I often read things that evoke strong opinion in me, but that I choose not to write about because I find it frustrating. In some cases, it’s a topic I’ve already discussed and therefore don’t want to sound repetitive. Other times I think to myself, in instances where someone has written or said something absurd, do I really want to give this person even more of a platform? And instead I often write about things like snarky knitters, or something equally as frivolous, because it’s fun and entertaining for me. So a few days ago when I read this short article, To be happy, we must admit men and women aren’t ‘equal’, I rolled my eyes, snorted, and clicked to something else once I finished. But it showed up again on google news today, and so I decided to address it.
The article is filled with catchy little phrases like ‘reject the cultural script’, and ‘the modern generation has few role models for lasting love’. My personal favorite was her decision to use a quote from Francesco Schettino, the cowardly ship captain that abandoned the Costa Concordia last year.
In reality, what the author, Suzanne Venker, is giving us is another worn-out dose of the ‘let’s get back to more traditional roles and we’ll all live happily ever after’ argument. Her main point, that feminists believe men and women are equals, is tiresome. Here’s a little quote for y’all to try on for size:
“You see, the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe, and anyone who contradicts this dogma is branded sexist.
But the truth must be heard. Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings. Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.”
First, that last sentence is ridiculous. I’m not sure what scientific method she used to arrive at her conclusion, but, while the lack of female CEOs or stay-at-home dads might prove a number of things, I’m fairly certain her point isn’t one of them. Second, the feminist movement was about equality. I don’t think I’ve ever known a single person that believes males and females are exact equals. Now, I’ve known a lot of feminists that believe women are better than men. And I’ve known a great many men that believe they are superior to women. But men and women as ‘interchangeable beings’? Um, no. I know not a single person that believes we are nothing but bodies, and any one person can be exchanged with another. Equality, whether we are talking about gender, sexual preferences, race, or religion, is not about saying, ‘we are the exact same’, because of course we aren’t all the same. We are all human beings, however, and our worth should be of equal value. So please, Ms. Venker, who are these vague feminists you are referring to that believe we are all identical beings? Most of the ones I know, even those I strongly disagree with, all understand equality as being equal treatment and equal worth, and not some notion of us all being the exact same.
One of the arguments Venker implies is that feminism is to blame for men being less willing to lay down their lives for women. The example she gives, and where the quote from Schettino comes into play, is the sinking of the Costa Concordia as compared to the Titanic. Less than ten percent of the deaths on the Titanic were women. The Concordia had far less casualties, but it was chaotic, and there were countless accounts of women and children being pushed away by men in their hurry to get off the ship and onto a lifeboat (if you haven’t read details regarding the incident, the spread about it in Vanity Fair was enlightening).
Personally, I think the Concordia debacle says more about our current society in general, and not much at all regarding feminism. Sadly, we live in a world where it’s every person for themselves. Just a couple of days ago, I was walking my dog when a guy’s car broke down in an intersection. Within seconds people were yelling and honking their horns, including the people directly around him. It was crystal clear his truck was on the fritz, and yet people, both men and women, were yelling from their autos, throwing hands in the air, and laying on their horns. I walked around the block with my dog, and when I came back up the other side, the guy was still there, and a new round of people were honking and yelling, and not just at the poor dude, but at each other in their hurry to cut one another off in the name of getting on with their day. Right as I made it back, another man had pulled off the road, and he got out and helped the guy push his truck away from the intersection. Time elapsed from breakdown until someone came to his aid? About fifteen minutes. Remember when people would actually stop at the sight of a person in trouble, and, you know, help them?
Fifteen freaking minutes for someone to help this poor person out. And while they were pushing the truck, people were still honking. That is the world we live in, and I don’t think it has anything to do with feminism.
Look, say what you will about feminists, Lord knows I often disagree with many of them. Perhaps you think feminism is wonderful, or maybe, like Venker, you believe it has done more damage than good, or maybe you feel it’s outdated and in need of an overhaul. Whatever your belief, that’s fine, but let’s not blame the sad state of the world on the feminist movement, that’s freaking ridiculous.
I’m not sure what it is about Venker’s so-called revelation of truth that bothers me so much. Obviously, it’s a very cookie-cutter explanation given by a number of individuals, both men and women, as an argument against the feminist movement. This idea that we should all travel back in time to 1950 and embrace traditional gender roles is silly, because we’re never going back. Never. And that applies to all sorts of things in our society. Unhappiness with the current state of affairs can’t be resolved by going back to the past, life doesn’t work that way, you have to move forward. I agree there are a great many problems with our society right now, but wishing for bygone times of chivalry won’t solve any of them.
