What feminism means

Where have the good men gone?

Far away from self-hating misogynist Ginny Robinson and her troublingly uninformed "Sexinomics" article (April 5).

Robinson's treatment of female power or, more accurately, her equation of sex with power over men is utterly ludicrous. The women's movement and, in fact, the whole population of women in the University would beg to differ, and would argue that sex should be just that and not some act of social currency as Robinson seems to believe.

Her dismay that female power is increasing in the workplace and government - since it diminishes women's "erotic capital," a phrase that seems to denote that all women are good for in this world is serving as sex objects for men - is disturbing. She also cites Freud - who any good scholar knows sees penises where, really, there's just a cigar - and Tucker Max, a literary date-rapist if ever there was one, and makes the argument that women's success discourages men from achieving, a point that underestimates the male intelligence and reduces them to ugg-ugg-ing cave men who only want sex.

Robinson doesn't appear to know what feminism means. At its core, the movement only seeks to establish equality - the bra-burning and man-hating is really just an unfortunate side effect of people like Robinson, who fail to listen and, thusly, look like idiots. Robinson and her traditional values of stoicism and fidelity should go back to the fifties - she belongs there. What she fails to acknowledge in her tirade against "feminism" is that feminists enable her to come to college, as well as to have a forum for her moronic and sexist views.

Charlotte Bush\nCLAS III

Published April 6, 2011 in Letters, Opinion

Commentary

Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed

B

(04/06/11 9:24am)

Sorry, but at its core, the feminist movement does not seek to establish "equality" -- that would be meaningless anyway, since women have to deal with things like pregnancy, as opposed to men. Do you want to see equality, i.e. the end of special treatment of women? No more maternity leave then. No more affirmative action for women (that is, admissions policies that automatically favor women over men). No more fellowships exclusively for women in science and engineering.

Feminists, under the veil of "promoting equality," have claimed that Wikipedia needs to reduce the level of vitriol and nitpicking in its discussion pages -- this supposedly drives women away. That same claim has been made about the open source movement. When I was working for a large corporation, we were warned against making jokes that might offend women (we were, of course, free to offend men). At no point have I seen the feminists of this century making a push for equality; the push is universally for special treatment and special privileges.

Yes, the 50s are over. The overt sexism of the 50s, the structured manner in which women were discouraged from becoming scientists and doctors has been abolished. What are feminists still fighting for, exactly?

Rory

(04/06/11 9:59am)

http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/pagenum/2

Great article on related issues above...

Sex is an act, but also, of course, can be and often is a social currency. To deny that is to deny the obvious.

devan

(04/06/11 10:02am)

I don't disagree entirely with your points, but the article you're responding to is very well-researched and shouldn't be countered with vitriolic ad hominem.

Obviously women are not just good for sex, but the studies do indicate that the loss of "sexual capital" (abhorrent phrase though it is) has had terrible effects on women in colleges and overall. Also, lots of her conclusions are being supported by literature - do a google search for the new book out about the "manchild".

Robinson's conclusions are very well-thought out and shouldn't be so readily discounted without an equal amount of development.

Cassius

(04/06/11 10:13am)

The kind of "feminists" you're arguing about are a real problem, yes. They're like the Weathermen of the actual Feminist Movement, which YES, at its core, only wants to close the wage gap, and solve other discrepancies of equality. Radicals exist in every movement, and judging the whole movement by the radicals is really unprofitable, and just makes you look malicious and uninformed.

C

(04/06/11 10:21am)

So because women procreate, that means that women should never be equal? Maternity leave has been very successfully implemented for both women AND men in numerous countries, and that IS a cause to fight for. The "special" treatment of women you mention, ie, maternity leave, often involves women being forced to choose between leaving their babies to take their jobs, or taking full leave to come back to a non-existent or extremely demoted job. In case you haven't noticed, there isn't any more affirmative action for women, because already more women than men are going to college. There need to be fellowships for women in science and engineering because women are heavily discouraged from a very young age to participate in science, and only boys are encouraged to do so.

Feminists are still fighting for equal pay. They're fighting people like you that discourage women from attempting to gain an equal place in society merely because men find it convenient.

(04/06/11 10:32am)

Cassius --

No, the core of this century's feminist movement is not equality. As I said, equality means ending the special treatment that women currently receive -- where are the feminists who are calling for the end to fellowships exclusively for women? Where are the feminists who are calling for an end to maternity leave, or perhaps instead for "paternity leave?"

There is a lot of evidence that the wage gap is not caused by discrimination or any issue that mainstream feminists are willing to touch. Women are less likely to ask their bosses for a raise. Women are more likely to take a leave of absence, i.e. maternity leave, which means missed opportunities for raises and bonuses. Where are the feminists who are criticizing women themselves for any of the above?

Where are the feminists who are criticizing women who simply never applied to engineering programs? Yes, women are severely unrepresented in certain disciplines, but in this century that has more to do with a lack of female applicants than with some sort of institutional sexism. Somehow, though, I never seem to hear feminists blaming women for not applying to technical programs or joining technical fields.

This is not a question of radicals in the movement, it is a question of the movement itself. "Radicals" are not the ones who are paying for women-only fellowships, and it was not "radicals" who blame engineering programs for lacking female representation.

(04/06/11 10:49am)

C --

It is not "equality" when you are talking about women being allowed to do things that men are not allowed to do. Where is the push for "paternity leave?"

"Equality" means treating men and women as equals. Yes, pregnancy means that men and women are different -- by definition, unequal. You cannot talk about maternity leave without considering the possibility that by not being present at their jobs for up to a year, women will miss opportunities to receive promotions, raises, and bonuses -- and therefore will make less money. No, this is not misogynistic or "convenient," this is the reality of the world. Not being at your job means missing opportunities, and there is nothing that anyone can do about that.

You say that women "need" fellowships for science and engineering because they are discouraged from an early age? Well, how about creating male-only fellowships for nursing programs?

You keep talking about men and women having an equal place in society. Well, when you find a way for men to become pregnant, maybe that will be possible. Until then, you need to acknowledge the reality that sometimes, men and women are not equal, and that can affect other aspects of their lives.

Really

(04/06/11 10:54am)

Devan, \nRobinson�s conclusions are very well-thought out??\nYou mean her point from Sigmund Freud, noting men�s �sexual success may, ironically, be hindering [men�s] drive to achieve in life.� Oh yea, a more or less debunked psychologist who died 70 years ago is at the forefront of explaining how all men have become lazy and only need to go to the bar and get a few drinks. because I don't know there haven't been ANY new innovations by men in the past 70 years. Speaking of well researched, we have the statement While male salaries are still on average 80 percent more than women�s, which as far as I can tell means men make nearly double females do on average. barring societies where none of this article applies because women aren't allowed to write editorials I worked hard enough to google in 30 second that women make on average 76% of what mean make...a very different thing. The article was so riddled, with such blatantly false points and logical fallacies that are so extremely offensive to anybody who actually supports the idea of real gender equality, that it DOES deserve "vitriolic ad hominem".

Steph

(04/06/11 10:56am)

Why on earth would men need maternity leave you moron? They don't have to go through months of carrying a baby in which their health is affected. Are you crazy?

Maybe its time to walk away from your misogynist pity party because there are no fellowships for you to pursue. Stop blaming women for you failings and get a life.

Your sense of reality is a misogynist illusion. Your sense of equal is a farce.

STEPH

Why on earth would men need paternity leave you moron? They don't have to go through months of carrying a baby in which their health is affected. Are you crazy?

Carolyn

(04/06/11 11:13am)

Actually B and Steph, The Family Leave Act of 1993 gives any parent, male or female, the opportunity to take leave from work for the birth and caring of a newborn and/or adopted child.

(04/06/11 11:30am)

Thanks Carolyn! forgot about that! which i guess would establish the equality you're wanting B!

hmna

(04/06/11 11:36am)

Steph,

I'll tell you why in the world I needed a few days of paternity leave when my daughter was born:

1. I wanted to spend some time with my kid.\n2. There were some minor complications during delivery that meant that she would spend a few days getting special care from the nursery. So that gave me the opportunity to spend time in the hospital with her.\n3. My wife had a good case of postpartum blues and she had a C-section. I needed to be another person to help carry the load.

By the way, do you have any idea how much work a newborn is in the first few days?

(04/06/11 11:52am)

sorry hmna, thanks! i was a bit misguided and impassioned when I saw B's response! every one deserves maternity/paternity leave!

(04/06/11 12:18pm)

Thanks for the clarification Carolyn.

Alexander

(04/06/11 1:52pm)

Thanks, Charlotte, for this excellent illustration of the vicious tactics by which feminists have largely succeeded in monopolizing the debate about all issues related to the sexes.

Your letter is obviously false on several points -- to begin with, you claim to speak for ALL the women at the University in disagreeing with a column written by one of them -- but considering the overwhelming preponderance of ad hominem attacks over arguments in your letter, I am probably making a mistake even to evaluate your letter in terms of truth or falsehood. Your letter does not appear to be intended as a contribution to the pursuit of the truth, but as an effort to silence dissent. As such, it must be condemned.

Ginny, please know that there are still gentlemen and ladies on Grounds who appreciate what you're doing. I don't agree with every point in your article, but you are raising a perspective that needs to be heard more, and that deserves a much better response both from those who agree and from those who disagree.

Will Cumbie

(04/06/11 2:13pm)

I'm a bit late to the party, I see, but I thought I'd pick apart B's initial post, which achieves the rare virtue of being just as amusingly farcical as the article ("Sexinomics") it defends. (This is a real well of untapped talent for the Cav Daily--unintended humor is something they've learned to do right. Dunno why they always look so dour down in their newspaper cave, really.)

"but at its core, the feminist movement does not seek to establish �equality� � that would be meaningless anyway, since women have to deal with things like pregnancy, as opposed to men."\nAh, the classic reactionary's tack. First you take a ridiculously expansive definition of equality - equality means being identical, apparently - and then proclaim that since you can't make people identical, you can't make them equal. So women can't be equal to men. Fair enough. Similarly, engineers can't be equal to us upper-class humanities majors, since they have to deal with things like math, as opposed to English majors. I could go on, but probably won't.

"Do you want to see equality, i.e. the end of special treatment of women? No more maternity leave then."\nThis has been debunked above, but I'd like to highlight its oddness. First you claim that women can't be equal because they can get pregnant, and then you suggest we should get rid of maternity leave, thus acting as if pregnancy didn't exist anyway. Would that solve it, then? Abolish maternity leave and pregnancy is out of the equation, correct? You can't have it both ways; either pregnancy means women can't possibly be equal, or it can be ignored altogether as you're suggesting.

It's a red herring, anyway, as being "equal" isn't the same as being identical. The goal is not to act as if men and women were physically identical but to treat them as equal in value and rights despite their physical differences.

"No more affirmative action for women (that is, admissions policies that automatically favor women over men)."\nThis is a non-issue in the first place. Currently the situation most colleges face is that women are performing so much better than men that if both genders are treated equally far more women will be accepted than men. It's not terrible at U.Va, where it's 56-44 or whatever, but in other schools it's become quite an issue. The admissions policies you refer to aren't present.

"No more fellowships exclusively for women in science and engineering."\nI won't profess to be an expert in the realm of science/engineering fellowships, but I don't see why fields that have historically favored men to an overwhelming and embarrassing degree shouldn't seek to repair the situation by temporarily advantaging women. Creating equality isn't just a matter of pulling down explicit hurdles; it is also a matter of repairing institutional and societal shortcomings. It isn't enough to say that it's legally alright for women to become scientists; it's also a matter of reversing attitudes that suggest women are unfit to be scientists or engineers or what have you.

"Feminists, under the veil of �promoting equality,� have claimed that Wikipedia needs to reduce the level of vitriol and nitpicking in its discussion pages � this supposedly drives women away. That same claim has been made about the open source movement."\nGeez, those feminists trying to take away your vitriol! I'm sorry, man, you've converted me. Wouldn't want to lose my vitriol.

"When I was working for a large corporation, we were warned against making jokes that might offend women (we were, of course, free to offend men)."\nThis is really the key moment for me. Your source of the resentment isn't some material loss or gain, but rather your no longer being allowed to make dirty jokes? Never mind examining why these jokes aren't a good idea - their context in a corporate world where discrimination and sexual harassment are still far from rare, perhaps - the main thing is that the women are taking your jokes away, dangit! I would have thought a sane worker would make a point of not making offensive jokes to men or women, without being warned. My mistake?

"Yes, the 50s are over. The overt sexism of the 50s, the structured manner in which women were discouraged from becoming scientists and doctors has been abolished. What are feminists still fighting for, exactly?"\nImplicit sexism, I'd assume. The kind of sexism, your preferred type I'd take it, that won't outright say it doesn't want women voting, working, etc., but that nonetheless insists on making its ugly jokes, harrassments, snipes at the very idea of equality.

As an aside, lol at the commenter who said the original article was "well-researched." No-citation references to Freud and acceptance of Tucker Max as a legitimate authority do not a well-researched article make. Even if it was well-researched (it wasn't), though, it wasn't well-thought-out. Which seems to be a common thread in these editorials.

lolwut

(04/06/11 2:32pm)

Yo dawg Alexander I hear you liked complaining about ad hominums while making ad hominum remarks against Charlotte so I'm quoting some ad hominums from the original article so you can read ad hominums while you read my ad hominum comment. Asshole. <--- that makes it ad hominum, amirite.

"The more troubling trend is not the divorce rate, however, but the quality of men that women are forced to pick from these days."

"it seems that fewer men are emotionally, physically and intellectually capable of fulfilling the function within the family that our fathers have."

Could be that some "gentlemen and ladies on Grounds" DON'T appreciate attacks on the entire male sex. Might be we get offended. Might even make some ad hominum attacks.

OH ALSO...DUDE

"Your sense of equal is a farce." -STEPH

Grammar. DO YOU SPEAK IT?

LOLWUT

(Shiii I forgot to add exclamation marks, guess my comment isn't as ballerific as STEPH's)

(04/06/11 2:33pm)

Will, did you not notice that in one paragraph you say that affirmative action for women is a non-issue, and in the next you defend affirmative action for women (albeit of a slightly different kind)?

And where are the programs encouraging and helping men to get into nursing school, which is far more disproportionately female than engineering school is male? Surely, if feminists were advocating the equality of the sexes, they'd see this as a problem. But feminists only seek equality when it means eliminating a male advantage; men's disadvantages, we'd better just learn to live with. This is more unfair than the old rules, inasmuch as the old rules gave each sex special privileges and special burdens, whereas the feminist rules allow special privileges only for women and special burdens only for men.

As for the jokes, men in the workplace and in schools are subject to a set of rules that protects virtually all expressions of female sexuality, but condemns even quite mild expressions of straight male sexuality. A woman may not be criticized for flaunting nearly all her flesh, but a man may lose his job if he looks at what she's choosing to reveal.

(04/06/11 3:30pm)

Will --

Affirmative action for women is a reality in engineering schools, there is simply no question about that. Engineering schools are under political pressure to increase female enrollment, and preferring female applicants over male applicants is commonplace, at both the undergrad and graduate level. Women have both a wider variety of fellowships available to them and an easier time getting fellowships, at both the undergrad and graduate level. Lecturers are pressured into avoiding masculine names and pronouns, and researchers are even pressured into choosing particular pronouns when writing their papers (yes, pressuring researchers into using particular words or writing styles in their articles is a big deal, and no school would dare to make the use of particular words mandatory).

Alexander is entirely correct when he says that feminists use the word "equality" to mean "eliminating a male advantage," while any male disadvantage is completely acceptable.

Sean

(04/06/11 3:51pm)

I agree with most all of what Charlotte Bush says here. But she makes one rather typical allusion to the fifties that, while I'm sure her professors at UVA like it, delves into the realm of historical revisionism.

While it may indeed be true that women - especially black women - have more educational and workplace opportunities now in the USA than they did 50 years ago, they are also subject to all the things that have changed for the worse since then also.

We had a much more livable society before the social liberals of the late 60/early 70's came along and ruined it. 1969 wasn't the summer of love. It was the summer of Charlie Manson, followed closely by the murders at Altamont.

The violent crime rate in the 1950's, especially rape, was a fraction of what it was 20 years later - and still is today. Men abandoning their pregnant partner or wife & children was also very rare compared to today, often forcing that man to be shunned by society and forced to flee. Much of America, including Harlem, felt no need to lock their doors at night.

Women were respected much more in the 50's. You couldn't check into any major hotel chain and have your pick of several nauseating hardcore pornography titles. Children were raised in two parent households, and heavy drugs were very rare. Think of all the death and destruction that cocaine and heroin alone have done since 1970.

Women are indeed now seen by millions of men as disposable sexual playthings, and this has not been a good thing for women who most often still prefer monogamy and an emotional attachment. Roe/Wade has enabled the Hugh Hefner's and Bill Maher's of our age to simply humor themselves with an endless conveyor belt of pretty 18-25 year old women as their sexual hobby. Millions of men no longer feel in the slightest bit responsible for their half of child making or child rearing. Have a look at the child support numbers now as compared to the fifties. Millions of women struggle now in pretty miserable lives thank to that.\n \n1959, one in 25 American women got breast cancer. The pill arrived the following year. By the time Roe/Wade came around in 1973, one in 14 women were getting breast cancer. Now that number is one in 8.

I know that you were not taught these things at UVA. Of course not. That does not mean that they were not true, nor that they do not matter. Comparing ourselves to the way we were 50 years ago is a much more complicated study than you suggested by saying that Ginny Robinson should go back there. Indeed, she doesn't belong there, either.

(04/06/11 4:01pm)

Alexander:\nYou're using the umbrella term "affirmative action" to conflate two separate phenomena. I don't both argue that affirmative action is a nonissue and defend it (although even if I did, this wouldn't necessarily be a contradiction: one might argue that it is a nonissue that would be justified if it actually were an issue, for example). What I argue is that women aren't favored in undergraduate college acceptance and that graduate-level fellowships favoring women are acceptable.

As for the nursing school example: the problem feminists seek to remedy isn't simply that there are more of this or that sex in a particular group, but that this inequality occurs as the result of historical cultural biases. There aren't as many female engineers as male engineers, but if that was the end of the story there wouldn't be any problem. The issue is that there are fewer female engineers because historically they have been kept out of that profession. There are fewer male nurses than female nurses not because of historical bias against male nurses (in the past nursing was an all-male profession) but because for whatever reason men have become less interested in the profession. We can speculate about the reason for that - in particular it might be because of the tendency of men to stay away from careers considered "women's work," which is still stigmatized - but regardless we can see that it is not analogous to the situation of women in engineering.

Your last paragraph is very telling, the bit about "a set of rules that protects virtually all expressions of female sexuality, but condemns even quite mild expressions of straight male sexuality." Very nimbly you've shifted topic from issues of gender to issues of sexuality. And that really eccentric bit: "all expressions of female sexuality." What expressions are you talking about, exactly? From the sound of it you'd think they were making passes at you or getting it on in the middle of the lunchroom. But no, soon we retreat to how "A woman may not be criticized for flaunting nearly all her flesh." Of course it's "flaunting" - never "showing" or "revealing," because in our still deeply sexist society any display of skin by a woman is taken by men like yourself as an invitation. So the "expressions of female sexuality" you're talking about include what, showing some cleavage? This is the ultimate expression of feminine sexuality? Even stranger, this is analogous to aggressive, offensive joking and harassment, the forms of "straight male sexuality" that you're so worried about stifling? I think most will understand if I say that I refuse to sympathize with your "straight man's burden."

B:\nExcuse my skepticism about this alleged "political pressure." I have to suspect exaggeration when hearing from someone who thinks that researchers being "pressured" to make slight stylistic choices constitutes a grievous act of sexual discrimination.

(04/06/11 4:20pm)

Researchers do not like being told how to write their papers, that is a fact. I did not say that in and of itself it was the end of the world, but it is an example of how engineering schools are acquiescing to the demands of the feminist movement. "Pressured" is the only appropriate word to describe the situation; when I came to graduate school, the message from certain faculty members was clear: one style of writing should be preferred, but in the name of academic freedom it is not made mandatory.

The pressure on admissions committees to increase female enrollment can only be described as political; we have gone far beyond the point of "fairness" and there is no academic reason to take the measures they are taking. Deliberately choosing female applicants over male applicants does not improve the caliber of an engineering program, it does not ensure that the students will be better educated or that the research will be higher quality. However, such practices most certainly do ensure that the school can shield itself from accusations of discrimination or misogyny.

You are free not to believe me. If you are interested in how engineering schools choose applicants, and what role gender plays in those decisions, you can always just ask around.

(04/06/11 4:41pm)

Will:

I'm using the term "affirmative action" to cover all ways of applying the same principle.

It is true that women were historically kept out of engineering, but there is only the most tenuous connection between that and the present situation. And nursing hasn't been a male-dominated profession in living memory; at UVA, for example, the nursing school admitted women long before the rest of the University did. One can always find a distinction between any two cases, but the question is whether there is a morally significant difference.

Dressing attractively is an expression of feminine sexuality, and one of the most common. Women also initiate physical contact in ways men would be taking their careers into their hands to emulate.

Tell me, do you think men have ever, anywhere, qua men, been subject to an injustice?

(04/06/11 4:58pm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjio-F47IfM

What feminism means

Subscribe to our email edition

Calendar:

Popular

Commentary

B

Rory

devan

Cassius

C

B

B

Really

Steph

Steph

Carolyn

Steph

hmna

Steph

B

Alexander

Will Cumbie

lolwut

Alexander

B

Sean

Will Cumbie

B

Alexander

Sean