour as blue that appears in the shady area of the colour spectrum where blue morphs into green. My client will describe it as green – but arguing about whether it is blue or green really defeats the point. We both can see the colour – we just need to decide on whether we like it or not. And so with feminism and its general belief that the female is of the same value as the male. Her work, her choices, her voice, her approach – is necessary to balance the maleness in society – we are like ying and yang, front and back, top and bottom. Arguing as to whether men are better than women is like arguing as to whether right is better than left – you need both, end of.
Great comment, Vicki. 🙂
Should clarify that the article that pissed me off was The Guardian piece, not yours Sarah. And thanks for the thumbs up Halla!
Great article Sarah, and really sums up a number of the things that I’ve long felt about feminism and the “feminist movement” in general. I’ve always identified myself as a feminist but have also always felt “other” to mainstream feminism, whatever that is. My take on feminism is mainly focused on “options” (i.e. not being denied an option because of gender) and, like you, justice. The fact is that women regularly face a lot of injustice that men simply never will, from street harassment to physical intimidation and everything inbetween and beyond. As a feminist I think it’s my duty to point it out when it happens and to encourage others to stand up to it when they see it happen, whatever their gender.
And I think Orr is getting confused with feminism and the media’s understanding and promotion of feminism, as they see it – the whole “it’s pretty easy to work and have children” thing is much more of a media message then a feminist one. Or maybe I too missed the meeting…
Thank you for the article, Sarah. Much to ponder.
Sarah is not describing a different kind of feminism from Deborah Orr, she is saying Deborah is factually incorrect in what she says. What feminist believes equality of opportunity has been achieved? And who ever really said having a family and career was easy? These statements are just wrong, they are not a different definition of feminism.
I don’t see a ideological divide between equality and justice, justice is applied equality. It is equality of opportunity that adequately accounts for inherent biases and obstacles. It looks like equality of outcome because the law of averages and an absence of ‘women have small heads’ witter leave no definitive reason why outcome should be different. Therefore, the argument goes, inequality of outcome demonstrates a bias still to be rooted out. Would women with children choose to step off the career ladder if adequate child care actually existed? Who knows? Some would probably, yes, but no-one can say how many and adequate child care doesn’t exist so concentrate on that. It is as Vicki says, we all agree that we don’t like the colour, it doesn’t matter if it is green or blue.
Roll on the day when we can have real disagreement beteeen feminists who want justice, of the ‘know it when I see it’ variety, and feminists who want absolute parity, whoever they may be, then we will be making progress.
The other thing always to keep in mind is the very successful opposition stategy of inventing and redefining feminism into something that ‘ordinary women’ will say they are not. Andrea Dworkin was a long time ago. Feminists do not have control of the definition of feminism even if they could agree one.
If any of us truly believed equality of opportunity had been reached then we’d be due a big slap with the Cluestick of Privilege.
I agree about justice being applied equality, nice turn of phrase. I’m not sure the witter has been stamped out completely, there still seem to be a good deal of old-fashioned misogynists out there who can claim women are inherently inferior with a straight face.
The third paragraph here – I’m afraid I don’t follow. Is there another way of putting it?
Yeah the ‘feminism=unattractive serious woman’ campaign was really successful, unfortunately.
Halla,
Yes, I see the ‘small brain’ argument is still being made. It seems to have become possible to say men are more intelligent than women in polite company again, which is worrying.
My point was only that feminists don’t make these arguments, which is why equality of opportunity and outcome look quite similar in a feminist’s vision of an equal society.
I don’t think there is a different understanding of what equality is but rather differences of opinion as to the degree of equality that has been achieved. We still don’t know exactly what the gender pay gap is, for example, let alone why it is. We assume discrimination exists because we are not ‘small brainers’ and because we can see the obstacles that women face every day, most obviously as mothers. But there are a multutude of factors in play.
The point I wanted to make was that there may be conflicting ideological views of feminism’s ultimate goal but we are too far away from it today to know or care. Do feminists really think that women will achieve absolute parity with men in public life while, presumably, retaining moreorless the monopoly on childbirth? Will feminism have achieved its purpose if they don’t? Is it the job of government to impose absolute parity? It could be achieved by legislation but is that desirable or even fair?
I don’t know the answer. There are still too mant patently unfair work practices existing today for me to be able to form a view on whether equality and justice will turn out to be the same thing in the end.
