Feminism in the 21st Century

[DarrylParsons]

Repost from the thread "Homosexuality..."

XP and MM,

Believe it or not I am actually in favor of equal rights and equal opportunity for the two sexes in the TRUE meanings of the terms. Unfortunately, my observations are that the feminist movement has come nowhere near achieving this ideal. Instead, it has created chaos and planted a few time bombs waiting to detonate.

I don't necessarily blame only women for that, either. Men are just as much responsible for letting it happen as the women are since they were not strong enough to resist the movement.

Incidentally I have not only known feminists but I have been brought up by one, dated a few, and married one (and divorced one).

As for the solution, I think the onus is on the men to find it and implement it. It has to be important to men or there is no hope. Women can hardly be expected to suddenly stop fighting for their rights.

Just wondering, what examples of institutionalised patriarchy do you see in today's North American society? I see some serious female-skewness in sexual harassment and child custody laws for example. I thought the male-skewness ended with the affirmative action programs of the early 80's!?

 

[UncleMoneybags]

I work for an old school feminist.

She has slowly but surely removed the men from leadership positions and replaced them with women. She is hated by at least 70% (men and women). As long as I've been there the union has been a dead issue but it has garnered a ton of support in the last 2 years.

I can't stand her but have to play the game to try to glean important information. Arrogance doesn't show well in women. It's to the point now where when we pass in the hall we greet each other like Jerry and Newman:

Hello, Jerry :-/
Hello, Newman :-/

I'm no fan of unions but would support one just for the hell of it to stick it to her.

I don't know if it's jealousy or what but she should watch herself as her enemy base is growing.

 

[xpanda]

It's difficult to pinpoint examples of institutionalised patriarchy, only because, I would argue, 90% of our society is founded upon it.

On a macro-level, I would point to borders to define territories, the hierarchy of politics or other decision-making genres, the institution of marriage, religion, etc.

On a micro-level: patrilineal namesakes, money (and women working largely for free), lack of daycare in the working environment, etc.

Our societies are founded on the value system inherent in men and have largely ignored or diminished the value system inherent in women. In the workforce, for example, a woman must adopt a certain set of male characteristics (but carefully, or she will be dismissed as is the case in UM's previous example) such as assertiveness, cunning, etc. A workforce entirely female-centric would likely be less hierarchical and more lateral or team-centric instead.

There are a number of institutionalised pro-feminist programs that have been made 'the norm' in the past thirty years which I believe are just another function of patriarchy. Single mother's welfare, for example, means that the state, rather than the husband, takes care of us. The arguments of personal responsibility of course come into play here, but the greater problem is our society's inability to find meaningful fundraising alternatives for women. One such example (and I have to say that I disagree that it will be and should be men to find these solutions) is in my office ... one of the women who works for me has a small baby who she brings with her every day. We are currently working to help her move her job to her home, as her child is approaching eight months, and is getting restless. She was on mat leave for only 30 days because of this solution. Unfortunately, not many employers would even consider this as an option. (It is not always realistic, I understand.)

Regarding affirmative action laws -- I oppose them. I deem them insulting and unhelpful. While it's great that no company is allowed to discriminate, forcing an employer to hire me will do little for my work situation down the road. We don't force them to promote us or to give us substantial raises (nor should we) so why force them to hire us in the first place? In the short run, it did give women and minorities the opportunity to prove that we are capable, but in the long run it may cause a backlash that will strip us of our advances.

I read recently that Harvard has accepted more women for the upcoming school year than men, for the first time in its history. This is a testament to the successes of mainstream feminism on those generations who can officially take it for granted. Time will show, I believe, that women are resourceful beings and can take care of their own.

 

[DarrylParsons]

XP,

Just curious, in an ideal world, what do you see men doing? What should their goals and aspirations be and how could that be reconciled with the genetic information we carry from the hunter-gatherer societies?

An important instinct carried by men is the desire to provide security. If women become equally capable in providing security, then what will men do? Will they be needed at all? I'm really wondering, apart from their sperm to continue human life, in what respects (if any) do you feel you need men around?

I can see the patriarchal elements of borders, politics, namesakes, and religion, but I fail to see how any of that works counter to women's interests!? As for marriage I see that institution as being a lose-lose proposition in the modern world whose original purpose was first to protect children and second to protect women. Other than the children getting the father's name I fail to see how that is patriarchal. Would you care to enlighten me on this?

 

[Oceans11]

Man/Woman comment from about 2000 years ago.


"Call to mind all the regulations respecting women by which our ancestors curbed their licence and made them obedient to their husbands, and yet in spite of all those restrictions you can scarcely hold them in. If you allow them to pull away these restraints and wrench them out one after another, and finally put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows they will become your masters.

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/livius.htm

 

[xpanda]

Darryl, there is no need to get all snarky.

In my utopian world, I see a society in which either, a. women have the same access to work regardless of their parental responsibilities or, b. women's work is not de-valued to such a degree as to be considered completely free.

In a society in which every form of work is given a monetary value, and money is fundamentally necessary for survival (vs. subsistence eras) it is essential that women's work also be given a monetary value. Failure to do so makes women financially dependent on men, and this is a disproportionate problem. Men are not financially dependent on women and can therefore live their lives with some measure of freedom. (When men had full power over their homes, they abused it.) The question is, who pays the woman to do this work of child-rearing and homemaking? The only plausible solution is the husband, although I don't know that I see that happening without state intervention.

In my own life, my boyfriend and I both enjoy full careers, and our relationship is based on our emotional dependance on one another. He knows I will never allow myself to be financially dependant on him (scares me too much) nor does he want that. If we ever have children, my work will be brought home with me.

I do not propose an existence where we only need men for sperm donation. For starters, I love sex as much as the next person, and I need someone to help me open jars and stuff.

I love football, politics, billiards ... most of my friends are men. I don't dislike your gender at all, I just recognise that it is dangerous for me to be fully dependant on you.

 

[xpanda]

Oh, and to add ... marriage was not invented to protect children, it was invented to protect property. It began by men passing down their names, and the property went with it (rather than to the mother) ... marriage was initially almost always polygamous, and women changed that. In marriage, women have historically been deemed and treated as property, not persons, so I fail to see how it was ever in my best interests. As well as being hunter-gatherers, men are also coveters.

In a state where women have equal access to opportunities and choices, marriage is more egalitarian. Those of us who enter into it do so out of desire, not need, as it should be.

(As for borders, they may not always impede my interests, but they don't reflect my values, either. Territory usurption is, was and always will be a guy thing.)

 

[DarrylParsons]

Eek, too true. Those guys in some ways were more advanced than modern man.

XP,

If marriage is not based on necessity, then why do the authorities need to be involved? Who would be stupid enough to get into something he/she doesn't need when there are so many potential adminstrative/legal problems that can arise from it?

As for the workplace, do you expect employers to just pay for stuff they don't get any benefit from? In my view, business are purely economic entities whose goal is to make a profit, so all their decisions should be based on the maximization of profit. If they have a choice between hiring two equally qualified people, one of whom requires children's facilities and extra time to deal with non-work related matters and the other does not, then it only stands to reason that they hire the second one. If you were running a business, wouldn't you make decisions similarly?

 

[xpanda]

About ten years I organised a small non-profit program that assessed the relative costs of women leaving on maternity leave for one to two years vs. the relative costs of a company, or group of companies, providing those same women daycare. Between training the new person, retraining the returning mother, and the potential effects this had on other departments and/or employees, I showed that it was actually more cost effective for employers to consider this plan. As evidence, you may notice that many companies are now implementing some kind of daycare.

In a much more simplified manner, if a company can afford to allow routine lunches to strip clubs to be written off as sales efforts (as opposed to cheaper alternatives, not their abolition entirely) then most certainly it can consider daycare options.

(I own two businesses ... one is a bar and I do have a mother working for me, her boyfriend works during the day. The other is an advertising company where one of my employees brings her daughter to work.)

You first question regarding marriage I don't fully understand. The institution itself is rife with administrative levels, whether we sanction marriage or not. As for women, as long as they were kept out of the workforce, or prevented by law from property ownership, they had to get married as a means of survival. Is it your suggestion that this is preferable?


A few months ago I had dinner with my best friend and two of her aunts. Both of them are married, my best friend and I are not. We talked alot about the differences in our generations (they are both in their late sixties, we in our early thirties) and they stated that they don't know why women would get married anymore. I still feel somewhat romantic about the whole thing, and have wedding day visions and such, but I don't need to get married in order to survive. I am rather glad for that. I would make a very lousy housewife, that is certain.

 

[angusr]

What an interesting debate you have going here. I think I take milquetoast-type middle position. I think that, for all practical purposes, women have achieved equality in North America, but that there is still a role for feminism in the world.

