What do feminists want?

[bookitty]

An interesting take--is it at all possible that the RW-Dawkins feud in all this mess is a clever sham designed to make a point at the appearance next week?

Not that the original stuff didn't happen, but after it blew up they decided to take advantage of the buzz to accomplish something?

I wish it were true.

That would be better than the tawdry reality. But if both Dawkins and Watson are so boring that their speechifying needs preview drama, they might want to consider a rewrite.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You're preaching to the choir hear, Boo - but Rebecca has been quoted as asking for 'all true humanists & feminists' to boycott Dawkins. She has said she won't be buying his books, attending his conferences etc... so I'm frankly curious as to what happens next week when they're supposed to be on the same damn stage.

I don't think she used the phrase "all true". At least nowhere that I've seen.

Also, I don't think Rebecca is a speaker this year, she's just hosting a party. So they won't technically be sharing the stage. Maybe I'll try to get them together in the bar.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Whoa, say what now? No, I am not going to boycott Dawkins for saying something that I don't agree with. Even if I find it rude. That is utterly ridiculous. His response to Watson's experience makes me feel a bit creeped out but why should he, who has only stated an opinion, get a stronger response from Watson than the elevator guy did?

I respect Dawkins' work, I enjoy his books. That doesn't mean that I expect him to represent the embodiment of all I believe. I expect him to be a fellow flawed human being. His flaws aren't terrible. He's a bit of an ivory tower academic who said some things that could be construed as dismissive. As a humanist and a feminist, I believe that he deserves a proportional response to his words - perhaps a strongly worded rebuttal or a clever cartoon. As that has already happened, it doesn't need to go any further.

I think this is the appropriate response.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You still need to unpick what "opportunities" mean, how we measure them (and therefore equality) and how we get there.

Seriously?

OK, how about "I'm sorry young lady, but you can't be a chemical engineer"..."Why not?"..."Because you'll be taking a job away from a man".

Get it?

 

[Dancing David]

The blitzkrieg is equal parts frustration, bullheadedness and hope. People like myself, who identify with Watson because of shared experience, are frustrated by the reaction to a somewhat simple scenario and request. Bullheaded about letting it go. And hopeful that people actually do care enough to listen.

I do , I had a strange experience at one work place where this woman would behave inappropriately towards me, she would flirt with me, do things like say "Hi Cutie" in the hallways, make comments about my looks. I knew she was high strung (ie crazy), she was a director of another unit and that she was a close political friend of the director of the unit that I worked in.

We were having a sexual harassment training and the topic was about unwanted advances and flirting ( I personally do not flirt and it always bothers me in a work setting), which at that point was mainly a discussion of women and advances that were unwanted.

Just as I am about to say something another male coworker raises his hand and says "Well, as I guy I would take it as a compliment.", and I sat there dumbfounded, I had already been engaged in some policy disputes with him and found him to be a slacker who liked to create problems and dump them on other people.

I was not up for this battle and kept my mouth shut.

I did not want her flirting with me, I did not like her calling me Cutie, I did not like her comments about me. She was a crazy whack job who reminded me of my crazy and dominating ex-wife. It made me feel yucky, it was not a compliment.

The director of my unit was a cranky old woman who was domineering and played favorites, she has hired this woman who I felt was harassing me because of her good old girl network, there was no way I was going to complain or make a formal grievance. Especially since prior concerns about another co-worker who was being sexually harassed (mal on male) were dismissed and not listened to.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yep. Ha! That means you're in the same leaky boat as people like me. Ha!

I so often get lumped in with the pruning-shear castration feminists. It's rather nice to be on the other side of the lumping.

That's because the man-haters (yes, they exist) have taken over and perverted the term. And you silly girls let them do it! OK, that last part was sexist.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I don't think she used the phrase "all true". At least nowhere that I've seen.

Also, I don't think Rebecca is a speaker this year, she's just hosting a party. So they won't technically be sharing the stage. Maybe I'll try to get them together in the bar.

Yup - you're right. I added the 'all true'. Its insinuated by the strength of the other words she uses, but that was my embellishment and my bad. I retract that bit.

Its funny - I'm oddly compelled to try to crash the Skepchick party as I have in other years, and in some way I'm not. I definitely intend to fetch Rebecca a coffee everytime I get the chance, throughout the event.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Its funny - I'm oddly compelled to try to crash the Skepchick party as I have in other years, and in some way I'm not. I definitely intend to fetch Rebecca a coffee everytime I get the chance, throughout the event.

LOL! Get her wired up!

For the record, there isn't a Skepchick party this year. Or maybe I just haven't been told.

I think everytime I bump into her at the Del Mar lounge, I think I'll say something like "Did you hear what that bastard Dawkins just said about you"?

 

[brodski]

Seriously?

OK, how about "I'm sorry young lady, but you can't be a chemical engineer"..."Why not?"..."Because you'll be taking a job away from a man".

Get it?

In which case we have achieved a level playing field and there is nothing left to fight for (on this issue). Anybody making such a comment today would be hung out to dry- socially and legally. Is it time for the feminist movement to pack up and go home, or to stop worrying about workplace equality?

Except of course we haven't achieved equality of outcome WRT to women in traditionally male roles, do women lack (equal) opportunities in these roles? Or are they simply choosing not to take those opportunities? Does the fact of male dominance in those industries make it a little of one and a little of the other?
Does the reason for the imbalance matter? Does the imbalance itself matter if the imbalance represents the choice of women? Given eth society we live in re people truly making these choices freely or are they just playing out gender roles which have been ingrained in them since childhood?

The “level playing field means women shouldn’t be told they can’t have a job as it would be taking a job away from a man” is exactly the kind of glittering generality I was talking about. That women should not be denied such jobs for those reasons is not only the mainstream view of all western societies, it is also the law in most of them. It’s uncontroversial and taken as a given by most people in most situations (in modern, western society).

If supporting this statement makes one a feminists then the original EEC member state have been officially feminist states since at least 1957. I think almost everyone would disagree with that.

 

[bookitty]

In which case we have achieved a level playing field and there is nothing left to fight for (on this issue). Anybody making such a comment today would be hung out to dry- socially and legally. Is it time for the feminist movement to pack up and go home, or to stop worrying about workplace equality?

Except of course we haven't achieved equality of outcome WRT to women in traditionally male roles, do women lack (equal) opportunities in these roles? Or are they simply choosing not to take those opportunities? Does the fact of male dominance in those industries make it a little of one and a little of the other?
Does the reason for the imbalance matter? Does the imbalance itself matter if the imbalance represents the choice of women? Given eth society we live in re people truly making these choices freely or are they just playing out gender roles which have been ingrained in them since childhood?

The “level playing field means women shouldn’t be told they can’t have a job as it would be taking a job away from a man” is exactly the kind of glittering generality I was talking about. That women should not be denied such jobs for those reasons is not only the mainstream view of all western societies, it is also the law in most of them. It’s uncontroversial and taken as a given by most people in most situations (in modern, western society).

If supporting this statement makes one a feminists then the original EEC member state have been officially feminist states since at least 1957. I think almost everyone would disagree with that.

What about "Well, I'm sorry but men are just better at this computer stuff." Said to me during a job interview in the year 2000. I got hired anyway because my direct boss liked my style. Here's the punchline - I was a java/html programer which is pretty much the liberal arts of "computer stuff."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In which case we have achieved a level playing field and there is nothing left to fight for (on this issue). Anybody making such a comment today would be hung out to dry- socially and legally. Is it time for the feminist movement to pack up and go home, or to stop worrying about workplace equality?

Socially? Not necessarily. And women haven't gained workplace equality, in case you thought they had.

Except of course we haven't achieved equality of outcome WRT to women in traditionally male roles, do women lack (equal) opportunities in these roles?

Most likely, in most cases.

Or are they simply choosing not to take those opportunities?

You'd have to ask them.

Does the fact of male dominance in those industries make it a little of one and a little of the other?

Probably.

Does the reason for the imbalance matter? Does the imbalance itself matter if the imbalance represents the choice of women?

No and no. As long as the opportunity is there.

Given eth society we live in re people truly making these choices freely or are they just playing out gender roles which have been ingrained in them since childhood?

Don't know. You'd have to ask them and/or their parents.

You're way overthinking what should be a simple concept.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What about "Well, I'm sorry but men are just better at this computer stuff." Said to me during a job interview in the year 2000. I got hired anyway because my direct boss liked my style. Here's the punchline - I was a java/html programer which is pretty much the liberal arts of "computer stuff."

It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[fls]

In which case we have achieved a level playing field and there is nothing left to fight for (on this issue). Anybody making such a comment today would be hung out to dry- socially and legally. Is it time for the feminist movement to pack up and go home, or to stop worrying about workplace equality?

Except of course we haven't achieved equality of outcome WRT to women in traditionally male roles, do women lack (equal) opportunities in these roles? Or are they simply choosing not to take those opportunities? Does the fact of male dominance in those industries make it a little of one and a little of the other?
Does the reason for the imbalance matter? Does the imbalance itself matter if the imbalance represents the choice of women? Given eth society we live in re people truly making these choices freely or are they just playing out gender roles which have been ingrained in them since childhood?

The “level playing field means women shouldn’t be told they can’t have a job as it would be taking a job away from a man” is exactly the kind of glittering generality I was talking about. That women should not be denied such jobs for those reasons is not only the mainstream view of all western societies, it is also the law in most of them. It’s uncontroversial and taken as a given by most people in most situations (in modern, western society).

If supporting this statement makes one a feminists then the original EEC member state have been officially feminist states since at least 1957. I think almost everyone would disagree with that.

This exact thing happened to my sister 5 years ago. In Canada. I'm not sure how generalizable it is, but it makes me reluctant to assume that what you say is true. Evidence would be useful.

Linda

 

[AvalonXQ]

Socially? Not necessarily. And women haven't gained workplace equality, in case you thought they had.

You're missing his point. It's not exactly clear what equality means, or how we know when we've acheived it.

You gave an obvious example of inequality -- but obviously a lack of that, by itself, doesn't imply equality.

If someone is looking for the definition of "poverty" and a way to figure out when we've eradicated it, it's not enough to simply point to a specific person as an example. "This person is poor; we're done." No, we're not -- because we may better the condition of that person and everyone like her without actually having fixed all poverty.

An example of inequality or equality does not give us a definition or even a diagnosis tool.

 

[AvalonXQ]

OK, how about "I'm sorry young lady, but you can't be a chemical engineer"..."Why not?"..."Because you'll be taking a job away from a man".

Incidentally, I've worked for a boss whose beliefs essentially mirrored this. He believed that men have a responsibility to support families and women didn't, and so he supported giving preferential hiring and salaries to men on the basis that they were the primary breadwinners, and treating women similarly would be slicing the pie larger for one family at the cost of another family.

I never did get through to him. Not even a little bit. Of course, he was my boss.

 

[bookitty]

You're missing his point. It's not exactly clear what equality means, or how we know when we've acheived it.

You gave an obvious example of inequality -- but obviously a lack of that, by itself, doesn't imply equality.

If someone is looking for the definition of "poverty" and a way to figure out when we've eradicated it, it's not enough to simply point to a specific person as an example. "This person is poor; we're done." No, we're not -- because we may better the condition of that person and everyone like her without actually having fixed all poverty.

An example of inequality or equality does not give us a definition or even a diagnosis tool.

Well yeah. But when everyone tells you that it's totally super rare and we're so totally passed that already and then it happens to you, it feels like a big deal. And when all your female friends have a similar story, you start thinking that maybe it's not just personal anecdotes.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well yeah. But when everyone tells you that it's totally super rare and we're so totally passed that already and then it happens to you, it feels like a big deal.

I don't see that he said that, or anything like it, anywhere.

He claimed that this equality thing was ill-defined -- that saying "feminists want an equal playing field" isn't enough because it's not simple to figure out what that means or what needs to happen to get one. I agree.

 

[Brainster]

What do feminists want?

The power that comes from claiming to represent half the world's population.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What do feminists want?

The power that comes from claiming to represent half the world's population.

Including members of the population who disagree with them, all of whom are obviously "brainwashed", or at least "ignorant".

 

[epepke]

Dehumanizing was the wrong word. It's big and scary. I'm just not sure what the little and not-so-scary word would be, maybe dismissive will work.

I'll back off a bit from the strong rhetoric, too, and try to speak mildly.

Look at the negative way many people have responded to Watson's original video. She shouldn't freak out (she didn't freak out.) Skeptics should never date! (she never said that.) But mostly, that they wouldn't feel creeped out in an elevator, so Watson shouldn't either.

I haven't had a strong opinion on her, the original precipitating incident, or the first couple of incidents. That's for a couple of reasons. One is that I wasn't there, either in the bar or in the elevator. (I also have enough experience with barroom dynamics, even conference ones, to know that they can be highly variable and labile.) Another is that I haven't found anything that reasonably warrants the extreme bruhaha.

There has been a bruhaha, however, and that interests me a great deal.

Telling her that she should respond according to their background, their personal experiences, and a situation that they are imagining, not experiencing - it's really dismissive.

I don't think that I have done that. I know that others have, and I am actually interested in the psychology behind that. It seems to me that a lot of hot buttons have been pressed, and this whole thing has grown way beyond any original incident.

As a woman, I've gotten a lot of this in my 45 years (I'm guessing we're close in age, as a quarter century man wouldn't have clear memories of the 70's)

I'm more of a half century man.

When you say "treat everyone the same" I hear it as a societal goal. That's where I am getting hung up.

Yeah, but I'm not saying that. Nobody elected me Pope. I don't usually make "should" statements.

The statements I am making are along the lines of "if you treat people one way, you might get this effect, and if you treat people the other way, you might get the other effect."

Also, note that the title of this thread is "What do feminists want?" Given that feminists are a diverse bunch, I've been able to come up with a reasonable general answer (and you've helped). The answer is "a lot more special arguments on the basis of sex and gender than Women's Liberationists wanted."

Because if we all started treating everyone the same, would men would get the same groping and surprise stranger-penis waggle?

See, here's the thing: We do. Of course, there is the unwanted attention from women, usually stinking drunk who grope rub and just won't take no for an answer. When rebuffed, they frequently engage in physical violence. Note that there is a social taboo against a man's hitting a woman, but there is no taboo against a woman's hitting a man. I must admit that no woman has ever slapped me or poured a drink, but I have been punched and scratched and kicked on many occasions. I've never been put in the hospital or gotten more than a few contusions and lacerations that healed, but it was unpleasant. It has been especially unpleasant because I know that my job as a mensch to figure out a way to get them home safely, so that I don't have to read in the paper the next day how they drunkenly ploughed into a sedan and killed a family of four.

I also know from observation that women are violent toward other women. I have seen enough instances of this. Pool cues seem to be a favorite weapon. Once I broke up a fight between two members of the FSU women's rugby team (I think it was over a third). That is my job as a mensch and a man, and I used my eyes in what many feminists like to call the "male gaze" to full effect. Recounting this story once, someone who also went to FSU said to me, "I've seen those women. Man, are you brave!"

Also, of course, we get the surprise penis-waggling and groping and worse from other men, too. Case in point. I had a lover, whom I eventually married after 7 years (that didn't last long). She had two sons. It was only several years into the relationship that she told me both her sons had been anally raped at the ages of 8 and 10, respectively. The younger one will talk about it, but the older one never will, I think. (Also, as I think I have mentioned here before, I've been sexually battered. However, I was an adult, so I think it was easier for me to overcome, despite the fact that I couldn't get any counseling for it, all the normal groups were hostile.)

Now, I think you are an empathetic person, and you would care about such things if you were aware of them. You're not aware of them, or at least you are not aware of the extent. I think you may have observed some of these interactions, but I don't think that how men feel about them has made a big impression.

The reason for this is that men don't talk about these things a lot. Part of this is because of the shame they feel. However, part of this is that they know that if they did talk about them, everyone will be on their case. They know this because some men have tried, and they have gotten public reactions that are to what has been said about and to Rebecca Watson what a thermonuclear blast is to a snap-n-pop.

So they bury it. They "man up." That's really their only choice.

At the same time, if you collect a bunch of bad things that have happened to women, at the hands of men, and you just leave anything out of the picture, you have a good start at a feminist best-seller.

Anyway, to summarize. There seem to be two kinds of male reactions. (There may be others, but there are two I find particularly interesting.)

One is from men who dismiss concerns such as those related to Rebecca Watson. I estimate that these are the ones who are still hurting, who still have an ideal of fairness, and are knee-jerking reflexively. They haven't yet figured out that they aren't going to get any substantial sympathy or empathy. They're like the younger son.

The other is from men who do the "macho" pro-feminist, protective of women schtick. I estimate that these are the ones who have accreted scar tissue over their hurts. So they deal with that by posturing. They're like the older son.

Now, you may consider this presumptive. My evidence is that after I spend a lot of time in one place saying the obnoxious things that I do, that they talk to me. Sometimes it takes years. They're reluctant to talk to anybody, for good reason.

I also have to say that I don't do that much any more. I did it a lot, but it was unpleasant and heartbreaking.

Now if you are saying that you, specifically, want to treat women the same way that you treat men, I don't know how you treat anybody. It's an interesting concept, but too difficult to imagine the real world application.

I seem to manage it pretty well. Maybe it's radical? So what. I have never been one to pay a lot of attention to what I'm supposed to do.

Your last paragraph doesn't quite work. Because if only one out of 50 women think something is a problem, who is blowing up it into an internet drama?

The history was interesting. It happened at Huntsville, Alabama, where I used to live and work. The simple answer is that it got blown up in the blogosphere.

I'll find some links if you're really interested.