Jane, I see – thank you for the reply. It seems that the comment sections of the stories here are becoming a useful place to have those sorts of discussions, which at least is encouraging.
I agree, Halla, it is nice to have the space to discuss these questions without drawing the fire you see on so many news sites (though I don’t like to tempt fate). It is such a shame, I think, that a loud but small constituency have all but shut down online discussion of feminism between the sexes. It seems to encourage extremism of the ‘small brain’ variety.
I think it’s what is called ‘bullying’. If you say something I don’t like I’ll call you ugly, gay, stupid or twisted. If that doesn’t shut you up I’ll call you a bi*** or a sl** and if that doesn’t shut you up … I’ll punch you. Good job we’re not in the same room as the ‘small brainers’!!
Is this “equality and justice” http://venthanmailoo.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-defines-homophobia-and-misogyny.html ?
V
I disagree that diabetes does not have a stigma attached to it.
I see no problem with the slide, what did you say?
Your blog, particularly the comments section, appears to be a men’s equality campaigning blog. A heads-up for any other WVoN readers venturing over there.
Thanks, Halla, on the basis of what you’ve said, I’ve actually deleted this comment.
No problem Alison – I wasn’t intending he be removed, only that his comments section required a mild warning as it may cause grinding of teeth and a feeling of irritation in the brain region. 😉
The reason I did was because I got a warning that there was adult content on his blog which I interpreted as meaning porn. You’ve obviously been into it but from what you’re saying it’s annoying but not offensive. Is that right?
I didn’t see any porn on the page that was linked, he was discussing men’s sexual health, domestic violence, violent assault and discrimination against men/objectification of men illustrated by a few pictures of men wearing very little, but there was no full nudity. I would judge that this is what caused the adult content warning. The blog itself has three entries in total and no followers. The comments on that entry did cause me to roll my eyes and sigh, yes. 😉
I’m not entirely sure of Venth’s attitudes but would hope he’d engage in debate about various issues and not get stuck on a ‘feminism hates men’ attitude. I hope WVoN is as educational for him as it is for me.
Okay, on that basis I’ve restored it but I guess our conversation will be useful to others who will now be aware that they go into the link at their peril! Thanks for letting us know.
I am afraid some of my blog content is not suitable for a general audience and is certainly not suitable for children, because it deals with racism, war crimes and rape. Some of the pictures are likely to disturb, but there are clear warnings before those sections, advising people not to look, unless they specifically want to see objective evidence of war crimes that have been denied.
Those things feature in my blog because the perpetrators have been largely successful in covering them up, and I did not want to permit a fase history to be written.
V
Thank you for your feedback. I do not think my blog is a ‘men’s equality campaigning blog’ though I understand it may appear that way from my 2011 posts. It continues from a website that I stopped using due to spam problems: http://www.metaot.com/blogs/venth and gender issues are only one of the things I reflect on.
I did not even show the presentation, because after accusations of homophobia had been made, I did not feel that the audience would was going to be receptive. In fact, even though I did not show the presentation I feel that I was heckled. Impartially recorded minutes can be found here: http://www.ueastudent.com/image_uploads/council-agenda31-march-2011fin.pdf
If you would like to bring some balance to the comments section, feel free ;0)
V
It was more that one article and the comments it received, which you appeared to find acceptable. To be honest there is a lot of entitled whining going on there, which you haven’t challenged in any way, but then it’s your blog so it’s your space. I can’t tell you what to have on it but I will draw conclusions based on the content. I too feel that men’s health is an area that is underserved, kudos on trying to raise awareness of this.
I am still a bit puzzled as to why you posted this example in this comment thread though, what does it have to do with the original article or the definition of feminism?
I am new to this site, and did not know how to post a reply when I first posted. I intended to reply to Jane Da Vall’s post of June 23, 2011 at 08:49. If feminism is about equal rights and recognition of equal worth in society (“equality and justice”) then all well and good.
If the majority of people that self-define as ‘feminists’ are open to accepting, or at least critically analysing the possibility that women are not the only gender/sex group that is challenged by inequalities in society, and if the majority of feminist people present balanced views, then feminism should not have an ‘image problem.’