In Canada, anyway, medical and law schools have more women admitted than men. In fact, in almost every educational arena except the PhD women outnumber men. Despite the fact that more men graduate with PhDs than women, female representation among faculty at most universities is slowly but surely becoming more representative of the general population.

Child custody and divorce law seems quite favourable to women. Women earn less money on average than men, but I think this has more to do with the fact that many women choose to have children and therefore lose years in the office (and the opportunity for advancement etc..). I think that xpanda's notion of placing a monetary value on work in the home has already been done to a certain extent by the courts (at least for the purposes of divorce proceedings), but one spouse being forced to pay a salary to the other would be a pretty intrusive step by the state, don't you think?

I think the feminist movement still has an important role to play in defending reproductive rights etc.. Also developing countries, and certainly many countries battling religious fundamentalism, could use a strong feminist movement to defend the basic human rights of females.

 

[DarrylParsons]

I agree the strip club lunches are also extravagant. In my vision of semi-utopia, companies would vary greatly based on the personalities of the owners. There would be patriarchal and matriarchal companies competing with one another. A male patriarchal owner and CEO would have the right to put only males in his board of directors and make it official company policy not to allow children into the building and to have official strip bar excursions to boost morale. Similarly a female CEO could have an all female board or hire males only if they liked his personality. They could structure the company totally differently giving everyone equal chances to be on the board. They could have a daycare center for employees' children, official excursions to Chippendale's or anything else as they see fit. Then free competition would decide which is the best business model. Maybe neither is better but they are just different. In that case they could coexist providing more choices for everyone. I'd certainly be in favor of that type of scenario. What do you think?

I guess the marriage question could be rephrased as "Why should the (legal as opposed to religious) marriage institution continue to exist?"

I would not want to prevent women from working or owning property, nor do I want them to do anything other than what they want to do. What I would like to see, though, is both men and women using their sexuality to elicit behavior from the opposite sex that is beneficial to them. It's a bit like men becoming more pimp-like and women becoming more whore-like. This would motivate people to improve themselves to satisfy the higher expectations placed on them by the other sex. Modern life is too comfortable IMO. Sexuality should be used by both sexes to keep the other at its best -- strong, healthy and sexy. This would be good for the whole human race IMO.

 

[xpanda]

I have to run out of the office now for the day ... but I am really enjoying this discussion and would like to pick it up again tomorrow.

 

[Dawoofdaddy]

I have to run out of the office now for the day ... but I am really enjoying this discussion and would like to pick it up again tomorrow.

Carry on, please.

DP, why dont you start threads like this here anymore?

:wink:

 

[DarrylParsons]

Hey Woof you old thread digger-upper you,

If you insist on an explanation, well, ... there are two reasons... 1. the environment around here has changed in that there is less philosophical discussion and more one-liners and that sort of thing, and 2. there were really only 3 people I can remember "going deep" with around here: XP, Eek, and Phaedrus, and once you've done that, ie. more or less explored what's at the core of each other's beliefs, you don't really need to do it again unless you see something contradictory.

As for why only those three, I'm not sure.

You'd be a good candidate except that your beliefs are more or less the same as mine.

Romo would be good too except that he's a bit cryptic sometimes and doesn't expand that much.

Willie would be good except that he seems to rely too much on external stuff like scientific polls (of very un-scientific people).

Tiznow is in his own little dream world with this RP stuff ... keeps him out of trouble, though, so good for him.

JoeC is quite smart but a typical politician, totally unethically (IMO) focusing on influencing public opinion rather than zeroing in on truth.

Barman would be a possibility but I guess the right situation or topic hasn't come up.

Coldweather be gooder than many, but he never writes more than a few lines at a time.

Then there are the guys with such far out beliefs that I wouldn't know where to start. Good for them, though, as long as it's internally consistent and works for them.

Then there are the pawns of the atheist Judeo-feminist establishment. Needless to say they are either missing the pre-requisite of original thought or else have an atheist Judeo-feminist genetic predisposition... and that's a bridge too far (pun intended.)

For anyone I've left off, my apologies. I do not mean to imply that everyone fits into one of the above.

Having said all that, if XP wants to continue the above where we left off, I'd be all for it...:toast:

 

[JoeContrarian]

Feminism sucks.

 

[punter]

Feminism sucks.

Another moderate conservative heard from.

 

[Coldweather]

I just want to say that these here issues are important. That's cause they are important and interesting issues too. This is all I want to say about them thought.

:toast: