Here we are in 2010, all supposedly evolved and whatnot, and good christ we sure are having a hard time. As readers of this little virtual wasteland know, gender roles are one of my favorite topics EV. Not just because I happen to be a broad and therefore unjustfiably care about this, but because, for those of you who are just joining the living, gender (along with race, class, citzenship, etc.) is a major determining factor in an individual's ability toward self-determination in our world. Moreover, the political course of the world happens to be overwhelmingly determined by a specific gender, which is not in itself an accident.
This article on the Onion AV Club caught my eye, and the comments are predictably insane and represent just about every view of feminism that exists. I edited this dialouge from the comments; both sides seem to make a solid case and for that I found it pretty compelling.
Notes: I bolded the passages that seem to define each view. B is being sarcastic, which I thought was interesting in itself-- it seems that today, when we are behind a cause or an ideology that is deemed unupopular by the masses, sarcasm is often an easy shield from which to shoot behind. And for the record, I obviously agree with B.
a:
At the risk of sounding sexist, I think that 95% of what I hear that passes for "feminism" on a broader (hah!) societal level is bullshit. I just really don't think the average woman has it that bad (again, outside certain workplaces) and I certainly don't think institutional sexism is a big problem in this country.
b:
You're so totally right, institutional sexism is totally not a problem anymore!!! Women are free to earn 20% less annually then men, which is close enough that it really doesn't suggest the existence of sexism within capitalist institutions today. I mean jesus, we let them vote, we let them get jobs, we even let them hold public office, and all they can do is bitch and moan about how our entire society and capitalism itself is founded on patriarchal relations, even though they don't understand that if we say they are equal through legislation than that automatically means they are totally equal. The average woman has it so GOOD, and we all know the average woman is a totally quantifiable entity (white, middle/upper middle class?)...there is no such thing as emotional violence or subverted oppression enacted by spouses or by the culture industry. They are totally not indoctrinated into specific roles that deny them an actual identity, and they are totally not presented as sexual objects by mass culture. "Feminism" today is such bullshit, I mean god knows that they face unfair hurdles for power and pay, but these feminists suggest those two things have implications beyond individual employers which is totally silly. Women have it easy unless they want to have power over their own lives or they want to be able to sustain themselves independently, if they want those things they have to face some unfair hurdles, but really they don't have it that bad...
a:
Count me in as female anti-feminist. I cringe at the word "feminist" because it just has associations of combativeness by now. I'm satisfied with what is available to me in professionally (because I happen to be upper middle class well-educated) and I think that about 90% of the energy thrown at feminist issues in the United States or other first world countries would be infinitely better spent trying to rectify socioeconomic inequality or quality-of-life problems in third world countries. Feminist concerns are a privilege of the upper middle class. Note that I'm talking about first world countries, here.
Also, it drives me crazy how everyone always wants to deny that there ARE inherent, biological, evolutionarily based gender differences. MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT THE SAME. Most people actually like that fact. Deal with it.
b:
Socioeconomic inequality and patriarchal dominance the same.
Feminism is only a concern of the upper middle class because it is only something that the luxury class has time to fret over, god knows that a lower class single mother who has to work full time to feed her children (which we all know is the only way to prove she loves them) has no reason to be concerned the bourgeois concern of feminism. And we should just accept that there are biological differences between men and women and stop trying to search for social and economic equality, just like we need to accept the biological differences between Africans and Europeans and stop trying to create a dialogue that is based on equality and understanding of difference without letting it dictate the proceedings. Feminist is a combative term, and why should women be combative?! It's not like the state enacts violence on women by dictating what they can and cannot do with their bodies (I mean the fetus inside of them is not theirs, it is the states and so they have no say in what happens to it). Fuck it! Women need to stop bitching, accept their role given to them by our totally just society and their own biological nature, and let the fuck go of the fact that they are turned into commodities by the media and advertising industries. Just get the fuck over it and start worrying about South America and Africa, we can fix by using our beautiful western way of thinking to solve their problems, which has nothing to do with what caused their problems in the first place. And our way of thinking has totally led us to an (almost) just society in which we listen to music that actively preaches objectification and abuse of women!
a:
I get that not everything that falls under the umbrella of "women's rights" or "women's issues" in a global sense pertains to upper middle class white females in America. When people say "feminism" I promise you the first association is with the kind of stuff mentioned in the article, glass ceiling, wage imbalance, and people who care more about that than about more serious problems.