Sadly, this was not my experience when I tried to raise issues facing male students. The reaction I recieved is documented in my blog: http://www.myspace.com/venthan_j_mailoo/blog/543329632 I (unscientifically) believe that I have been a woman in the past, and may well be a woman in the future, and if that happens I suspect I may be put off labelling myself ‘a feminist’ while the lable is associated with the kind of behaviour I have experienced.
My partner will not self-define as feminist. She will not stand for injustice or inequality though. What is the problem with the word ‘feminist’ then? I doubt the people that made comments on my blog were talking about you. They were talking about the kind of reaction I faced, and that is the image of feminism ingrained in their minds. In short, just like with any other movement, the problem is the extremists.
V
“As a philosopher, you have to want dissent. That keeps you honest and keeps the research credible. But they didn’t appreciate any kind of dissent in the movement and that spelled trouble. There is a system of quality control in scholarship, it is called criticism. But they were disallowing it.” (Christina Hoff Sommers: http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/sommers.html)
On a technical note, I would not say that diabetes ‘does not have a stigma attached to it’. I just do not believe that it is comparible to the stigma currently attached to HIV sero-postitive status. I could be wrong of course.
V
OK, I think you said ‘does not have the *same* stigma attached’ (emphasis mine) which of course is different to saying there’s none at all. It is a different stigma, but one which is becoming more acceptable as we’re encouraged to shame people about their weight. I appreciate that HIV is still promoted in some groups as a judgement from god on gay men, so yeah it’s not really comparable. However, that’s a discussion for a different place, not hijacking the comments thread on this article. 🙂
Well for starters, Orr asks why so many women are afraid to identify as feminist, and then rushes off onto another subject without bothering to answer her own question correctly. Women don’t identify as feminist ONLY because men have reframed the term and then shamed any remaining women who don’t buy their repackaging.
So it’s another craptastic article, woo woo. Instead, she explains that the fear of identifying as feminist, is because there’s something wrong with feminism. Way to blame the victim there, babe.
Keep in mind, that there’s nothing wrong with saying, “hey feminism is utilizing poor strategy” or “hey, this feminist theory here needs re-examing” but it’s entirely a seperate point to assert that the REASON women are not yet equal (however anybody wants to define the term) is because “women fear a word”. Logical, she ain’t.
And you’re not much better, damnit. Whining about the meaning of some word is yet another unrelated subtopic. Large numbers of Black people do not sit around arguing about the definition of “anti-racism activism”, nor are they stupid enough to assert a logical argument which says that the REASON they are not yet equal is because “they can’t agree on a term”. Hello, please learn how to identify your assertion, your evidence, and your conclusion.
Nice analysis. 🙂
Yesterday I saw a white “feminist” making covertly racist comments, and it caused my head to explode. So as a fellow white feminist, I told her to get her act together. She was responding to a fabulous article about racism that you can read here:
http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/opinion/10-conversations-racism-im-sick-having-white-people/comment-page-2/#comment-12534
m Andrea
See this from your post:
“Women don’t identify as feminist ONLY because men have reframed the term.”
“Whining about the meaning of some word is yet another unrelated subtopic.”
You see the conflict? We were not discussing what word to use to describe the rights that women fight for but whether we – the posters here, Deborah, Sarah – are all fighting for the same rights or not and if it matters. It is a discussion that does sometimes matter – see your first comment. I also think it is uncivil to call something whining just because you don’t agree with it, even if you hadn’t misunderstood the point. Now that is talking about what words to use.
Replying here because it seems the relevent sub-branch is too long for me to comment on:
Venth, thanks for the head-pat there, nice to know I’m one of the ‘nice’ feminists. It seems you run into opposition from various groups when you air your views. I’d invite you to consider that, if a range of people have issues with some of the things you say, the problem may not lie with them. Perhaps some self-reflection is in order?
Feminism will continue to be known as a man-hating ideology as long as it supports positions and policies that are so strongly anti-male. And they should never, ever use the word “equality” to describe their goals because there is nothing in their agenda that pushes for actual equality. They insist on superiority and often get it.
BarryMayor, I call shenanigans.
Examples please? Male superiority complexes result in millions of females being killed before they’re even born every year as against your example of … examples of women saying they are superior at exactly what …?
If you’re referring to abortion, you can thank the feminists for fighting for the right to abortion on demand for whatever reason the uterus owner sees fit. Plus, who are you to deny a woman her right to choose for whatever reason she sees fit? Her body, her choice.
Where’s your examples, BarryMayor? You’re putting up straw men here.
The abortion of female feotuses is a practice pretty much wholely confined to countries and cultures where men and male children are seen as inheritantly superior – India, some areas of Muslim Africa, China etc. These are not countries where feminism has made many inroads so I think your argument is flawed big time. Abortion of females in these cultures is largely pushed by the perceived superiority of males or a male inheritance argument – neither of which is feminist argument.
Check any feminist organzation’s key issues and you will find that the right to abort for whatever reason a woman sees fit, whether others agree with it or not, is a core feminist position.
If you are pro-choice, you will simply have to live with the fact that women may choose to abort for reasons you disagree with. Now, if you want to start down the path of women needing someone else’s permission to abort or not, feel free to start that movement.
You are confusing two things here, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now in believing that you have done so in innocence.
A woman should have the right to choose whether to abort a foetus from her body because it is *her* body and she should be free to treat it as such. Some cultures value male children over female and will therefore bring enormous pressure to bear on a woman carrying a female foetus to abort it. Does that sound like a woman ‘choosing’ abortion to you? Perhaps you have made the mistake of believing that women in such cultures are free to get up and leave their families over such issues? When someone lives in a culture that does not allow them to be independent how is she supposed to withstand or escape such pressures?
Are you catch1099 on the Telegraph site by the way or are your comments here just surprisingly similar to his?
I certainly don’t agree with assigning greater value to boys than girls (or vice-versa; hence my problem with feminism). However, the vast majority of pregnant women in those very cultures do not abort their female fetuses –which proves that they do have a choice, and some are exercising their free will to choose which gender they give preference to, for their own reasons, as feminists do in the west.
@Halla, re: Common feminist positions that are anti-male:
1) Pretending that domestic violence is only or primarily male on female.
2) Ignoring the fact that boys are graduating from HS at a 20% lower rate than girls.
3) Ignoring the fact that young men are graduating from college at a 20% lower rate than young women.
4) Ignoring and defending the devastation Title IX has done to boys and men’s programs, such as baseball, wrestling, and golf.
5) Not supporting or even opposing men having post-conception opt-out rights, as women have had for decades. I thought they were for equality?
There are more but those are some of the obvious ones.
References please BarryMayor. You are based in the US then?
Yes. Are you not? If you’re not, you are excused for being unaware of Title IX’s devastating impact on boys and young men’s educational and sports opportunities.
However, the phenomenon of boys and you men graduating far less is happening in every country where feminism has had a major impact on eduction and culture in the past 40 years. The fact that you are unaware of this is no surprise since this inequality is evidently pleasing to feminists, since they are silent on it.
http://educationnext.org/files/20102_52_fig2a.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7973260/Teachers-fuelling-gender-gap-by-stereotyping-boys-as-badly-behaved.html
http://voice.paly.net/node/16929
The same with the other issues. Men have never had reproductive rights like women have had for decades. Show me one feminist organization that even mentions male post-conception reproductive choice to opt out during the time that women can opt out via abortion (the first trimester).
No I am not in the US. I understand that you have a few problems with your education system though and that the country is really so large that it cannot reasonably be treated at one system at all.
I don’t believe that feminists (who do not speak with one unified voice, by the way – there is no secret factory where they make us all from one mould) are silent about education at all. I do believe that you haven’t sought out any writings on the subject though.
Looking at your links one by one, your graph shows more women than men gaining bachelor’s degrees. OK. What subjects are they in? Why are women still under-represented in some professions and in science etc. if they gain more degrees? What use are these degrees to them? Do they graduate and discover that they have the same opportunities as the male graduates? How many post-grad degrees do they get? What use are men’s degrees to them? How many of them become professionals? What is the comparative earning power of a man and a woman, graduating with the same degree from the same institution, over the course of their careers, assuming they go into the same field? Why is it important if more women than men graduate college at this time?
The Telegraph link looks at one side of this issue for some reason. agree that casual reinforcement of accepted gender roles is not healthy. For boys or girls. Looks at the furore surrounding the parents who have declined to tell the world what sex their child was born and the apparent unease about the Swedish (I believe it’s Sweden, correct me if I’m wrong) decision to refer to children as ‘friends’ instead of boys or girls in nursery.
