The Rantings of a Single Male Part III: Rant C

The part of this rant that I am going to discuss is essentially about equality.

This section was pretty difficult to write. Not necessarily because the material is difficult, but because sometimes I just don't want to wade through the hyperbole. But, there are some things I want to say, so I may as well get on with it.

Ellis makes an interesting observation when he states “Women think it is men who insist on being recognized as superior. Using male oppression as justification, feminists have counterattacked with an unending salvo of female supremacy. Women are emotionally and morally superior. Women are more caring, sensitive, and nurturing. Women are not ruled by their hormones like men. Women have superior verbal skills….In spite of all the female supremacy propaganda thrown at them, women still require men to be superior to themselves as a condition of acceptance and respect and for consideration as sex partners. Women still demand men who are superior to themselves and strength, knowledge, skill, height, success, determination, aggression, and just about everything. ” (p.20)

While I appreciate the juxtaposition of the ideas Ellis puts forth, supposed female supremacy versus women desiring men who are superior to them, as a woman it seems natural to me to think that there are some things that men are better at than me. And that also there may be some things that I am better at than a man. This does not seem illogical to me, but rather the nature of things. So, I'm not quite sure I understand the point he is trying to make here. Skills and characteristics such as sensitivity, nurturing, and verbal ability are seen as stereotypically feminine, whereas skills such as determination, aggression and strength are seen as stereotypically male. Simple observation will tell you that some qualities and abilities are more prevalent in one gender than another. Some obvious examples include physiological differences such as height and physical strength. The average man is taller than the average woman and the average man is stronger than the average woman. That is not to say that there are no individual women taller than any individual man or that there are no individual women who may be physically stronger than an individual man. There are always exceptions, but there are also some general trends. Perhaps, Ellis’s disagreement is with the stereotypical nature of these characteristics. On that count, I must agree with him. A great deal of the time, I think it makes more sense to judge people's abilities on an individual basis rather than on the basis of their gender. Or perhaps, it's about the whole "anything you can, do, I can do better” competition that feminism appears to engender.

The author further clarifies his point of view stating “even though women seek out men they perceive as superior, they've been conditioned to demand the appearance of equality." (p. 21) On this point, I definitely agree. Feminism does attempt to condition women to the idea that they can do anything as well as men and there are many cases in which this is not true. One time, I went to visit a friend of mine in Michigan and she and her roommate were moving into a new apartment. Her roommate was a self-proclaimed “Christian feminist”. My friend’s roommate was highly insulted when a male friend offered to help her move the couch that she was struggling with because she felt that this meant he thought she was incapable. This completely baffled me. After all when I'm in the grocery store attempting to stretch to reach an item on the top shelf I'm not insulted if a taller individual offers to help me. It's a simple anatomical fact, I am only so tall... it doesn't make me less of a person. It's also a simple anatomical fact that I can't lift the couch (though I will admit to being more of a wimp than the average woman). So why should I be insulted if someone, man or woman, offers to help me? When did life become a competition?


Ellis goes on to discuss the concept of “different equalities".

“Women are now a confused mutation of old and new privilege. Old privilege is that of previous generations. Ladies first. Men are supposed to support women. Men are held responsible for the happiness of their wives. Men must risk of their own safety to protect women. Men have to pay. Women don't have to register for the draft. Old privilege is females getting whatever they want because they're so damned cute. New privilege is affirmative action. It is hundreds of women's commissions promoting women's causes and expanding female entitlements. New privilege is an express lane to success for women. New privilege is women getting credit, but no blame. New privilege is making it hazardous to your job to openly disagree with gender politics that favor women. Women want all the old and new privileges and to call it equality." (p. 22)

I'm not sure that the "old privileges" were actually due to the fact that women are "so damned cute". I think it more likely that they were due to a different understanding of the roles of men and women. An understanding that was closer to a Biblical model that was patriarchal in nature. If feminism wants to do away with this understanding then I think it is completely fair to question the equality of maintaining the privileges that came from that understanding. I believe this is one of the ways that feminism has hurt women far more than it has helped them. Personally, I think the concept of "equality" between men and women is a fallacy. While I believe that all humans are equal in basic value we are not the same in terms of our abilities, aptitudes, and God-given roles, so why pretend that we are?

The author then goes on to ask the question "Should women be able to pick and choose what they want to be equal with men about?" This is a good question. True equality would mean that women are subject to the same responsibilities as men. Ladies, do you want to register for the draft?

Ellis goes on to discuss a quote from suffragette Susan B. Anthony. "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." This, from a woman, who is purported to be a champion of equality? I had never heard this quote from Anthony before but it certainly does back up Ellis' claim that the agenda of the women's movement “has always been about winning rights as well as special privileges for women.” (p. 23) He goes on to say "I'm not questioning the right of women to vote. I'm saying that because women can vote on issues involving war and are also exempt from ever being forced to participate in actual combat, they have equal rights with fewer responsibilities than men.” You know what? That's true.

Ellis goes on to outline the idea that if women want to be considered equal, then they should go out and acquire the skills that men have. I agree with this to a point. If a woman wants to be considered “equal” or the same as a man then yes, she should compete with him based on skill.

Humorously (to me anyway) Mr. Ellis chooses to use the example of accomplished musical ability, particularly the ability to play electric guitar to illustrate his point that women don't compete on a skill level because they don't feel they have to because they can rely on sex appeal. Ellis postulates that women feel they don't need to become proficient musicians because they are able to get what they want through the use of their appearance, stating “wearing a short skirt is a lot easier than practicing. That's certainly why adult women never take up instruments.” (p. 26)

Okay, I have to be honest here and say that when I read this I thought “what?” and laughed. I do know women who have taken up musical instruments as adults (harp, piano, cello). However, they pursued those instruments not to "get what they want" but rather for the enjoyment that musical expression brings them. Also, I think it's entirely possible that there are other reasons why you don't see a lot of women striving to become the best at playing electric guitar. Maybe they prefer other interests? My female friends pursue excellence in creative skill acquisition and coordination in areas such as quilting, ballroom dancing, jewelry making, soldering leaded glass, and writing etc. Or perhaps it's because some women place less value in skill acquisition than they do in other things such as their relationships to others. Now, I realize that is not true for all women, but I do think it's true for lots of women I know. Just for fun I did an informal poll of eight women on the subject. Five of these women were believers and three unbelievers ranging in age from 22 to 46. I asked them, "Why don't you play the electric guitar?" After they finished laughing, most of their answers went something like this: either “I guess I just was never interested in it” or “that sounds like fun, but I've got my hands full with “X” (my family or school)”.

Ellis furthers his thesis with the idea that women don't pursue skill acquisition because they don’t see the need to since they "see men as easily controllable." (p. 27) When I read statements like this I am often puzzled. I believe the author that some women think this way, but I wonder how many. Ok readers, I want to know what you think about this. I know you are lurking out there reading and not commenting….well here’s your chance! (I know you were holding your breath waiting for an opportunity, weren’t you?) If you are a man: do you think women see you as easily controllable? If you are a woman: do you see men as easily controllable? You can leave your comment anonymously or even make up a fun name for yourself like Spanky or Betty Boop…won’t that be fun! :)

Feel free to comment on anything else you desire too…like why my blog background is sooooo boring…or why that safety from the Steelers can’t keep his mouth shut about the Patriots….or where did the word “yule” come from anyway?