One of the courses I teach this semester has a lab component where I work with groups of 10 or so students on specific skills. These lab courses are conducted in a fairly informal manner and there is a lot of casual conversation going on as skills are practiced. I have the opportunity to hear and participate in some interesting and sometimes disturbing conversations among the students. Mostly I just ask questions to hopefully encourage them to think about what they are saying.
A few weeks back I alluded to one such conversation where a female student claimed a young man who was a neighbor of hers in one of the student apartment complexes was a “loser”. She made this claim following a few minutes reporting how he helped her move heavy objects and how he gave her back rubs. He had asked her if she would knock on his door and wake him up the next morning when she left for class. She said she told him, “No, I’m not your mother”. Apparently asking her to do something helpful for him after doing helpful things for her was just too much to ask and thus earned him the title “loser”. I asked her, “So, what exactly makes him a “loser” and she had no answer to my question. Other young women in the class did proclaim her “mean” but most of them (not all though) still laughed.
This week I also had a conversation about the ever present myth that men are unfairly paid more than women. One of the young women was talking about when she worked at a local Halloween haunted house/ hay ride type of attraction last year. During the conversation she mentioned how cool all of the make-up effects were and that going through the attraction was so scary that she was scared when she went through it even though she worked behind the scenes regularly. She talked about how during the hay ride young men dressed in black with scary masks etc run out of the corn fields and chase and actually jump up on the hay wagon and grab at the people in it. She mentioned that the owner only hired males to do this job. Later in the conversation she mentioned that it was common knowledge that the owner paid the men more than the women. Another female student agreed that was unfair. I asked, “Do the guys do different jobs than the girls?” She answered, “Um, well, yeah I guess they do, they do the chasing the wagon where they stay outside all the time and have to run after and catch the wagon and jump up on it.” I asked, “Are there no women that earn more money too?” She answered, “Well, yes, the make-up artist is a woman and she earns the most.” Hmm….that is always an easy conversation to have, as such it is amazing to me the “it is unfair that men get paid more” myth endures because it is so easy to refute that any difference is due to different types of work and or lifestyle choices made.
Today, a female student was talking about her out-of-state internship this past summer where she dated a medical student she met. She was joking with one of the male students who was also on an internship in the same state who came to visit her one weekend had “chased off” this medical student. “Thanks a lot , he was going to be a doctor!” she joked. “He kept asking me ‘Is he your boyfriend’ and I said that you were just a friend.” She then went on to relate the last conversation she had with the medical student. “He invited me to the lake. He said ‘You’re so pretty, let’s go to the lake. The atmosphere will be perfect.’ Isn't that creepy? Ha ha! And I said, ‘Um, perfect for what?” I asked her “Did you really say that to him?” and she said she did. I said, “Hmm, maybe it wasn’t your male friend visiting, maybe he didn’t take kindly to your assumption that he had some nefarious purpose in mind?” She seemed stunned at the thought, for a second, and then laughed.
Not that the news is all bad on that front. Some of you may recall me mentioning a student complaining to my boss that I had insulted her when I was attempting to give her some feedback about immature behavior. I have not had much more contact with that student until this semester when she is in two of my courses. She has remarkably matured and is taking constructive feedback very well. I am impressed. I guess the threat of my being “reported to social justice” was worth it.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Love, marriage and politically correct research
More on love and marriage from C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis has interesting things to say on love and marriage in the The Screwtape Letters. Senior demon Screwtape writes letters to his junior demon nephew Wormwood on how to take humans from "the Enemy" being God, toward "Our Father" being Satan:
************************************************************
Politically correct research
You never know when you are going to run into examples of political correctness when it comes to the differences between the genders. I attended a dissertation defense on Friday in preparation for my own defense one of these days. The study being defended examined a certain type of knee injury in sports that is more commonly experienced by women than by men, the anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL tear. The researcher outlined the anatomic and kinematic differences between men and women related to this injury. Basically, men tend to land from a jump in more knee flexion than women due to different factors, not the least of which is better balance between the quadriceps and hamstring muscles (ie; women tend to overly rely on their quads resulting in greater knee extension upon landing). And, the ACL is more at risk for injury in extension.
The researcher then went on to describe the study she carried out which involved a way to change landing kinematics such that the women in the study had more knee flexion when landing. After her presentation the audience had the opportunity to as her questions and one of the female anatomy profs asked the following question; "In essence aren't you trying to masculinize these women's movement patterns?" I thought to myself that was true, and that it would make sense to do so to a certain degree if the goal is to prevent ACL injuries among female athletes. But, the researcher answered, "Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, but I prefer not to. It is, in a sense, true, but it isn't appropriate to consider the findings in that manner". The prof who asked the question nodded her approval and from the back of the room I could observe several other profs shaking their heads a bit. Brilliant! Never mind the truth if it makes you uncomfortable to think of it in that way or you find it "inappropriate". We can't imply that men in any way have any inherent superiority to women, now can we?
C.S. Lewis has interesting things to say on love and marriage in the The Screwtape Letters. Senior demon Screwtape writes letters to his junior demon nephew Wormwood on how to take humans from "the Enemy" being God, toward "Our Father" being Satan:
Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as 'one flesh'. He did not say a 'happily married couple' or 'a couple who married because they were in love', but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes 'one flesh'. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of 'being in love' what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that whenever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear and desire which they call 'being in love' is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because 'being in love' does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemies designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. (emphasis mine)When we come from the place that elevates "being in love", a temporary feeling which should not be confused with love, to the pinnacle of human experience, we create an environment where the loss of the feeling of "being in love" can be used as an excuse for all sorts of behaviors destructive to marriage, including infidelity. After all, God wants us to be "happy", right? Right?
************************************************************
Politically correct research
You never know when you are going to run into examples of political correctness when it comes to the differences between the genders. I attended a dissertation defense on Friday in preparation for my own defense one of these days. The study being defended examined a certain type of knee injury in sports that is more commonly experienced by women than by men, the anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL tear. The researcher outlined the anatomic and kinematic differences between men and women related to this injury. Basically, men tend to land from a jump in more knee flexion than women due to different factors, not the least of which is better balance between the quadriceps and hamstring muscles (ie; women tend to overly rely on their quads resulting in greater knee extension upon landing). And, the ACL is more at risk for injury in extension.
The researcher then went on to describe the study she carried out which involved a way to change landing kinematics such that the women in the study had more knee flexion when landing. After her presentation the audience had the opportunity to as her questions and one of the female anatomy profs asked the following question; "In essence aren't you trying to masculinize these women's movement patterns?" I thought to myself that was true, and that it would make sense to do so to a certain degree if the goal is to prevent ACL injuries among female athletes. But, the researcher answered, "Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, but I prefer not to. It is, in a sense, true, but it isn't appropriate to consider the findings in that manner". The prof who asked the question nodded her approval and from the back of the room I could observe several other profs shaking their heads a bit. Brilliant! Never mind the truth if it makes you uncomfortable to think of it in that way or you find it "inappropriate". We can't imply that men in any way have any inherent superiority to women, now can we?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
190-something comments?
I had no idea that when I asked "what is a good woman?" that the post would end up with 190-some comments, so thank you to everyone who contributed to the conversation.
That said, c'mon people! 190-something comments? We are too close to 200 comments to stop now! Doesn't anyone have anything else to say??? :)
That said, c'mon people! 190-something comments? We are too close to 200 comments to stop now! Doesn't anyone have anything else to say??? :)
Friday, July 24, 2009
What is a good woman?
Over at Anakin's blog a reader who goes by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, left a comment that contained the following statement:
"There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman."
I responded, 'So .004-.02% of women or 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 5000 women meet your definition of a "good woman"? That kind of begs the question...what is your definition of a good woman?'
This certainly is not the first time I have heard this sentiment regarding the rarity of the "good woman". I usually wonder what exactly a "good woman" is when I read it. So, I thought I would ask you all.
P.S. You don't have to believe good women are almost as rare as unicorns to answer.
"There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman."
I responded, 'So .004-.02% of women or 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 5000 women meet your definition of a "good woman"? That kind of begs the question...what is your definition of a good woman?'
This certainly is not the first time I have heard this sentiment regarding the rarity of the "good woman". I usually wonder what exactly a "good woman" is when I read it. So, I thought I would ask you all.
P.S. You don't have to believe good women are almost as rare as unicorns to answer.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Yes, but is it really a paradox?
This deserves a well thought out and concisely written post, but unfortunately I am currently incapable of that. I'll just do the best I can.