From observation of primary school aged children, boys are expected to be noisier and more disruptive in the playground *and* classroom. Girls, on the other hand, are expected to be quieter and more biddable. I have seen boys and girls engaged in the same behaviour in the playground (running around and pretending to be lions, say) and have seen the boys being allowed to carry on with their game while the girls are told to quieten down and behave. So while the summary of the study in that article does raise a point it ignores the whole picture. The article doesn’t really draw any conclusions, nor is it suggesting a course of action. It’s a summary of an academic report. I find those are rarely well summarised in UK newspapers.
What is Palo Alto High School, or rather why is it important? I’m suspicious of its use of statistics from the beginning, they appear to have agenda of their own. They refer to men far outnumbering women “in high school, college and graduate school” without giving a percentage. While 57% of the further education population being of one sex now does show a gap, it’s not a large gap – why is it a cause for concern? That article does indeed suggest a problem for boys in education – how would you suggest sorting it out? From what I can see in that article Title IX was about removing barriers that held back one sex. You seem to suggest that this analysis is wrong and that Title IX was about placing barriers in the way of one sex. What would you do to engage young men in education again?
Men have always had reproductive rights, although these were not enshrined in law. Wives have always been expected to produce offspring for their husbands. Husbands have been known to disown these offspring and make all sorts of accusations and judgements about their wives. What feminism seeks to do is redress that imbalance. I think you have gained the wrong impression of the subject. Are you seriously suggesting that because you perceive men as not having these rights that they should be removed from women again?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your last sentence at all. ‘Opt out’ in what way?
Whatever problems the education system has, the “system” is treating boys unfairly such that they comprise only 40% of graduates with girls at 60%.
Feminists are only silent with respect to the gender education gap, since boys are 20% behind – which they don’t seem to care about – as evidenced by their silence. Feel free to point me to a single feminist entity that has made the gender education gap an advocacy issue.
“What subjects are they in?” Whatever subjects they choose.
“Why are women still under-represented in some professions and in science etc. if they gain more degrees?” They choose other subjects. Should they be forced into math and science against their will?
“Do they graduate and discover that they have the same opportunities as the male graduates?”
Yes. Just superior corporate and/or government benefits.
“What use are men’s degrees to them?” Men and women get the degrees they choose.
“What is the comparative earning power of a man and a woman, graduating with the same degree from the same institution, over the course of their careers, assuming they go into the same field?”
If they make identical choices, decisions and sacrifices, they have the same earning power.
“Why is it important if more women than men graduate college at this time?” It’s not.
“While 57% of the further education population being of one sex now does show a gap, it’s not a large gap – why is it a cause for concern?”
It would concern of feminists if the girls were at 43% and they boys were at 57%, but since the boys are on the short end, it’s not a concern of theirs – which further proves that equality is not their aim and demonstrates their anti-male outlook.
Men get all kinds of degrees, as do women. Whatever interests them.
“That article does indeed suggest a problem for boys in education – how would you suggest sorting it out?”
First, get anyone who considers boys being behind no cause for concern out of the education process. That they don’t see boys being “as a cause for concern” shows that they are part of the problem.
“From what I can see in that article Title IX was about removing barriers that held back one sex. You seem to suggest that this analysis is wrong and that Title IX was about placing barriers in the way of one sex. What would you do to engage young men in education again?”
Feminists insist(ed) that girls and boys would choose to participate in college sports in equal numbers. Time has shown that they don’t. For example, girls have no interest in having a 54 person football team as boys strongly do. As a result, in order to equalize the numbers, as Title IX demands, many hundreds of men’s/boys’ college sports programs have been shut down, leaving countless boys with no options. Feminists are pleased with this and continue to support Title IX.
“Men have always had reproductive rights, although these were not enshrined in law.”
Wrong. There are no rights without law.
“Wives have always been expected to produce offspring for their husbands.”
Wrong again. For decades, women (certainly in the west) have the right to never get married and never have children even if they do marry.
“Are you seriously suggesting that because you perceive men as not having these rights that they should be removed from women again?”
No idea what this question means.
“I’m afraid I don’t understand your last sentence at all. ‘Opt out’ in what way?”
Just like women can opt of becoming a parent via abortion during the first trimester, men should have the right to opt out of becoming a parent, legally. This in no way restricts a woman’s right to choose to abort – but would give BOTH genders the right to choose. A right that has been denied men for too long. I can’t imagine why any feminist would disagree with reproductive choice regardless of gender.
Barry, re your last comment: “Just like women can opt of becoming a parent via abortion during the first trimester, men should have the right to opt out of becoming a parent, legally. This in no way restricts a woman’s right to choose to abort – but would give BOTH genders the right to choose. A right that has been denied men for too long. I can’t imagine why any feminist would disagree with reproductive choice regardless of gender.”
I happen to think that men get a tough deal when it comes to kids, whether it’s the almost automatic custody given to women purely due to their gender, to men being forced to pay the same amount for a child even when their ex has found someone else and they are both providing for said child. BUT I can’t see a way that would work for a man to “opt out” after the birth of a child, without swinging the doors wide open for abuse of the system.
Many men are irresponsible and do not want to accept the consequences of their actions (just as there are plenty of women who have no sense of responsibility). These men currently are pressured to take responsibility by the courts and legal process in paying for a child they father. If there was an opt out option all that would happen is that selfish men, who use and discard partners regularly, would opt out of accepting responsibility for their children that they sired. The women in these scenarios would therefore be massively disadvantaged, having no recourse to monies from the man who fathered their child. And before you say it, these women already have to provide for their children, so they are having to accept the consequences of their actions – even the ones who get an abortion are having to accept it, as it is not as simple a procedure as some would have you believe, and women have to live with having an abortion for the rest of their lives.
If a child is put up for adoption no biological parent is paying for them or providing for them, male or female. If a woman decides to have an abortion again it is only the woman that has to pay and go through the procedure. If however a woman decides to keep the child, but her partner is not willing to stay with her to bring said child up, or she is not willing to stay with him, both parent’s involvement must be ensured by the courts. If a man wants to see his biological child, he can argue that in the courts if he being denied access. But likewise if he is trying to avoid providing funding for the raising of his own flesh and blood a woman can go to the courts to compel him to do so. This is equal. Giving men the right to opt out after the event is not and is not the equivalent of abortion, which is a woman’s decision about her body as much about her life, rather than about trying to protect earnings.
Ultimately women have more power when it comes to children because they are the ones to give birth – no one said life is fair and that’s just one of the few areas where women do have a leg up compared to men. But what you propose would effectively bring back the days of men taking no responsibility for the spawn they are 50% responsible for creating. And I can’t imagine why any intelligent or responsible person would disagree.
“BUT I can’t see a way that would work for a man to “opt out” after the birth of a child, without swinging the doors wide open for abuse of the system.”
As I said, BOTH should be able to opt-out during the first trimester when there is no child. She can easily abort then or adopt later. If she becomes a struggling single parent, that is on her because it was her choice. The common theme is choice. Give men the same choice women have. Why are you feminists so against men?
“If there was an opt out option all that would happen is that selfish men, who use and discard partners regularly, would opt out of accepting responsibility for their children that they sired.”
So, then you also oppose abortion, since the mothers are “opting out of accepting responsibility for their children that they sired.”
“The women in these scenarios would therefore be massively disadvantaged, having no recourse to monies from the man who fathered their child.“
She has 100% advantage because she can choose to abort the child she fathered no matter what he says. She can also abort or adopt. She has 100% control whether the kid lives or dies.
“And before you say it, these women already have to provide for their children, so they are having to accept the consequences of their actions – even the ones who get an abortion are having to accept it, as it is not as simple a procedure as some would have you believe, and women have to live with having an abortion for the rest of their lives.”
Abortion is a simple procedure done 1,000,000 times a year in the US alone. If she aborts, he has to live with it as well, especially if he disagreed. He might consider it murder but she can do it anyway. But, feminists are cool with all that because the man is the one who suffers and has no control.
“If a child is put up for adoption no biological parent is paying for them or providing for them, male or female. If a woman decides to have an abortion again it is only the woman that has to pay and go through the procedure.”
Of course. “ Her body, her choice.”
“If however a woman decides to keep the child, but her partner is not willing to stay with her to bring said child up, or she is not willing to stay with him, both parent’s involvement must be ensured by the courts.”
Of course.
“Her body, her choice, her responsibility.” No one can force her to give birth or not give birth.
Why are you so anxious to rob men of their right to choose? Are you as anxious to rob women of theirs?
“If a man wants to see his biological child, he can argue that in the courts if he being denied access. But likewise if he is trying to avoid providing funding for the raising of his own flesh and blood a woman can go to the courts to compel him to do so. This is equal.”
How can it POSSIBLY be equal when he has zero say in whether that child is born or not? She has 100% control to abort against his wishes or give birth against his wishes? This is one example of what I find so, so repulsive about feminism! They demand a woman’s right to choose but when it comes to men, they want them to get nothing except the bill. And they wonder why they are so unpopular with men and women.
“Giving men the right to opt out after the event is not and is not the equivalent of abortion, which is a woman’s decision about her body as much about her life, rather than about trying to protect earnings.”
After what event? There is no child during the first trimester, remember?
“no one said life is fair and that’s just one of the few areas where women do have a leg up compared to men.”
Feminists demand equality when it is to their advantage but if men suffer inequality, suddenly, ‘life is not fair.’ They have no interest in creating equality in that case. They love inequality that favors them.
“But what you propose would effectively bring back the days of men taking no responsibility for the spawn they are 50% responsible for creating”
Wrong again. Women can choose to abort or adopt.
“And I can’t imagine why any intelligent or responsible person would disagree” with BOTH men and women having the right to choose whether to become parents or not. Unless they simply hate men.
Again it seems the subthread is too long, I have to reply to your last comment here BarryMayor:
“I certainly don’t agree with assigning greater value to boys than girls (or vice-versa; hence my problem with feminism). However, the vast majority of pregnant women in those very cultures do not abort their female fetuses –which proves that they do have a choice, and some are exercising their free will to choose which gender they give preference to, for their own reasons, as feminists do in the west.”
Your logic is faulty – it proves no such thing. Assuming that your assertion that ‘the vast majority’ of women do not abort female foetuses the only thing you can infer from that one fact is that the vast majority of women do not abort female foetuses. Nothing else can be ‘proved’ from that one statement.
You are also incorrect about feminism placing higher value on girls than boys. I suggest this is where your apparent grudge against feminism stems from. Please go and do some wider reading on what feminism *is* (or rather, what feminisms *are*) and then perhaps we can all have a proper discussion about it.
You are the one claiming that women are being forced to abort female fetuses. What evidence do you have in view of the fact that most women aren’t aborting their female fetuses? I have cited the FACT that the vast majority of women don’t abort their female fetuses. So, how can you prove they are being forced, when they all aren’t doing it?
“You are also incorrect about feminism placing higher value on girls than boys.”
What evidence is there that feminists have equal concern for boys? See your own comments about having no concern that boys are so far behind in education. You yourself provided an example of the lack of “concern” feminists have for boys and young men. But, you are not alone. This is how feminists at large feel about inequalities facing boys and men.
“I suggest this is where your apparent grudge against feminism stems from. Please go and do some wider reading on what feminism *is* (or rather, what feminisms *are*) and then perhaps we can all have a proper discussion about it.”
You have given me a good education about feminists’ lack of concern for boys not graduating from high school nearly as often as girls, as an example of how feminists feel about males. I have heard this same lack of care from other feminists, and the lack of concern is consistent throughout the feminist movement. Feminists are pleased with inequality as long as the scales are in their favor.
I don’t believe I made any claims. You appear to ‘hear’ what you want to hear, no matter what I actually write. I suspected this would be the case when I first replied to you. So, again, I have no more time for this.
Halla – indeed you did NOT make such a claim. That was directed at “vicki wharton” who did, in fact, claim that women are essentially forced to abort female fetuses.
In China where couples are only allowed one child there are numerous orphanages stuffed full of abandoned girl babies and the UN has just published a report about the missing millions of females brought about by femicide. The fact that you cannot see the link between malecentric cultures and aborted females is down to you Barry.
Re: vicki wharton’s comment about the choice to abort.
Ms Wharton, you are totally missing the concept of choice. Should others get to decide what are valid reasons for abortion, or should that be up to the woman herself? Fetuse whose mothers are unmarried are disproportionately aborted as are those who are poor and/or are minorities. Where is the outrage on their behalf?
What reason really is valid and why should you be the one to decide that for other women?
I share your outrage for female fetuses but also for the others. In my view, none of those are valid reasons. So, should I get to decide that women who choose to abort for reasons I believe to be wrong and bad for society? If not, why should you?
