Good quote from "Who Stole Feminism?"

[errantember]

"The evidence that women have been excluded, and their abilities as thinkers and writers demeaned, is everywhere. But once a woman appreciates the extent to which culture and civilization have been male-dominated, two roads like before her. She can learn what she can be learned about womens' past achievements, and learn as well the reasons that their contributions to the larger enterprise were not greater; and she can then avail herself of the freedom she now has to accept the challenge to join with men on equal terms in the making of a new and richer culture. Or she can react to the cultural and scientific heritage as "androcentric" and move consciously to reconstruct the "knowledge base." It is at this juncture that equity and gender feminist academics begin to go their separate ways. The former stay within the bounds of traditional scholarship and join in its enterprise. The later seek to transform scholarship to make it "women-centered."

Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff Sommers, p. 55



I mentioned recently my belief that "life is less about finding your truth than it is about choosing your lies." This is a good illustration of that principle. Within the bound of women getting less press historically than men, it's very easy to support *either* of the two viewpoints above. And the responsibility for the worldview that results *and* the actions taken belongs to the chooser and the chooser alone. In this particular regard, "gender feminists" as Sommers dubs them, are creating a reality in which genuine inequalities are amplified to create a distorted worldview in which female oppression is far worse than it really is. No one is forcing them to do it. They choose it themselves.

Comments

[spottedvasa.livejournal.com]

I think it's fun and interesting to hear stories about certain amazing people we haven't heard much about because of their race, sex, etc. I don't think we should skip over important acheivements made by white men to meet some kind of race or gender quota, however. There's a sensible middleground somewhere.

[terriblelynne.livejournal.com]

*beams*

[austingoddess.livejournal.com]

But how did we get to this degree of "freedom"? And how do we get to an equal amount of it? There is still a large disparity between our perceived place, amount of and "proper" uses of power, income levels, etc.
You do have to allow for some degree of anger over being oppressed, but yes, then you grow up. And it's not acceptable to take it out on someone who doesn't deserve in the meanwhile. But it's not like we're there yet, either. And, so far, we made the initial steps in the right direction by being squeaky wheels, bitches, uppity. Same with most any other group.

[denshi.livejournal.com]

But how did we get to this degree of "freedom"?

The book covers that question, and truly the entire thesis of the book is that the methods used to get to the current day have been abandoned for other methods found questionable by the author. You might find it interesting.

Not sure why you're scare-quoting 'freedom', there.

[austingoddess.livejournal.com]

I questioned its usage above.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

Women are pretty much equivalent to men now in the eyes of the law. There are lots of places where de-facto discrimination still happens. And there are a few places where women are legally superior, the most obvious example being exclusion from the draft.

I think the main thing I've been focusing on is the fact that dealing with ways the system oppresses women and the way it oppresses men are not only not mutually exclusive, but often complimentary, and if you really want to make power relationships voluntary instead of compulsory, you have to address them both. And I don't think it's any longer accurate or fair to say that the system oppresses women more than men. In general I feel that *any* effort to say it oppresses one more than the other is a waste of time, since both sides clearly need work, but I definitely have a problem with the fact that some feminists use their victim-identity to as a justification for doing questionable things.

[austingoddess.livejournal.com]

And there are a few places where women are legally superior, the most obvious example being exclusion from the draft.
Some women don't want the speshul treatment. It's discrimination, even if it's "to protect us". Since it's not our *choice*, I'd argue the legally superior thing.

Certainly I agree that power-over is not the long-term sustainable way to go, and that the tipping back and forth of the seesaw doesn't mean equality. I don't want to support the constant back and forth motion, but I do understand what it's like to take back your power. It's a heady thing. And even if it isn't abused by turning around and using over someone else, the other party may *feel* that way when the new dynamic is in place, when their needs are no longer quite so centric to the relationship between them. Sometimes it's abuse, sometimes it's a perception of less power because of a belief that there's a pie of power that can only be divvied up.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

I agree, overall, but I would be *very* interested to see how much support would come from women about equalizing the draft. Particularly since forcing someone to be ready for a combat role would require preventing pregnancy, potentially against the person's will. One known problem in the military now is that some women have gotten deliberately pregnant to escape things they would otherwise have to have done. As long as that loophole exists, it's definitely not fair. And in this case, the "control of your on body" argument doesn't work, because forcing someone into a potentially fatal combat role is definitely more a violation of a person's control over their own body then preventing them from getting pregnant.

[austingoddess.livejournal.com]

I could quibble over the last and point out that pregnancy *is* a potentially fatal role, and that at least 10% of all American women of childbearing age are infertile. And do men still get out of dealing with unintended pregnancies by joining the military as they did for so very long?

If women were forced into the draft, it would quickly come to pass that there would *be* no draft.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

Pregnancy and childbirth are *definitely* a mortality risk, and one that men will never have to face. The hardest part of dealing with "equality" is in situations where the biological differences are inarguable and unequal.

The biggest answer the larger problem of unwanted pregnancy is the availability of reliable male birth control. Even if I do *everything* else in my power to prevent a pregnancy from occurring with someone I'm having sex with, I *never* have the ability to determine whether or not I end up with a biological child. This is one of situations in which things are currently most unequal for men. Women have a choice, but men don't. And it means ever time I ever have sex with anyone, I'm giving them huge power over the rest of my life. The only real answer to the problem is the technology and political will to explicitly divorce sex from reproduction. The technology for better male birth control exists, but it's not sold because our society is too fucking backward to demand it the way it has female birth control. Until *every* child is planned, we're still going to have many of the same problems we have today.

I completely agree on the last point. I'm undecided about whether that's a good or bad thing. The entire existence of the draft, I mean. On one hand, governments sometimes misuse the military as we are currently doing in Iraq, and requiring ordinary citizens to fight a rich man's war is something I could do without. On the other hand, if the entire country had sons (*and* daughters) in the military in compulsory service, the country would be *far* less likely to go to war in the first place.