Anymore when I hear the word "paradox" the first thing I think is, "oh, they mean some data or evidence that does not fit their firmly held assumptions has come up". Recently I read a post at Carolyn McCulley's blog about an opinion piece in the New York times about a study recently reported on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". The study is a meta-analysis of data from multiple sources which uses logistic regression (beyond my statistical pay grade) to describe "happiness" for men and women for the last 40 years. In a nut shell the findings say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago relative to themselves and relative to men.
In his op-ed piece, Ross Douthat offers his opinion that this relative loss of happiness in women is ambiguous.
"All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.
There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."
Douthat then goes on to say "Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood." Sounds more feminist than "traditionalist" (whatever that really means) to me, as in society should support women's choices. He also says that feminists and traditionalists "should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. " This actually sounds feminist to me too, because it refers to the happiness and interest of women rather than the disastrous effects of single parenthood on society as a whole. He also advocates that both feminists and traditionalists should be able to get "behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age." Hmm...okay this may get him into trouble with the feminists....
A blogger at the feminist blog Jezebel has a post on the op-ed and on the study itself. What did she focus on? This statement by Douthit: "But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. " And of course she objects vehemently. Because feminism has brought only light and rainbows and flowers and butterflies to the world, right? She postulates the unhappiness felt by women is not because feminism has screwed society up beyond belief and encouraged women to become dissatisfied with, well just about everything, but rather because feminism has not brought enough equality and so women are pissed. The idea that women are discriminated against is highly debatable in the current culture (and I would say not true). But, what she also doesn't get is that any group of people who share characteristics and are different from another group of people are gaining nothing by comparing themselves.
I am 5'5" in height, not short, but hardly statuesque either. What if I compared myself to people 6 feel tall and over? I bet they don't have to get on a kitchen chair to reach the top 2 shelves in their kitchen cabinet! These tall people's feet probably touch the floor when they sit in restaurant booths or when riding in an airplane! It's wrong I tell you. Houses, restaurant booths and planes should be built to accommodate me! I am discriminated against! Woe is me! No wonder I am less happy! The idea that it is reasonable to compare yourself with others who are not like you to begin with makes no sense to me.
Of course that completely misses the fact that like tall people who don't have enough leg room in planes or restaurant booths and probably hit their heads on things far more often than I, just like men experience things differently than women. It seems to me that women would be happier if they stopped comparing themselves to men.
Anymore when I hear the word "paradox" the first thing I think is, "oh, they mean some data or evidence that does not fit their firmly held assumptions has come up". Recently I read a post at Carolyn McCulley's blog about an opinion piece in the New York times about a study recently reported on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". The study is a meta-analysis of data from multiple sources which uses logistic regression (beyond my statistical pay grade) to describe "happiness" for men and women for the last 40 years. In a nut shell the findings say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago relative to themselves and relative to men.
In his op-ed piece, Ross Douthat offers his opinion that this relative loss of happiness in women is ambiguous.
"All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.
There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."
Douthat then goes on to say "Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood." Sounds more feminist than "traditionalist" (whatever that really means) to me, as in society should support women's choices. He also says that feminists and traditionalists "should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. " This actually sounds feminist to me too, because it refers to the happiness and interest of women rather than the disastrous effects of single parenthood on society as a whole. He also advocates that both feminists and traditionalists should be able to get "behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age." Hmm...okay this may get him into trouble with the feminists....
A blogger at the feminist blog Jezebel has a post on the op-ed and on the study itself. What did she focus on? This statement by Douthit: "But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. " And of course she objects vehemently. Because feminism has brought only light and rainbows and flowers and butterflies to the world, right? She postulates the unhappiness felt by women is not because feminism has screwed society up beyond belief and encouraged women to become dissatisfied with, well just about everything, but rather because feminism has not brought enough equality and so women are pissed. The idea that women are discriminated against is highly debatable in the current culture (and I would say not true). But, what she also doesn't get is that any group of people who share characteristics and are different from another group of people are gaining nothing by comparing themselves.
I am 5'5" in height, not short, but hardly statuesque either. What if I compared myself to people 6 feel tall and over? I bet they don't have to get on a kitchen chair to reach the top 2 shelves in their kitchen cabinet! These tall people's feet probably touch the floor when they sit in restaurant booths or when riding in an airplane! It's wrong I tell you. Houses, restaurant booths and planes should be built to accommodate me! I am discriminated against! Woe is me! No wonder I am less happy! The idea that it is reasonable to compare yourself with others who are not like you to begin with makes no sense to me.
Of course that completely misses the fact that like tall people who don't have enough leg room in planes or restaurant booths and probably hit their heads on things far more often than I, just like men experience things differently than women. It seems to me that women would be happier if they stopped comparing themselves to men.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Sex, marriage, humanity and hat tricks
Since I appear to currently be unable to produce an entire post on one subject that makes sense, and in imitation of Elusive Wapiti and Terri at Breathing Grace, I present to you, a potpourri of topics.
Sex and Marriage
In the comments to my post Um....yeah (brilliant title, isn't it?) Elusive Wapiti and I had a brief exchange about the role of sex in the marrying of a man and a woman. Briefly, I said that in the old testament sex = marriage, so to God, sex = marriage, and EW said nuh uh (okay, there was more to it than that...go read the comments and the post EW linked to). I'm still not sure what I think about this because of questions that I have about some scriptures. In a comment I made that was buried in the other comments, I said the following:
"I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her. -What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?"
So, what do y'all think?
Humanity
Hat tricks
Woo Hoo!!! Geno Malkin had a hat trick last night as the Penguins beat the Hurricanes 7-4 in game 2 of the NHL eastern conference finals. First playoff hat trick for the Pens since who knows when. Stanley Cup predictions anyone? I say it will be the Pens and Red Wings again, but this time my Pens will win (Why, yes, I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area. Yes, I am a homer. Whatever made you ask those questions? ;) ).
Sex and Marriage
In the comments to my post Um....yeah (brilliant title, isn't it?) Elusive Wapiti and I had a brief exchange about the role of sex in the marrying of a man and a woman. Briefly, I said that in the old testament sex = marriage, so to God, sex = marriage, and EW said nuh uh (okay, there was more to it than that...go read the comments and the post EW linked to). I'm still not sure what I think about this because of questions that I have about some scriptures. In a comment I made that was buried in the other comments, I said the following:
"I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her. -What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?"
So, what do y'all think?
Humanity
I get annoyed with many "politically correct" ideas. For example, what was the point of changing the tag line "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to "To boldly go where no one has gone before" in the new Star Trek movie (which was a great flick)? However I do insist that my students use what is called "person first language" when referring to our patients/clients. This means we do not call someone a "stroke" or a "nerve injury", we call them a person who has had a stroke, or a person who has had a nerve injury. I insist on this because it is important to see someone as a person, not a diagnosis, and because calling someone a "head injury" is dehumanizing. Other examples of dehumanization include when the Nazis transported the Jews in cattle cars and called them "dogs", and those who are pro-abortion insisting that a baby be called a "fetus" before birth. It's tough to kill people when you think of them as human beings.
Lesser ill will than murder is associated with dehumanization as well. Some feminists call men "animals" to make them easier to distrust and despise. Recently a commenter at MarkyMark's referred to women as "sweaty bags of cellulite". Well.... I'm not quite sure what to say about that other than ask the following. Do you really need to dehumanize women to make the decision for yourself that you don't want to marry or associate with women? If the answer to that question is no, why do it? If it is yes, maybe you should ask yourself why.
Hat tricks
Woo Hoo!!! Geno Malkin had a hat trick last night as the Penguins beat the Hurricanes 7-4 in game 2 of the NHL eastern conference finals. First playoff hat trick for the Pens since who knows when. Stanley Cup predictions anyone? I say it will be the Pens and Red Wings again, but this time my Pens will win (Why, yes, I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area. Yes, I am a homer. Whatever made you ask those questions? ;) ).
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Man! I feel Like a Woman! Or not.....
The conference I attended last week was for work. My profession is historically and currently predominantly (~90%) female. Usually the conference attendees are more than 10% male because academics tend to be drawn to these sorts of events and the percentage of men is higher (~20%) in academia than in the profession as a whole.
Today at our faculty meeting when we were discussing the conference, a male professor commented on the selection of music played by the band at the opening festivities. One of the three songs the band played was Shania Twain's "Man!I Feel Like a Woman".
The male professor said that he thought it was a poor choice of songs given that we were not all women. He commented "You can bet the reaction would have been different if it was a song about being a man."