The biggest problem about men’s right to choose whether to opt out of fatherhood is the same as boys opting out of education – a lack of willingness to take responsibility for their own actions. The opt out of fatherhood is known as contraception – if you don’t want to be a father, take responsibility for your fertility. If you want to see more boys doing well in education, more fathers need to get involved in tutoring and mentoring their sons that the only thing that really gets you ahead is hard work. The BBC did a programme recently called Gareth Malone’s Extraordinary School for Boys trying to tackle the very real attitudanal differences and therefore achievements between the genders in UK schools around reading and writing. When Gareth Malone asked the boys primary role models to come to the school to talk about their son’s educations, not one father turned up. In the end Gareth had to coerce the fathers in with promises of a screened England football match plus beer and pizza to get them into school. I would suggest that has far more to do with poor performance than any institutional feminist agenda … most girls know that the only person that can help them get ahead is themselves and their hard work, and I’m afraid its the same for boys too.
“The biggest problem about men’s right to choose whether to opt out of fatherhood is the same as boys opting out of education – a lack of willingness to take responsibility for their own actions. “
So, wait – is that not true of women seeking abortions? Aren’t they failing to take responsibility for their actions? Why do you hold men responsible but not women?
Also regarding education, why are feminists holding male children responsible now but when female children were behind they held “society” and the “education system” responsible? Why the difference?
“The opt out of fatherhood is known as contraception – if you don’t want to be a father, take responsibility for your fertility.”
So, then you are also arguing that women should either take the pill or keep their legs closed instead of running off to get abortions later, right? That would be taking responsibility for her own fertility.
“If you want to see more boys doing well in education, more fathers need to get involved in tutoring and mentoring their sons that the only thing that really gets you ahead is hard work.”
Why didn’t feminists take this same approach with girls when they were behind? Why did they demand government programs and specific action for girls but don’t care to demand the same for boys?
Two wrongs don’t make a right Barry. I hold men as responsible as women for their own fertility. As for feminists approach to girls, most were arguing for access to education, not an entirely different approach because of suggested biological differences. Enough Barry.
Girls had equal access to education. However, feminists created government funded programs to help girls advance in education, very successfully. If they cared equally about boys behind so far behind in education they would demand the same thing, but since they don’t – they blame the little male children. It’s disreputable but also predictable. I agree, enough.
If you held women as responsible for their fertility as men, you would oppose all post-conception opting out, including abortion. But, you don’t. You approve of women opting out post-conception but disapprove of men opting out. Disreputable but also predictable.
How depressing. There is a remarkable display of privilege around schooling in the UK now though, we see whole generations who treat it like the hugest chore (I used to do the same, so I’m just as guilty!) instead of a remarkable opportunity. I also think that reporting on education is often slightly biased, I have friends who work in education research and they saw the other side of the coin where schools were achieving remarkable things with populations who previously were not too interested in engaging with the system.
Barry – I am afraid that your tone and your constant use of the word ‘feminist’ in a derogatory manner is not welcome on WVoN. Please moderate your tone and we will be happy to engage with you in a rational debate. If you do not, then i will be requesting that your comments not be accepted from this point forward.
Jane – thank you for noting your disapproval without just blocking my access. So that I am clear, would you please give me a specific example(s) of what you believe to be using “feminist” in a derogatory manner?
I’d be pleased to not have to read Barry’s hectoring, blaming and derailing comments any more. Any good points he may raise get lost in the vitriol.
Thank you for your response Barry. I do not have time to engage, but maybe someone else could outline this for him?
You’re welcome. I would appreciate specific statements, please. I have read in my brief exchanges here what I would certainly class as derogatory comments about men and boys. I would hope that those are also not tolerated here.
Speaking as a trained councellor, I’m not sure anyone could explain Barry’s ingrained sense of injustice at removal of specific male privilege such as sole right to vote, sole right to work, sole right to education, right to blame rape on victim, right to blame lack of success on school system etc to him in such a way that he might get it. I suspect it would be too challenging and too disorientating for all concerned … and besides which, life ain’t that long!
Open up a history book.Even a 100 years ago, men didn’t have “sole right to vote, sole right to work, sole right to education.”
When girls weren’t doing as well in school despite sitting in the exact same classroom as boys, why did feminists blame it on the system not the girls? Now that boys are not doing as well, why do you all blame it on the boys not the system? Why the difference?