And finally, something I have always taken huge issue with: You mention women being "presented as sexual objects by mass culture." People often fall into the trap of imagining that "mass culture" is something sort of mystically imposed on people from a random third party source. No, culture doesn't impose itself on people, people CREATE the culture based on their own interests -- based on the demands of the market, which is a mixed gender audience. Nobody is a "victim of society," everyone is a part of the society.
b:
Good point! The culture that exists in the US is the spontaneous will of the masses, and not another facet of industrial capitalism...the fact the GE owns NBC/Universal means nothing. Why would NBC/Universal have a vested interest in confirming and enforcing the role of the housewife? It's not like her existence is key to GEs sales figures in the home appliances, and it's not as if those who produce our culture have a vested interest in selling identity to women so that women in turn feel like they identify with the characters on the shows the produce.
a:
Saying that "patriarchal dominance" implies "socioeconomic inequality" is ridiculous. Socioeconomic inequality is based on socioeconomic causes. Class distinctions have ALWAYS existed, everywhere and in every time throughout history, and not all societies have had "patriarchal dominance." You're telling me that patriarchal dominance is responsible for, say, serfdom? For immigrants having a difficult time breaking out of the bottom of the socioeconomic strata? For caste systems? I don't think so.
Anyway, see my comment above about how there is no such thing as an amorphous "society" that we can blame for people's behavior. It's idiotic to say that music can "make" people into misogynists. That's as stupid as saying "Advertising makes girls anorexic!" Then again, I love the Rolling Stones and I seem to be something of a misogynist so I guess I am proving you right on this count!
Grow up and drop your college freshman style obsession with the evils of capitalism. Gender roles are not new and it is just as misogynistic as anything else to believe that women lack the capacity to form their own identity and instead are reduced to brainlessly absorbing the identity the malevolent capitalists are preaching to them on television.
b:
Sexuality is always economized. Labor-based communism will imply the superiority of men based on their physical gifts and ability to Work, and capitalism will appeal to the many uses of Products that women require in the successful rearing of a family.
There's no way to get around it. It may be its own unique issue, or a symptom of the larger misogyny of society, but it certainly exists.
Ok, discussion time.
B's argument that the political order of the modern world is the result of a long history of capitalist and gender norms, which until very recently have gone uncontested. The view that political (sexual, socieconomical, etc) reality exists as only as a result or construct of the very society it now defines is called materialism (specifically historical materialism). It's linked to the philosophy of the Enlightenment, in which humans recognized themselves as existing independent from an omnipotent god. and was/is denounced as barren of spirituality. (Think of materialsm like a pyramid, with all the political, societal etc norms that exist today at the top, with all the blocks supporting it representing previous eras in human history.)
A, however takes the opposite approach in believing that things exist as they are because of essential truths of nature or what she may define as "human nature." In denying that capitalism and subordination of females are a patriarchal construct, she falls back on the "this practice has existed since the beginning of time" justification.
Both sides are well argued and articulated-- they are each delivered by highly educated
individuals, which forced me to evaluate why I side with B. The answer, as stated above, is because of B's acknowledgement of Culture (in which exists politics, the economy, gender roles and norms, etc) not as an organic entity but one which has been shaped by humans themselves, or rather a very select group of self-appointed leaders of the ruling classes (in the case of the world that we live in, largely a group of white males). This insistence to evaluate humanity's role in shaping our political reality rather than it being merely handed to us is the ideology that allows for first critcism (as seen in the civil rights movement, etc) and then progress.
And, a final word about feminsm from another commenter:
I am a man and I am a Feminist and I am a Liberal and a Democratic Socialist and I refuse to allow the press, pundits or the right wing to steal away or dilute the meaning of those terms, or to make me feel like I should hide or apologize for what I believe. The question is not whether Men and Women are different in measurable ways, they are (by which I mean that yes, for instance, the average man is taller than the average woman, but that doesn't mean that all men or taller than all women--it's distributive), but that alone should not dictate the way one or the other is treated, or otherwise limit the opportunities one or the other should have access to. Sexism and Heterosexism and Racism etc. are all part of a continuum, products of the same basic and flawed essentialism that declares that some configuration of our chromosomes, no matter how they achieve expression, can somehow fix our identities and encapsulate all that we are or can be. Feminism seeks to dispute and rectify that, and while it does begin with a criticism of gender roles, it should absolutely embrace Class and Culture critiques as well. It's never enough to compare the place of women in the US to that of women in Saudi Arabia, for example, because it's a false dichotomy. There are problems with both systems and its disingenuous to suggest that because it's worse for some in some ways there, it is not worth taking a look at here. Feminism is not some kind of answer or fix to a world of Sexism, but a complicated ongoing process of examination--a necessary part of the work that a progressive society does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment