A response to a comment to an earlier post:
Feminism doesn't demand equality in the sense of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" (a classic story of PC mania)... rather it is a simple demand for equal opportunity, value and respect.
I'm sorry but I really do not understand your argument here--there are varying abilities in all people and the fact that some men may be physically stronger than some women is no more important than the equally true fact that some women are stronger than some men. I respect science, more and more as the Bush government seeks to discredit it, but when thinking about gender I think we should avoid a deterministic stance.
Feminism is an important word and theory. It is just as valid today as it was in the past, as we are continuingly assaulted by the decisions of backward-looking theocrats like Dr. Hager; the discrimination of American corporations like Wal-Mart who think of women as servants not leaders; the continuing culture of physical intimidation at a local level and on a global scale; emphasis on body as sole factor in a women's value because she only needs to worry about one thing; or where women's history is generally ignored unless it supports a patriarchal view.
I'm a man, often rightly determined to be chauvinistic in my attitudes... I was raised in the 70s... but damn, how blind must a person be to not recognize a continuing system that grossly favors men overall and that systematically attempts to cover up this reality.
There are abusive feminists, they are human, but you cannot discount an entire movement for the actions of a few members. And I am under no illusion that the world will simply become better if women were placed in power as they are just as capable of cruelty and oppression. This is simply a recognition of systematic discrimination in our society and the call to fight it.
I do not claim gender as a privileged position and recognize that it needs to be put into play with a multitude of other perspectives to understand the relationships of power (most definitely perspectives of class, race, sexuality and place--especially when they are used in a deterministic factor to perpetuate discrimination against groups of people).
13 comments:
Well said!
Thanks, Thivai. You've included a lot of useful links here, too.
I replied under your previous post. Also, I'm not discounting the whole movement. That would be like Christians who argue against certain beliefs and/or factions upheld by other branches of Christianity throwing all of Christianity out. What I am saying is that there are many views of what feminism means by those who call themselves feminists. Sure there are many great points and good fights going on, but I cringe when I hear someone blithely say "equal rights" and "equal respect" and then follow through with hypocrisy. =)
Susanne,
The response took on a tone that wasn't entirely to do with your comment--addressing even more dismissive comments that I have heard in the past.
What bothers me is your focus. I'm going to throw out vague, negative assertions, about a positive movement?
We do need to critique the beliefs we have, but this form of dismissal does no good (and it is dismissal as read by me).
I'm with you, I disdain all forms of hypocrisy, especially my own (not recognized enough)
Jean... you have a great site and I appreciate your comments!
Mad Mike,
Thanks, I hope all is well!
Can you pls clarify what you are specifically addressing in these 2 sections:
"What bothers me is your focus. I'm going to throw out vague, negative assertions, about a positive movement?
We do need to critique the beliefs we have, but this form of dismissal does no good (and it is dismissal as read by me)."
I'm not sure if we're in wuli or if I need to clarify a point myself. thanx.
Susanne,
I don't know what "wuli" is or if we are in it ;)
You stated in your last comment at the other post:
----------------------------------
"I'm not saying the "system" doesn't favor men overall. Absolutely it does. I'm saying that when one fights for "feminism", one should fight for equality in the areas where one can be equal. If we are doing the same job, of course we should be paid the same, etc. What I'm saying is that in the fight for feminism, there are stances that don't make sense to me and areas we fight for equality that don't make sense. Can a woman fly a jet as well as a man and vv - yes. Can a woman lift as many pounds as a man - most can't. If it is to be truly equal, as in my firefighting example, women should be required to hump the 75 pound hose up the stairs just like the men. If they can't, then they shouldn't be let in. We can't change the requirements to flexibility because women are more flexible then men and say that's the new entrance criteria. Do you see what I'm trying to say? If you want equality, then make it real equality. If a job requires heavy lifting, then do the heavy lifting. Don't say I have the right to do this job but I'm not strong enough so change the rules. If you are strong enough, woot. If not, do something else and don't endanger the public and fellow firefighters. And lastly, don't say you want change for equality but maintain some of the inequitable antiquated ways of sexism, like men paying always or holding open doors. Sure those are nice, but keep in mind what that stems from."
-------------------------------
Where is feminism demanding that we forgo firefighting lifting reuirements or that men continue to open doors for women? I haven't read that or heard feminist speakers ask for this? I have never heard any individual feminist demand these things?
The problem that I see--why we are talking past each other is that you are making assertions about the behavior of individual women who you have met who claimed to be feminists. While I am speaking about the claims of the larger project of feminism as a way of recognizing the systemic inequalities present in our society (and others) and the need to address these problems?
On the topic of firefighting:
Brenda Berkman of the NYCFD filed a class action sex discrimination suit in the late 70s saying women couldn't pass the firefighting physical entrance exams and that it was sexual discrimination. The result was a changing of the standards and then she and the other filers (I think around 40) passed. She is heralded as a feminist by the mainstream feminists and for opening this door.
Gloria Steinem on the fact that most women can't hump a 175 pound person in the fireman's carry out of a burning building "It's better to drag them out because there's less smoke down there," and "we're probably killing people by carrying them out at that height."
Sorry, taoism sometimes pops out of me and that is where the wuli came from. Very hard to define shortly, it is more of a concept that one must study and put into the taoist framework to get the full meaning. don't worry, it wasn't negative lol. =)
I had this arguement with a table of male firefighters at a benefit one evening and it was painfully clear why they prefered to utilise the one example (lifting of a certain weight) to rest their case... Everyone of those fellas felt their occupation was that of a "brotherhood" wherein men could be men. Women should be women, not men. And that was the final concensus from the pack.
The truth is that the need to lift that much weight is not paramount to the most common duties and actions of firefighters.
They told me a story about needing three of them to pull out their supererior (male) who got knocked on the head (cold) and was extremely overweight. While they joked about how unfit their supererior was, they stated this as an example of a situation where a female coworker would have been "useless".... Need I point out that the male supererior was not very useful in the example cited?
There are most certainly fitness issues that are important in some occupations, but there are many aspects of these jobs that do not require he-man strength.. The police force, firefighters, oil riggers and labourers pass 'the test' at 19 or 21 and if they were forced to take the same test twenty years later would not pass. That they can continue in that line of work for twenty years indicates they were probably useful for the duration.
Not always, but for the most part, the arguement does not stand. This is why feminists have spent time disagreeing with it.
You're correct in that some male firefighters "let themselves go" and to me that is a different issue of meeting requirements to stay in imo. Just like the military has annual physical testing to ensure the personnel stay in physical status. I speak from my 12 years of experience in the military. As for the firefighting, I feel I can also speak from some experience. I used to be a paramedic and worked with firefighters quite regularly as well as did rotations with fire stations. As a paramedic, let alone a firefighter, whenever we encounter a medical call (and most firefighters will tell you medical calls quantify around 75% of calls) that required lifting, heavy extrication, etc we call the firefighters. Lifting of people and equipment is a big part of a firefighter's job. Sure they may need a group of men at times, but that does not lessen the need for strength. Can a strong woman qualify? Absolutely. Can a weak man not qualify? Absolutely. Look at the human, not the sex.
agreed suzanne.
the mention was to note that much ado about women joining such forces was not justified - testing and said requirements and those in charge with hiring WERE found to be sexist and employing sexist (unreasonable) standards. Many are still (to this day) maintaining sexist viewpoints in regard to the potential of working aside women in these fields and many of their female comrades have persisted under very strenuous circumstances. As a woman in the military you may relate to these circumstances.
We all agree here in regard to equality and faculty of reason, the issue is whether or not standards are fair and therein equality is being upheld. In the past the standards were proven unfair, and not arbitrarily.
Post a Comment