I commented that I noticed that and looked around to see how the guys in the audience reacted. Many appeared uncomfortable. I commented to my female co-workers at the time that coupled with the choice of the butterfly festooned lanyard upon which our event tickets hung, that the choice of music was not very man-friendly.
One of my female colleagues (she self-identifies as a feminist) said "I just thought of it as a popular song".
One of my other male colleagues replied "You're not thinking of it from a man's point of view".
The female colleague then rolled her eyes.
I said, "There's a shocker, (our professional organization) didn't consider the perspective of men."
My female colleague then said to the two male faculty who commented "If you don't like it, get involved in leadership. Oh, that's right....men can't manage to get elected."
I said, "You don't have to be a man to consider a man's perspective. Somebody just didn't even consider it."
Since my clinical profession is largely female there is always some sort of feminist ideology to wade through, particularly in some more active elements of leadership. Two years ago I attended a session where we were reviewing the proposed changes to official documents of the profession which outline the terminology we use to describe what we do. One of the proposed changes was to remove the word "roles" from our terminology. This stirred much discussion and confusion in the session because those of us in attendance could not understand why the word "roles" was problematic. The session moderator explained that "If we would examine the feminist literature we would see ther the word "roles" is opressive to women". Lest you think the entire profession is so silly, there was a great deal of eye-rolling and "you have got to be kidding me" from the attendees of the session, both male and female. There was also much debate with the majority of those in attendance finding the idea that the word "roles" was opressive to women to be ridiculous. Thankfully when the final version of the document came out the word "roles" remained.
Today at our faculty meeting when we were discussing the conference, a male professor commented on the selection of music played by the band at the opening festivities. One of the three songs the band played was Shania Twain's "Man!I Feel Like a Woman".
The male professor said that he thought it was a poor choice of songs given that we were not all women. He commented "You can bet the reaction would have been different if it was a song about being a man."
I commented that I noticed that and looked around to see how the guys in the audience reacted. Many appeared uncomfortable. I commented to my female co-workers at the time that coupled with the choice of the butterfly festooned lanyard upon which our event tickets hung, that the choice of music was not very man-friendly.
One of my female colleagues (she self-identifies as a feminist) said "I just thought of it as a popular song".
One of my other male colleagues replied "You're not thinking of it from a man's point of view".
The female colleague then rolled her eyes.
I said, "There's a shocker, (our professional organization) didn't consider the perspective of men."
My female colleague then said to the two male faculty who commented "If you don't like it, get involved in leadership. Oh, that's right....men can't manage to get elected."
I said, "You don't have to be a man to consider a man's perspective. Somebody just didn't even consider it."
Since my clinical profession is largely female there is always some sort of feminist ideology to wade through, particularly in some more active elements of leadership. Two years ago I attended a session where we were reviewing the proposed changes to official documents of the profession which outline the terminology we use to describe what we do. One of the proposed changes was to remove the word "roles" from our terminology. This stirred much discussion and confusion in the session because those of us in attendance could not understand why the word "roles" was problematic. The session moderator explained that "If we would examine the feminist literature we would see ther the word "roles" is opressive to women". Lest you think the entire profession is so silly, there was a great deal of eye-rolling and "you have got to be kidding me" from the attendees of the session, both male and female. There was also much debate with the majority of those in attendance finding the idea that the word "roles" was opressive to women to be ridiculous. Thankfully when the final version of the document came out the word "roles" remained.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
How many women are feminists?
Last week over at Recon's Black Ops on a post about divorce in the comments Catwoman said:
"Of all the feminists I know (not many — there aren’t many left!), none would think that Paul was harder on the women."
Yet, others have said that feminists are ubiquitous. So, which is it?
Perhaps the difference in beliefs has to do with how one defines feminism.
It seems that many feminists look to create a sort of "big tent" of feminism by telling both men and women that they are feminists if they believe in the equality of women.
The number of women (and men for that matter) who identify themselves as feminists goes from 24% to 65% (and from 24% to 58% for men) when the definition "A FEMINIST IS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF THE SEXES" is given.
That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? After all, in Galatians 3:28, Paul said that men and women both have equal standing before God as His children. So, why don't all Christians identify as feminists? Why don't all reasonable people identify as feminists? Why don't more people identify as a feminist when a definition is not given?
I suppose the reason why most people do not identify as feminist (only 14% of men and 24% of women) is because the term "feminist" means more than the dictionary definition of "equality of the sexes" to most people.
So, is Catwoman right? Are there not many feminists around anymore?
Perhaps it is that even though many women today do not consider themselves feminists, they still are influenced by feminist ideology.
The same survey gives some insight into how many women hold feminist ideology to be true.
-69% of women believe the women's movement has made their life better, including 75% of women 18-35, 80% of women 36-44, 70% of women 45-64, and 47% of women 65 and older.
-48% of women think there is still a need for a strong woman's movement.
-According to to an online poll done by Working Woman magazine and the National Committee on Pay Equity, 83% of the respondents believe that the so called "wage gap" is a big problem in the work place.
According to another survey:
63% of those surveyed (Males [N=461], Females [N=542], Democrats [N=361], Republicans [N=301], Independents [N=341]) think women are treated unfairly in the workplace and in politics. 34% think women are treated unfairly in the home.
So, it would appear that even though most women would not automatically call themselves a feminist, that many women still hold feminist ideology.
"Of all the feminists I know (not many — there aren’t many left!), none would think that Paul was harder on the women."
Yet, others have said that feminists are ubiquitous. So, which is it?
Perhaps the difference in beliefs has to do with how one defines feminism.
It seems that many feminists look to create a sort of "big tent" of feminism by telling both men and women that they are feminists if they believe in the equality of women.
The number of women (and men for that matter) who identify themselves as feminists goes from 24% to 65% (and from 24% to 58% for men) when the definition "A FEMINIST IS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF THE SEXES" is given.
That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? After all, in Galatians 3:28, Paul said that men and women both have equal standing before God as His children. So, why don't all Christians identify as feminists? Why don't all reasonable people identify as feminists? Why don't more people identify as a feminist when a definition is not given?
I suppose the reason why most people do not identify as feminist (only 14% of men and 24% of women) is because the term "feminist" means more than the dictionary definition of "equality of the sexes" to most people.
So, is Catwoman right? Are there not many feminists around anymore?
Perhaps it is that even though many women today do not consider themselves feminists, they still are influenced by feminist ideology.
The same survey gives some insight into how many women hold feminist ideology to be true.
-69% of women believe the women's movement has made their life better, including 75% of women 18-35, 80% of women 36-44, 70% of women 45-64, and 47% of women 65 and older.
-48% of women think there is still a need for a strong woman's movement.
-According to to an online poll done by Working Woman magazine and the National Committee on Pay Equity, 83% of the respondents believe that the so called "wage gap" is a big problem in the work place.
According to another survey:
63% of those surveyed (Males [N=461], Females [N=542], Democrats [N=361], Republicans [N=301], Independents [N=341]) think women are treated unfairly in the workplace and in politics. 34% think women are treated unfairly in the home.
So, it would appear that even though most women would not automatically call themselves a feminist, that many women still hold feminist ideology.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A tool of the patriarchy
Shaving, that is. I thought this was quite funny, and I needed a laugh today. Over at Feministing there is discussion about this advertisement for a women's razor.
It seems the feminists are having quite the discussion about whether women should shave or not.
-If you shave you are just giving in to the patriarchy.
-You can shave if you want to, but you really should think about why you shave.
-If you think you shave for your own comfort or preference you are lying to yourself.
Maybe the fact that I think this is so funny is a reflection of my current mental state. I dunno. But, I am this close to getting approved by the institutional review board so that I can begin recruiting participants for my dissertation. After almost two years I am going to finally actually be allowed to do the study. No wonder I find things like this amusing.
It seems the feminists are having quite the discussion about whether women should shave or not.
-If you shave you are just giving in to the patriarchy.
-You can shave if you want to, but you really should think about why you shave.
-If you think you shave for your own comfort or preference you are lying to yourself.
Maybe the fact that I think this is so funny is a reflection of my current mental state. I dunno. But, I am this close to getting approved by the institutional review board so that I can begin recruiting participants for my dissertation. After almost two years I am going to finally actually be allowed to do the study. No wonder I find things like this amusing.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Was feminism all bad?
One of my vices is to buy books faster than I can possibly read them. I also have the habit of reading multiple books at the same time (well, not at exactly the same time, but you know what I mean....). Right now I am reading The Feminist Mistake by Mary Kassian, Safe People by Henry Cloud and John Townsend, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity by Leon Podles, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan, I'm Fine With God...It's Christians I can't Stand by Bruce Bickel ands Stan Jantz, and The Appeal by John Grisham.
I also have piles of books just waiting to be read. Right now, one of those books is Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World by Carolyn McCulley. Ms. McCulley is a self-described former feminist who earned a certificate in women's studies in college and later rejected much feminist ideology after converting to Christianity when she was 30. Even though it seems to me that feminism still influences some things Ms. McCulley writes on her blog, I have appreciated many things she has written about there, so I have been interested to hear what she has to say about feminism in this new book.
Carolyn McCulley currently has a guest post on Candace Watters' blog titled Early Views on Marriage about the negative views of marriage espoused by early feminists, which is based on her book, Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World. In this post she makes the statement:
The first feminists pushed for legal changes that we all benefit from today. I am glad women can vote, own property, and earn an equal wage for equal work—just to name a few benefits!
I have also had friends who oppose much feminist ideology say similar things, such as they are glad feminism has given them the right to work and earn a living. As a single woman, I am glad I have the right to earn a living and support myself too. I just doubt that I would not have this right without feminism. Women worked outside the home before feminism came along.
I also have piles of books just waiting to be read. Right now, one of those books is Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World by Carolyn McCulley. Ms. McCulley is a self-described former feminist who earned a certificate in women's studies in college and later rejected much feminist ideology after converting to Christianity when she was 30. Even though it seems to me that feminism still influences some things Ms. McCulley writes on her blog, I have appreciated many things she has written about there, so I have been interested to hear what she has to say about feminism in this new book.
Carolyn McCulley currently has a guest post on Candace Watters' blog titled Early Views on Marriage about the negative views of marriage espoused by early feminists, which is based on her book, Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World. In this post she makes the statement:
The first feminists pushed for legal changes that we all benefit from today. I am glad women can vote, own property, and earn an equal wage for equal work—just to name a few benefits!
I have also had friends who oppose much feminist ideology say similar things, such as they are glad feminism has given them the right to work and earn a living. As a single woman, I am glad I have the right to earn a living and support myself too. I just doubt that I would not have this right without feminism. Women worked outside the home before feminism came along.
Regarding suffrage, feminists seem to forget that historically many men did not have the right to vote either. I'm also not convinced that giving women the vote has been beneficial to the United States at all. Given the tendency of women to vote for greater government influence it is far more likely that my political point of view would be better represented if women, including me, were not allowed to vote.
When I read quotes like Carolyn McCulley's it seems to me that she believes that women would have no property rights without feminism. But, single women have had property rights throughout most of history. Additionally, as early as the 17th century in the United States, there have been laws which supported married women's rights to property by requiring married women to give their consent to any transaction involving what was their property prior to marriage before the transaction could be approved. I have also been unable to find any information that states that historically women were paid less than men for the same work.
So, I am not convinced that any of the "good" that feminism has brought about would not have happened if not for feminism.
What about you? Do you think feminism has brought any "good"?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
It's all about me
The very same day that my niece was adopted, an anonymous guest blogger over at Shakesville, that oasis of rational thought in a sea of patriarchy (yeah, right), posted on the same subject as I recently did, adoption and abortion. As you might guess, this anonymous blogger (I'll call her AB for short) had a different take on the subject than I did, but perhaps not in exactly the way you might expect. You see, AB has had an abortion and has given a child up for adoption.
She does make a point worthy of consideration, at least from my point of view. She contends that after giving a child up for adoption that a woman may experience some depression or other emotional maladjustment and may be in need of help to get through the experience of loss and that help is not readily available (at least in a manner that she finds acceptable). It is understandable that there would be some feelings of loss associated with giving a child up for adoption. And if she is correct that help is not readily available I would concur that this is something that should be addressed.
However, AB goes on to make several points that completely miss the obvious heart of the issue.
I have given a baby up for adoption, and I have had an abortion, and while anecdotes are not evidence, I can assert that abortions may or may not cause depression - it certainly did not in me, apart from briefly mourning the path not taken - but adoption? That is an entirely different matter. I don't doubt that there are women who were fine after adoption, and there is emphatically nothing wrong with that or with them; but I want to point out that if we're going to have a seemingly neverending discussion about the sorrow and remorse caused by abortion, then it is about goddamn time that we hear from birth mothers too.
Believe me when I say that of the two choices, it was adoption that nearly destroyed me - and it never ends. The only comparison I have is the death of a loved one. The pain retreats, maybe fades, but it comes right back if I poke at it. Writing this has taken me nearly two weeks. Normally, I can write this amount in about thirty minutes, with bathroom breaks. I started to type, and stopped only to reread, then go wail into my pillow. There is no such thing as "over" with this.
So, AB was far more depressed after giving her child up for adoption than she was after killing her child. First of all, NEWS FLASH: IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU! You were more depressed, but YOUR CHILD WAS ALIVE. I find it ironic in a truly sick way that she says that the only comparison to her emotional pain that she can make is the death of a loved one. Hello! Earth to AB, when you killed your child through abortion there actually was a death And while there is "no such thing as over" with AB's sense of pain and loss after allowing her child to live, when she aborted her other child, life was "over" for that baby.
I freely admit that I don't know what adoptees go through, so I'm going to let others do the talking on that topic (I really hope you do; I only know my side, and I fret and worry and freak out about my child). Again, though, you never see pro-lifers worrying about anything besides forcing a birth. I never see pro-lifers doing anything constructive about adoptees of any age.
AB frets and worries about the child she gave up for adoption, but has no grief for the child she killed. What? And excuse we pro-lifers of the world who worry about something as nonconstructive as life.
She does make a point worthy of consideration, at least from my point of view. She contends that after giving a child up for adoption that a woman may experience some depression or other emotional maladjustment and may be in need of help to get through the experience of loss and that help is not readily available (at least in a manner that she finds acceptable). It is understandable that there would be some feelings of loss associated with giving a child up for adoption. And if she is correct that help is not readily available I would concur that this is something that should be addressed.
However, AB goes on to make several points that completely miss the obvious heart of the issue.
I have given a baby up for adoption, and I have had an abortion, and while anecdotes are not evidence, I can assert that abortions may or may not cause depression - it certainly did not in me, apart from briefly mourning the path not taken - but adoption? That is an entirely different matter. I don't doubt that there are women who were fine after adoption, and there is emphatically nothing wrong with that or with them; but I want to point out that if we're going to have a seemingly neverending discussion about the sorrow and remorse caused by abortion, then it is about goddamn time that we hear from birth mothers too.
Believe me when I say that of the two choices, it was adoption that nearly destroyed me - and it never ends. The only comparison I have is the death of a loved one. The pain retreats, maybe fades, but it comes right back if I poke at it. Writing this has taken me nearly two weeks. Normally, I can write this amount in about thirty minutes, with bathroom breaks. I started to type, and stopped only to reread, then go wail into my pillow. There is no such thing as "over" with this.
So, AB was far more depressed after giving her child up for adoption than she was after killing her child. First of all, NEWS FLASH: IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU! You were more depressed, but YOUR CHILD WAS ALIVE. I find it ironic in a truly sick way that she says that the only comparison to her emotional pain that she can make is the death of a loved one. Hello! Earth to AB, when you killed your child through abortion there actually was a death And while there is "no such thing as over" with AB's sense of pain and loss after allowing her child to live, when she aborted her other child, life was "over" for that baby.
I freely admit that I don't know what adoptees go through, so I'm going to let others do the talking on that topic (I really hope you do; I only know my side, and I fret and worry and freak out about my child). Again, though, you never see pro-lifers worrying about anything besides forcing a birth. I never see pro-lifers doing anything constructive about adoptees of any age.
AB frets and worries about the child she gave up for adoption, but has no grief for the child she killed. What? And excuse we pro-lifers of the world who worry about something as nonconstructive as life.
But wait, she's not done yet.
And when MRAs aren't busily whining about losing their children in a custody battle, they're whining about how they should have some say in whether a woman is allowed to get an abortion, even when they don't want the child and want it put up for adoption. I can't even imagine the psychological ramifications of being forced into adoption, when it's indescribably hard after a decision made of one's free will.
The psychological ramifications of being forced to let your child live? How about the psychological ramifications of the father who is helpless in the face of you choosing to kill his child? How about the physiological ramifications for the child who is killed in an abortion?
As Male Samizdat said in the comments to my previous post on abortion and adoption: Typical feminist thinking. "It's all about me."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Responsibility and choices
Last year a student came and told me she was pregnant and had an appointment to have an abortion, but that she was reconsidering her decision. As I tried to talk her out of the abortion, I silently implored God that He would give me the words to say. I am very sad to say that it now appears that she did have the abortion.
One of the things she said during our conversation kept going through my mind today. When I suggested that she consider giving the baby up for adoption, she said, "oh, I would never do something so irresponsible." After I managed to pick my jaw up off of the floor I asked her what she meant. She said, "If I'm not going to raise the child myself I won't have it, that would be irresponsible." I told her I didn't think that was irresponsible at all, but rather that it was a gift to the child and the adoptive parents. She said, "Oh, I know. I just want to take care of my problems myself. " I was stunned into silence at this "logic". I mean, what the freak is that about?
This conversation was on my mind, because today, my sister and brother-in-law legally adopted my niece. It was a very, very happy day for my family. I am so thankful that my niece's birth mother didn't think of her as a problem to be taken care of, because she is a gift to my family to be certain.
One of the things she said during our conversation kept going through my mind today. When I suggested that she consider giving the baby up for adoption, she said, "oh, I would never do something so irresponsible." After I managed to pick my jaw up off of the floor I asked her what she meant. She said, "If I'm not going to raise the child myself I won't have it, that would be irresponsible." I told her I didn't think that was irresponsible at all, but rather that it was a gift to the child and the adoptive parents. She said, "Oh, I know. I just want to take care of my problems myself. " I was stunned into silence at this "logic". I mean, what the freak is that about?
This conversation was on my mind, because today, my sister and brother-in-law legally adopted my niece. It was a very, very happy day for my family. I am so thankful that my niece's birth mother didn't think of her as a problem to be taken care of, because she is a gift to my family to be certain.
Welcome to the family, Peanut!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The gender gap revisited
The student journalist at our student newspaper who addressed the myth of a gender based wage gap appears to have maintained his job though the experience so far. There have also been no published letters to the editor in response. However, there have been a flurry of feminist flavored opinion pieces in the last few weeks ("reproductive rights" are about women's health-yeah, right- and how fans should accept the new female mascot who has traditionally been a male figure with distinctly masculine characteristics).
Today, I had a conversation with one of my female colleagues related to the "wage gap".
Colleague (C): Did you fill out the faculty satisfaction survey?
Learner (L): Not yet. What kinds of questions are on it?
C: About the work environment. They asked if you think you get treated differently because you are a woman. If you get paid less, are respected less, that kind of thing.
L: How did you answer?
C: Well you know we get paid less. (as state employees, anyone can look at the state website and see what our salaries are)
L: Are you sure that is because we're women? There really isn't a valid comparison between us and the guys. We all have different levels of experience and education as well as different job titles.
C: Well A (most recently hired male) does make less than us.
L: I don't think it is a male/female thing.
C: B makes more than us, but what does he do?
L: B is the (administrative title), that's why he makes more. He can have it, I wouldn't want that job.
C: D makes more than us.
L: D finished his PhD and is a higher rank.
C: Okay...... I still think it is discrimination. We'll see what happens when you finish your doctorate.
L: D will still have more experience and a higher rank than me. Those sorts of things really can explain the difference for the most part.
C: ends conversation
So, after my colleague left I had to check out the survey for myself. The invitation email said "The purpose of the survey is to identify factors that contribute to a positive work environment for all faculty. Although the survey is being administered by the Council for Women's Concerns, survey results will be used to inform administration of ALL faculty needs."
After I read that, the language in the survey came as no surprise to me. There were gender neutral questions that read "do you get treated differently because of your gender?" (notice, it is not asking better or worse) and woman specific questions like "are women overly sensitive to workplace discrimination issues?" but no male specific questions. It was not hard to see a feminine bias in the survey. It doesn't seem that the information gained is actually going to serve the needs of all faculty.
Today, I had a conversation with one of my female colleagues related to the "wage gap".
Colleague (C): Did you fill out the faculty satisfaction survey?
Learner (L): Not yet. What kinds of questions are on it?
C: About the work environment. They asked if you think you get treated differently because you are a woman. If you get paid less, are respected less, that kind of thing.
L: How did you answer?
C: Well you know we get paid less. (as state employees, anyone can look at the state website and see what our salaries are)
L: Are you sure that is because we're women? There really isn't a valid comparison between us and the guys. We all have different levels of experience and education as well as different job titles.
C: Well A (most recently hired male) does make less than us.
L: I don't think it is a male/female thing.
C: B makes more than us, but what does he do?
L: B is the (administrative title), that's why he makes more. He can have it, I wouldn't want that job.
C: D makes more than us.
L: D finished his PhD and is a higher rank.
C: Okay...... I still think it is discrimination. We'll see what happens when you finish your doctorate.
L: D will still have more experience and a higher rank than me. Those sorts of things really can explain the difference for the most part.
C: ends conversation
So, after my colleague left I had to check out the survey for myself. The invitation email said "The purpose of the survey is to identify factors that contribute to a positive work environment for all faculty. Although the survey is being administered by the Council for Women's Concerns, survey results will be used to inform administration of ALL faculty needs."
After I read that, the language in the survey came as no surprise to me. There were gender neutral questions that read "do you get treated differently because of your gender?" (notice, it is not asking better or worse) and woman specific questions like "are women overly sensitive to workplace discrimination issues?" but no male specific questions. It was not hard to see a feminine bias in the survey. It doesn't seem that the information gained is actually going to serve the needs of all faculty.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Uncle
Okay, I give up. I have been having an exchange over at MarkyMark's, trying to understand this apparent need for some men to paint all women with a broad brush. But, now that it has devolved to the point that instead of responding to me, people are talking about me, I think it is probably best for me to let it go. My question remains unanswered, which is frustrating for me. I would prefer to continue to try to gain understanding, but if the response is talking about me in the third person rather than addressing what I say, I don't see how understanding can happen. (I would really like to ask in what way I have been hypocritical...if anyone can let me know I would appreciate it)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Is it feminism or women?
I think it is human nature to assume, by default, that other people are similar to you. That they feel how you feel, think how you think, would react how you react and that their experiences are similar to yours. I suppose that many times those assumptions would be correct. But, sometimes they are not.
I read the blogs of some men's rights activists. I have learned a lot from them. I have also encountered a lot of hyperbole. Lots of "all women are.." or "all Western women are..." or "99% of women are" or "95% of women are" (you get the picture) types of statements. I have made no secret of the fact that I am no fan of hyperbole, because it makes it harder for others to hear the truth in what you are saying because they get stuck in the hyperbole. After all, probably the only "all women are..." statement that would be factually true would be "all women are female". When people engage in hyperbole their point gets lost because others will point out the factual inaccuracy rather than engaging the substance of the point. Of course it is possible that my nerdiness is what makes me impatient with hyperbole (no blanket assumptions allowed in my nerd-land). But, I think it is more about the fact that there is no need for hyperbole to demonstrate that feminism sucks. Further, the use of hyperbole actually detracts from the case.
Recently Coffee Catholic wrote a blog post addressing the "American women are skanks" bit of hyperbole. I am not comfortable with all the accusations of "whining" that CC makes. And, while I have felt pressured for sex and have been ridiculed by men for not acquiescing, I have found the vast majority of men to be respectful about my boundaries, even if those boundaries ended their interest in me. So, I have not shared CC's experience of feeling hounded or having my mental health affected. But, I do agree that it is disingenuous for a man to complain that women are skanks if he has participated in the "skankification" of women. I agree with her on that point, just like I would agree with a man who said it was disingenuous for a woman to complain about men being "sexually obsessed" when she dresses and behaves provocatively.
Over at MarkyMark's , CC also commented on a post about a related subject which seems to have started quite the discussion. One commenter, a Ruddyturnstone, asserts that CC believes that because she was looking for a long-term commitment when she was young, there must have been lots of other women out there doing the same thing.
RTS goes on to say It's the same old, same old with the women posters here. A man claims that Western women, in general, do X. The women jump on and say, "But I'm not like that" (or, sometimes, they say "But all women aren't like that" or "The women in my little circle of family and friends aren't like that"). Even if it's true, who gives a shit? Who was talking about you, or your sister or niece or even "all" women? It's a GENERALIZATION.
I have certainly made similar comments in response to a comment that was not expressed as a generalization (such as my exchange here with MS). These sorts of statements may have no indicators (meaning that they use words or phrases like: "women in general" or "most women" or "many women" rather than "women") that they are a generalization. Sometimes they have indicators that they are not generalizations ("all women", "each women" etc.).
RTS continues, Most Western women are, in fact, "like that." And what you are doing is derailing the conversation and delegitimizing a valid and generally true critique, and the experiences and observations of the man who made it.....Jeff is to be considered a "whiner" because every single woman he has ever dealt with cheated on him.That's what I meant when I talked about delegitimizing the male perspective. Jeff's experience is set at nought, because it does not jibe with what CC claims is her experience....No, it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time, just as in Jeff's portrayal of them. Very few Western women were virgins looking for marriage throughout their 20's but couldn't find anything but players, as in CC's tale....there really just aren't that many nice girls out there. And there certainly aren't many looking to get married in their 20's.Of course, CC says that SHE was a virgin and all ready, willing and able to marry at age 20, but no men were around who wanted to. And that is where I see the problem. That may very well have been CC's experience, but it is no way typical. And, it in no way nullifies or contradicts what Jeff, or you or I are saying. CC, like some of the other women who post here, is using her experience as way of "trumping" the experiences of men. What we say, even here, even on a blog that is supposed to be about Men Going There Own Way, is subject to being overruled by the experiences of women. (Edited by me, Learner, at the ellipses for length)
This discussion is very curious to me. While I understand the idea that what CC said delegitimized Jeff's experience and agree that is not just or helpful, I confess that it seems to me that both CC and RTS are assuming that their experience and the experiences of people they know is the norm. Quite frankly, I have no idea what the norm is anymore, but I would guess that while feminism has wreaked havoc on western culture, that the norm is not quite as cut and dried as "it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time".
Not everyone has the same experience. CC having a different experience doesn't nullify or trump the experience of men who have experiences similar to Jeff's. But Jeff's experience doesn't nullify CC's experience or the experience of other "outliers" either. Both are valid experiences and are not mutually exclusive. One experience does not have to be false for the other to be true. The problem comes when we assume that everyone's experience is like ours, or like the experience of the people we know. It seems to me that what derails the conversation is the hyperbole.
The problem with both hyperbole about men and women is that both of these issues blame a group of diverse people (men or women in general) instead of the specific persons engaging in the objectionable behaviors and the ideology, feminism, that resulted in the behaviors. When men say all women or all American women are skanks, it makes women the "enemy", just like when women say most men are to blame if women are slutty it makes men the "enemy" (or like when women say that an abused woman shouldn't have to even be in a room with a man because it isn't "safe" it makes all men the "enemy") Both reactions fail to focus on the real problem, which is feminism.
Maybe I am too optimistic (since I am an "idealist"), but I believe that if the hyperbole could be kept to a minimum that there is more of a chance that the truth that feminism is a scourge that is destroying society and the church can be exposed.
I read the blogs of some men's rights activists. I have learned a lot from them. I have also encountered a lot of hyperbole. Lots of "all women are.." or "all Western women are..." or "99% of women are" or "95% of women are" (you get the picture) types of statements. I have made no secret of the fact that I am no fan of hyperbole, because it makes it harder for others to hear the truth in what you are saying because they get stuck in the hyperbole. After all, probably the only "all women are..." statement that would be factually true would be "all women are female". When people engage in hyperbole their point gets lost because others will point out the factual inaccuracy rather than engaging the substance of the point. Of course it is possible that my nerdiness is what makes me impatient with hyperbole (no blanket assumptions allowed in my nerd-land). But, I think it is more about the fact that there is no need for hyperbole to demonstrate that feminism sucks. Further, the use of hyperbole actually detracts from the case.
Recently Coffee Catholic wrote a blog post addressing the "American women are skanks" bit of hyperbole. I am not comfortable with all the accusations of "whining" that CC makes. And, while I have felt pressured for sex and have been ridiculed by men for not acquiescing, I have found the vast majority of men to be respectful about my boundaries, even if those boundaries ended their interest in me. So, I have not shared CC's experience of feeling hounded or having my mental health affected. But, I do agree that it is disingenuous for a man to complain that women are skanks if he has participated in the "skankification" of women. I agree with her on that point, just like I would agree with a man who said it was disingenuous for a woman to complain about men being "sexually obsessed" when she dresses and behaves provocatively.
Over at MarkyMark's , CC also commented on a post about a related subject which seems to have started quite the discussion. One commenter, a Ruddyturnstone, asserts that CC believes that because she was looking for a long-term commitment when she was young, there must have been lots of other women out there doing the same thing.
RTS goes on to say It's the same old, same old with the women posters here. A man claims that Western women, in general, do X. The women jump on and say, "But I'm not like that" (or, sometimes, they say "But all women aren't like that" or "The women in my little circle of family and friends aren't like that"). Even if it's true, who gives a shit? Who was talking about you, or your sister or niece or even "all" women? It's a GENERALIZATION.
I have certainly made similar comments in response to a comment that was not expressed as a generalization (such as my exchange here with MS). These sorts of statements may have no indicators (meaning that they use words or phrases like: "women in general" or "most women" or "many women" rather than "women") that they are a generalization. Sometimes they have indicators that they are not generalizations ("all women", "each women" etc.).
RTS continues, Most Western women are, in fact, "like that." And what you are doing is derailing the conversation and delegitimizing a valid and generally true critique, and the experiences and observations of the man who made it.....Jeff is to be considered a "whiner" because every single woman he has ever dealt with cheated on him.That's what I meant when I talked about delegitimizing the male perspective. Jeff's experience is set at nought, because it does not jibe with what CC claims is her experience....No, it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time, just as in Jeff's portrayal of them. Very few Western women were virgins looking for marriage throughout their 20's but couldn't find anything but players, as in CC's tale....there really just aren't that many nice girls out there. And there certainly aren't many looking to get married in their 20's.Of course, CC says that SHE was a virgin and all ready, willing and able to marry at age 20, but no men were around who wanted to. And that is where I see the problem. That may very well have been CC's experience, but it is no way typical. And, it in no way nullifies or contradicts what Jeff, or you or I are saying. CC, like some of the other women who post here, is using her experience as way of "trumping" the experiences of men. What we say, even here, even on a blog that is supposed to be about Men Going There Own Way, is subject to being overruled by the experiences of women. (Edited by me, Learner, at the ellipses for length)
This discussion is very curious to me. While I understand the idea that what CC said delegitimized Jeff's experience and agree that is not just or helpful, I confess that it seems to me that both CC and RTS are assuming that their experience and the experiences of people they know is the norm. Quite frankly, I have no idea what the norm is anymore, but I would guess that while feminism has wreaked havoc on western culture, that the norm is not quite as cut and dried as "it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time".
Not everyone has the same experience. CC having a different experience doesn't nullify or trump the experience of men who have experiences similar to Jeff's. But Jeff's experience doesn't nullify CC's experience or the experience of other "outliers" either. Both are valid experiences and are not mutually exclusive. One experience does not have to be false for the other to be true. The problem comes when we assume that everyone's experience is like ours, or like the experience of the people we know. It seems to me that what derails the conversation is the hyperbole.
The problem with both hyperbole about men and women is that both of these issues blame a group of diverse people (men or women in general) instead of the specific persons engaging in the objectionable behaviors and the ideology, feminism, that resulted in the behaviors. When men say all women or all American women are skanks, it makes women the "enemy", just like when women say most men are to blame if women are slutty it makes men the "enemy" (or like when women say that an abused woman shouldn't have to even be in a room with a man because it isn't "safe" it makes all men the "enemy") Both reactions fail to focus on the real problem, which is feminism.
Maybe I am too optimistic (since I am an "idealist"), but I believe that if the hyperbole could be kept to a minimum that there is more of a chance that the truth that feminism is a scourge that is destroying society and the church can be exposed.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The gender gap
Today I was surprised that a columnist in my university's student newspaper addressed the topic of the so called "wage gap" between the genders. He did a fine job of covering the basics of the issue:
For more information about the wage gap see this post by Elusive Wapiti.
- Differences in wages between men and women are due to lifestyle decisions such as preferred working hours, having children, and work conditions such as required travel and hazards.
- Over the past 40 years wages for women, particularly black women, have gone up faster than other demographics.
- If women really make less for the same work, why would an employer hire men at all?
For more information about the wage gap see this post by Elusive Wapiti.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Battle of the Sexes is Over...and the Chicks Have Won
Or at least that's what this calendar says:
I found this calendar on the clearance rack at my Barnes and Noble today. What words could I use to describe it? Disgusting? Ridiculous? Insulting? I am at a loss, so I'll resort to sarcasm.
Make yourself useful and spend money on me!
I found this calendar on the clearance rack at my Barnes and Noble today. What words could I use to describe it? Disgusting? Ridiculous? Insulting? I am at a loss, so I'll resort to sarcasm.
See, women's hearts are in the right place and men, well, we know the only thing they think about ;)
Men are losers, it's just that simple.
Boys are just like animals (it is soooo distressing to us girls!)
Boys, better seen than heard.
Dudes = ZERO, get it?
Sigh... so sorry boys, even in my most generous and helpful nature and superior wisdom I can't help you fix your stupidity.
Maybe boys aren't better seen than heard....I crack myself up!
Boys should be under a chick's control! (and buy me jewelry!)
You're so pathetic even begging won't help!
Short = less, don't you know?
Boys, so helpless with the all important fashion.
Make yourself useful and spend money on me!I looked, and there was no "DUDES RULE" version, not that I thought there actually would be. That would be misogynist don'cha know!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Feminism in Academia: Part II
I have had a few examples of the effect of feminism in two assignments I received from students at the end of the semester. One of my students, a 40ish divorced single mom recently turned in a case study assignment. I had given her the basic case of a fifty-something year old male executive recovering from a heart attack and she embellished the case. I am fine with students embellishing the cases because it makes the assignments more interesting for me to read, however this student added some feminist flavored elements to the case. The man was cheating on his wife with a mistress which caused him stress and led to his heart attack. The man didn’t listen to his wife when she told him to eat better and exercise which led to his heart attack. Once the man ended his affair and started listening to his wife all was well in his world. This is from a student who also “accidentally” included one of the male faculty in my department on a email containing “stupid man tricks”. That male faculty member mentioned the email in a faculty meeting and my chair shrugged it off. Compare this behavior with my chair's reaction when I said something that offended a female student.
Another non-traditional (late 20s and married) female student did a journal article review on a study that examined the time use of women in relation to their health. Her assignment included the following paragraph (in italics):
The article stated that a woman’s typical occupational roles usually include work, child care, and home management. A man’s typically includes work and leisure pursuits. This hardly seems appropriate to me. It may not be received well by all, but I think it would be beneficial to initiate a type of “couples training.” The husband or significant other should be informed of the occupational tasks of his spouse/significant other. Then he should be educated on how this is affecting her health and well-being. The woman should also be educated on stress and time management techniques. I think many women (myself included) should be reminded that it’s Ok and usually necessary to ask for help. I think it would be beneficial for the couple to discuss alternatives so as to alleviate the stress on the woman. Tasks should be shared between both in a partnership. In addition, the women in this study must find a way to incorporate leisure pursuits into their life.
The article did indeed say that a woman’s typical occupational roles usually include work, child care, and home management and a man’s typically include work and leisure pursuits. :
“Women’s time use is different than men’s. Women, especially mothers, spend more time in household work, child care, and helping other family members, whereas men spend more time in paid work and in leisure occupations (Bird & Fremont, 1991; Statistics Sweden, 2003). This gender difference is reflected in the patterns of daily occupations. Because a higher proportion of woman’s occupations attend to others’ needs, they are more frequently interrupted from what they are doing (Hirdman, 1999). The impact of these ingredients of woman’s daily occupations on their well-being was shown in a study of working, cohabitant mothers (Erlandsson & Eklund, 2003a). A lack of control and frequent experiences of hassles in daily occupations were found to be risk factors for experiencing lower quality of life and lower self-rated health.”
(Erlandsson & Eklund, 2006, p.28)
It makes it sound like men just go to work and then pursue leisure interests and women work themselves into lower quality of life and self-rated health what with all the house work etc. they do, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, my student was taken in by a case of the authors twisting references to back up their position, and then she rolled with it. Let’s take a look at the references:
The Bird and Fremont reference was a time use study that examined how men and women in the United States spent their time in 1981. According to this study, out of a seven day week, women spend 18.41 hours in paid work, 16.91 hours in housework, and 4.33 hours in childcare for a total of 39.65 hours of work. Men spend 35.47 hours in paid work, 4.36 hours in housework, and 1.74 hours in childcare for a total of 41.57 hours of work. So, men actually spent more time working, 1.92 hours more per week. One would also assume that the work of many men also serves others and may include frequent interruptions of tasks as well.
Okay, maybe men have a lot more time spent in leisure. According to Bird and Fremont, women spend 27.09 hours in leisure and men spend 28.25 hours in leisure per week for a difference of 1.14 hours. So, men get 1.14 hours more leisure a week. Um, okay, so men spend more time working and doing leisure activities than women. What are the women doing during that time? According to Bird and Fremont, they are spending more time than men in two activities on average: sleeping and self care (grooming etc).
What about the Statistics Sweden reference? Well I couldn’t retrieve that exact reference but I found the same data in another source that also included time use by gender for other European countries too. Time use statistics from the Swedish government regarding Swedish women and men aged 20 to 74, revealed the following patterns expressed in hours and minutes per 24 hour day.
Free Time: men- 5:24/ women- 5:03
Meals, personal care: men- 2:11/ women- 2:28
Sleep: men- 8:01/ women- 8:11
Travel: men- 1:30/ women- 1:23
Domestic Work: men- 2:29/ women- 3:42
Gainful Work: men- 4:25/ women- 3:12
Again, men spend 8:25 in work tasks (travel, domestic work, gainful work) and women spend 8:07. Men spend 15:36 in self care/leisure tasks (free time, eating meals, personal care, sleep) and women 15:42.
Neither reference makes the case that women are spending more time working than men, or than men have significantly more leisure time than women because of all the work women do around the house. In fact these references make the case that the work load seems to be pretty evenly distributed between men and women in a home. Of course that doesn’t fit the feminist mantra that “a woman’s work is never done”. It is pretty easy to imagine that women reading that peer reviewed journal article would get the same misconception my student did, that women have lower perceived health because men don’t help with domestic tasks. And don’t even get me started on the idea that a correlation or association between two factors (say time use and perceived health) means that one factor causes or even has direct influence on the other factor…
Another non-traditional (late 20s and married) female student did a journal article review on a study that examined the time use of women in relation to their health. Her assignment included the following paragraph (in italics):
The article stated that a woman’s typical occupational roles usually include work, child care, and home management. A man’s typically includes work and leisure pursuits. This hardly seems appropriate to me. It may not be received well by all, but I think it would be beneficial to initiate a type of “couples training.” The husband or significant other should be informed of the occupational tasks of his spouse/significant other. Then he should be educated on how this is affecting her health and well-being. The woman should also be educated on stress and time management techniques. I think many women (myself included) should be reminded that it’s Ok and usually necessary to ask for help. I think it would be beneficial for the couple to discuss alternatives so as to alleviate the stress on the woman. Tasks should be shared between both in a partnership. In addition, the women in this study must find a way to incorporate leisure pursuits into their life.
The article did indeed say that a woman’s typical occupational roles usually include work, child care, and home management and a man’s typically include work and leisure pursuits. :
“Women’s time use is different than men’s. Women, especially mothers, spend more time in household work, child care, and helping other family members, whereas men spend more time in paid work and in leisure occupations (Bird & Fremont, 1991; Statistics Sweden, 2003). This gender difference is reflected in the patterns of daily occupations. Because a higher proportion of woman’s occupations attend to others’ needs, they are more frequently interrupted from what they are doing (Hirdman, 1999). The impact of these ingredients of woman’s daily occupations on their well-being was shown in a study of working, cohabitant mothers (Erlandsson & Eklund, 2003a). A lack of control and frequent experiences of hassles in daily occupations were found to be risk factors for experiencing lower quality of life and lower self-rated health.”
(Erlandsson & Eklund, 2006, p.28)
It makes it sound like men just go to work and then pursue leisure interests and women work themselves into lower quality of life and self-rated health what with all the house work etc. they do, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, my student was taken in by a case of the authors twisting references to back up their position, and then she rolled with it. Let’s take a look at the references:
The Bird and Fremont reference was a time use study that examined how men and women in the United States spent their time in 1981. According to this study, out of a seven day week, women spend 18.41 hours in paid work, 16.91 hours in housework, and 4.33 hours in childcare for a total of 39.65 hours of work. Men spend 35.47 hours in paid work, 4.36 hours in housework, and 1.74 hours in childcare for a total of 41.57 hours of work. So, men actually spent more time working, 1.92 hours more per week. One would also assume that the work of many men also serves others and may include frequent interruptions of tasks as well.
Okay, maybe men have a lot more time spent in leisure. According to Bird and Fremont, women spend 27.09 hours in leisure and men spend 28.25 hours in leisure per week for a difference of 1.14 hours. So, men get 1.14 hours more leisure a week. Um, okay, so men spend more time working and doing leisure activities than women. What are the women doing during that time? According to Bird and Fremont, they are spending more time than men in two activities on average: sleeping and self care (grooming etc).
What about the Statistics Sweden reference? Well I couldn’t retrieve that exact reference but I found the same data in another source that also included time use by gender for other European countries too. Time use statistics from the Swedish government regarding Swedish women and men aged 20 to 74, revealed the following patterns expressed in hours and minutes per 24 hour day.
Free Time: men- 5:24/ women- 5:03
Meals, personal care: men- 2:11/ women- 2:28
Sleep: men- 8:01/ women- 8:11
Travel: men- 1:30/ women- 1:23
Domestic Work: men- 2:29/ women- 3:42
Gainful Work: men- 4:25/ women- 3:12
Again, men spend 8:25 in work tasks (travel, domestic work, gainful work) and women spend 8:07. Men spend 15:36 in self care/leisure tasks (free time, eating meals, personal care, sleep) and women 15:42.
Neither reference makes the case that women are spending more time working than men, or than men have significantly more leisure time than women because of all the work women do around the house. In fact these references make the case that the work load seems to be pretty evenly distributed between men and women in a home. Of course that doesn’t fit the feminist mantra that “a woman’s work is never done”. It is pretty easy to imagine that women reading that peer reviewed journal article would get the same misconception my student did, that women have lower perceived health because men don’t help with domestic tasks. And don’t even get me started on the idea that a correlation or association between two factors (say time use and perceived health) means that one factor causes or even has direct influence on the other factor…
Feminism in Academia: Part I
I was recently solicited to participate in a survey about graduate teaching in the health sciences for someone’s dissertation. I always try to participate in studies when invited because I know what it is like to try and recruit subjects when everyone says no. So, I agreed to participate in the survey which contained numerous questions about attitudes and actions that a graduate faculty may engage in. The questions asked that I categorize the behaviors' appropriateness and requirement for disciplinary intervention into the following categories:
1 = Appropriate behavior, should be encouraged
2 = Discretionary behavior, neither particularly appropriate nor inappropriate
3 = Mildly inappropriate behavior, generally to be ignored
4 = Inappropriate behavior, to be handled informally by colleagues or administrators suggesting change or improvement
5 = Very inappropriate behavior, requiring formal administrative intervention
One of the survey items was:
The instructor does not include pertinent scholarly contributions of women and minorities in the content of the course.
Okay, well first, faculty leave pertinent scholarly contributions out all the time because there is usually not enough time to include all pertinent scholarly contributions. Secondly, why is it only women and minorities included in the question? Why is the researcher not interested in if the instructor does not include pertinent scholarly contributions of men and non-minorities in the content of the course?
1 = Appropriate behavior, should be encouraged
2 = Discretionary behavior, neither particularly appropriate nor inappropriate
3 = Mildly inappropriate behavior, generally to be ignored
4 = Inappropriate behavior, to be handled informally by colleagues or administrators suggesting change or improvement
5 = Very inappropriate behavior, requiring formal administrative intervention
One of the survey items was:
The instructor does not include pertinent scholarly contributions of women and minorities in the content of the course.
Okay, well first, faculty leave pertinent scholarly contributions out all the time because there is usually not enough time to include all pertinent scholarly contributions. Secondly, why is it only women and minorities included in the question? Why is the researcher not interested in if the instructor does not include pertinent scholarly contributions of men and non-minorities in the content of the course?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sexual Harassment?
Recently I had dinner with some friends I worked with more than five years ago. As often occurs when visiting with old friends, we spent some time reminiscing. In the course of the evening one of my co-workers reminded me of something that happened back then that I had forgotten about.
First, let me give you a little context. You see, sometimes I am kind of clumsy. If there is something to trip over, slip on, or fall from, I find it. In fact, a few weeks ago when I was in a rush to get to class I was quickly pulling my office door closed behind me when I dropped my USB drive. Naturally, I bent over to pick it up, and while I was bending, the door swung forward and met my bottom with enough force to knock me off balance (not hard to do). I managed to catch myself before I fell, and entertain my coworkers walking down the hall at the same time. I'm good like that.
Anyway, back when I worked with these old friends I had another "near miss". One day I was walking through the clinic I worked in with my head down reading a chart. One of my male co-workers came running around a corner and I didn't see him coming, so I collided with him and kind of bounced off of his chest. The chart went flying and somehow our legs got tangled up and I tripped over his feet and began to fall. So, he reached out and caught me in an odd position that kind of resembled a sort of sideways "dip" from a ballroom dance and then set me back on my feet. As he caught me, one of his hands happened to land partially on one of my breasts. As soon as I was upright again he apologized for grabbing me so hard there and said that he just was trying to keep me from falling. I told him I really appreciated him preventing my fall and that it was okay because I knew he didn't grab me there on purpose. He then wiggled his eyebrows at me and said humorously "are you sure it wasn't on purpose?". I said, "you've been planning that for weeks, haven't you?" and he, I, and our co-workers who gathered to watch "the spectacle", all laughed.
The next day I went into work and one of my female co-workers, who did not like the male co-worker who caught me, asked me if I was alright after my near fall. I told her I was fine, just little embarrassed, and I had a fantastic bruise on my breast/side where he caught me. She said "I saw him grab you, I think he did that on purpose. He shouldn't be running in here." I said "I was glad he caught me. It was my fault, I wasn't looking where I was going. You know him, he wouldn't do that on purpose. Plus, it happened so fast there is no way he could have purposefully caught me in such a way to grab me there anyway." She said "you should take pictures of the bruise for evidence." I asked "evidence of what?" and she replied "sexual harassment". I just walked away from her.
Recalling this caused me to wonder how often accusations of sexual harassment are made for the wrong reasons. I do not mean to say that it is acceptable for either men or women to truly harass others in a sexually inappropriate manner in the workplace. I think real sexual harassment can happen, but that false accusations serve to minimize the genuine incidences.
First, let me give you a little context. You see, sometimes I am kind of clumsy. If there is something to trip over, slip on, or fall from, I find it. In fact, a few weeks ago when I was in a rush to get to class I was quickly pulling my office door closed behind me when I dropped my USB drive. Naturally, I bent over to pick it up, and while I was bending, the door swung forward and met my bottom with enough force to knock me off balance (not hard to do). I managed to catch myself before I fell, and entertain my coworkers walking down the hall at the same time. I'm good like that.
Anyway, back when I worked with these old friends I had another "near miss". One day I was walking through the clinic I worked in with my head down reading a chart. One of my male co-workers came running around a corner and I didn't see him coming, so I collided with him and kind of bounced off of his chest. The chart went flying and somehow our legs got tangled up and I tripped over his feet and began to fall. So, he reached out and caught me in an odd position that kind of resembled a sort of sideways "dip" from a ballroom dance and then set me back on my feet. As he caught me, one of his hands happened to land partially on one of my breasts. As soon as I was upright again he apologized for grabbing me so hard there and said that he just was trying to keep me from falling. I told him I really appreciated him preventing my fall and that it was okay because I knew he didn't grab me there on purpose. He then wiggled his eyebrows at me and said humorously "are you sure it wasn't on purpose?". I said, "you've been planning that for weeks, haven't you?" and he, I, and our co-workers who gathered to watch "the spectacle", all laughed.
The next day I went into work and one of my female co-workers, who did not like the male co-worker who caught me, asked me if I was alright after my near fall. I told her I was fine, just little embarrassed, and I had a fantastic bruise on my breast/side where he caught me. She said "I saw him grab you, I think he did that on purpose. He shouldn't be running in here." I said "I was glad he caught me. It was my fault, I wasn't looking where I was going. You know him, he wouldn't do that on purpose. Plus, it happened so fast there is no way he could have purposefully caught me in such a way to grab me there anyway." She said "you should take pictures of the bruise for evidence." I asked "evidence of what?" and she replied "sexual harassment". I just walked away from her.
Recalling this caused me to wonder how often accusations of sexual harassment are made for the wrong reasons. I do not mean to say that it is acceptable for either men or women to truly harass others in a sexually inappropriate manner in the workplace. I think real sexual harassment can happen, but that false accusations serve to minimize the genuine incidences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)