There’s a problem on both sides. The mantra is that people (male and female) should do what fulfills them. This much I can wholeheartedly embrace. From work to home life to social life, everyone has something different that makes them happy, and they should be free to embrace that. But radical feminists think that if you’re not the CEO of a major corporation, eschewing everything but 15-hour work days, you’re not “living up to your potential.” And radical conservatives think that if you embrace anything short of mommy-ing and wife-ing ALONE, you’re just going to end up miserable.
In some sense, I do think than men and women are “interchangeable.” Some women are career-driven and some men are homebodies. Social norms often drive people into a category they might otherwise not find their “best life” in, leading to skewed stats when you ask people what they want. But, on balance, each and every person, regardless of sex, will have a different work/life/social balance that will make them happiest. When work is slow and I find myself with time on my hands, I’m far more likely to create budget spreadsheets and dream up home automation ideas and maybe put the computer programs that I write for at work doing our taxes and budgeting than do another load of laundry. My brother, when left to his own devices with some free time, will turn the house into a spotless mecca of domesticity, complete with dinner arriving on the table the SECOND his wife is due through the door. But I’m equally likely to shut down the computer and run out for a manicure and he’s just as likely to build something (he makes AMAZING furniture…he will furnish my house someday) or take off for a hunting trip if he’s got a few days on his hands.
No one is as one-dimensional as either side seems to think they are. How about we just let people decide what makes them happy and let the rest take care of itself? Sure, men can’t make babies and women can’t…um…disappear after a one-night stand to avoid child support? But it’s not about knowing our biology, it’s about knowing our psychology.
Also, one time, my car broke down at a busy intersection when I was in college. I couldn’t push it myself (as much as I tried), and while I was desperately trying to get out of traffic, another college-age woman stopped to block traffic and help me push…all while *4* burly frat-ish guys watched from across the street. Neither my female helper nor they had any *sex*-based obligation to help, but they ALL had a HUMAN obligation to help, where they could. When the snowpocalypses hit DC, I helped push many a stuck car out. I grew up in a snowy environment, and know better than people around here *how* to push a car to get it out of snow (and/or ice), so when I heard tires spinning, I donned my galoshes, grabbed the shovel and bag of sand, and went out and led the operations. No one told me I was damaging their manhood by offering *useful* help, both in how to do it and lending some pushing muscle. They just thanked me. Just like I would *anyone,* male or female, who helped me out of a sticky situation.
Sure, there are problems on both sides of the fence. I take issue with certain feminist’s perspective that women who choose to make family a priority are, as you said, not living up to their potential. But I think Venker made some damaging assumptions.
I err on the side of feminists, as well. At least they only snidely judge those who don’t live up to the ideal they’ve painted. Women like this lunatic want to make public policy so that it is at least difficult, if not impossible, for women to be more than wives and mothers (and domestic help…they will NEVER give up their maid, nanny, cook, etc., but those servants sure are cheaper when there are a whole lot of poor families with major roadblocks to becoming dual-income). I do believe that men and women have some inherent traits, but those traits are not “being a good mother” and “being a breadwinner.” They’re ways of communication and thinking, which can be equally valuable in any role the person feels most comfortable in, at home and in the office.
“That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.”
Oy vey. That just hurts my head. We don’t have more female CEOs because they don’t WANT it? Sure. Yep, that’s why. Jeez!
Yeah, that line was a real winner.
We all hanker for the good old days. Yes, for chivalry and when men and women were given the traditional roles to play. But its easy to say that now, when we have the right to vote, the right to be a whole person on our own without having to depend on a father or husband for our identity.
In the good old days, we wouldnt have had the right to walk away from an abusive husband. We wouldnt have had the right to earn our own living in a respectable fashion to feed and clothe our children.
Confusion in gender roles is not really the issue. The issue is clinging on to traditional roles and not embracing change.
I think nostalgia is fine to a certain extent. But you are certainly correct, it’s easy to see the past with rose-tinted glasses and forget that whatever point in time you wish for had its own set of problems.
BAH I hate anything that argues for the “social ramifications” of equality. Like the “social ramifications” of marriage equality. Ummm…that gays marry? That women are CEOs? What’s the big freaking deal?!
It reminds me of that article about the homemaker husband that’s gotten so much attention lately. It’s too bad that has to be “news” and can’t just be the way they are because it works for them.
Not sure what article you’re referring to, but yes, it doesn’t seem like it should be news.
Ummm, that’s all fine and good, Vesta, but where’s dinner?
(Tee-hee)
Seriously, this argument almost never fails to get me riled up, simply because the people who bring it up are usually on one end or another on the Extreme Spectrum of Idiocy.
Dingbat A: Men & women are literally equal in all things, and therefore men and women should be allowed to box each other professionally.
Dingbat B: Men (or women) are obviously inferior and we women (or men) should assert our superiority by calling into AM talk radio shows and spewing forth ignorant, ill-informed bile until everyone listening intentionally drives off a bridge so they don’t have to listen to it any more.
Whereas normal people with better things to do, like you and I, don’t sit around trying to awkwardly cast every single thing in the world in a mold that supports a belief that was ignorant to start with.
Yup. It’s always the loudest and most unreasonable folks on either side of any spectrum that garner media attention. My way or the highway people annoy the hell out of me.
I inquired as to whether I could help a car that was stuck in the snow today. They said they didn’t think it would help and were going to wait for AAA, but at least I offered.
As to the gender differences question, I think it is just confusion about stats. In a sense of probabilities, there are differences. On any manner of measures, the average man will be different than the average woman but given the nature of distributions there’s a large realm for overlap such that differences are mere probabilities, not predictive. That these average gender differences should be used to dictate how any individual should act or be is an absurdity.
Still, for me the acknowledgement of these average gender difference, something that some feminists try to deny (or write off as social construction which is only sometimes justified), is pretty vital to my own gender identity as someone outside the middle of the distribution.
Hell yes for being outside the middle of the distribution, life is much more interesting that way.
This flipped my rage switch to ON. Sure there is absolutely no way that privilege and power come into this at all. Grumble. Grrrr.
Oh yeah, that wasn’t addressed ANYWHERE in the article.
Ooo…there is a lot to think about with this one! On one hand, I think the woman makes some good points and agree that when we understand we are different, then we can get along better together. ON the other hand, I fervently agree with you that it has very much become an “every man for himself” kind of world thanks to being physically removed from one another thanks to all our “social” technology devices.
I cannot address the issue of the article because it makes me want to punch someone. But the story of the broken down car is particularly pertinent, as I was much delayed getting to work today because I had to take my son to the YMCA as the schools are closed AGAIN today. The city is struggling to remove all of the snow we received over the weekend from the sidewalks and sidestreets. Anyway, as I was driving home, traffic backed up significantly a good distance from an intersection. As I crawled along I became aware that there was a car that had pulled into a driveway on my right, but stopped half way in so that his back end was hanging into the right hand lane. He either broke down right there, or was stuck in some snow. It occured to me that someone needed to get out and help him push the car three feet further into the driveway and all would be well again. I considered it for 20 seconds, but realized that in my Goin’ To Work Clothes I would be mostly useless to this endeavor. But I am sure there were several men, like the dude in the truck with a plow on it, that could have resolved it in 30 seconds. Sigh.
I can’t say I have anything earth-shattering to add to the argument, but it certainly would be out of character to not say anything at all. I had written about occasionally wishing for “simpler times” in the midst of one of my MANY meltdowns, but it was with the realization that there would be consequences for such a wish. One of those pesky “grass is always greener” scenarios, no? Thing is – to lump any groups’ individual opinions into one solid mass is a mistake. Stating I am precisely “equal” with every 5′ 4″, chubby, white, short-haired bottle blonde female would be a fallacy, at best. At worst, it robs each one of us schmucks of our own thoughts (irrational or otherwise), beliefs and ultimately: identities. Anyone comfortable with assessing a statement on behalf of an entire segment of the population has jumped on one hell of an ego-trolley! My opinion, purely
P.S. Vesta, My Sweet, I am continually in awe at your ability to start a thoughtful conversation. xoxo
I’m so glad you wrote about this – I’ve been thinking a lot about it as well, but for a different reason. Lemme just say that I would have loved to be able to stay at home with my daughter, but it just wasn’t possible for me.
Anyway, I’ve been flabbergasted by the blogosphere of moms who despise working ladies (who may or may not be feminists, or may or may not have HAD to go back to work for financial reasons….). What really got me ragey was stumbling upon a fairly popular blogger – who I won’t name here. I was enjoying her posts about being a mom, but then they started getting a little crazy/angry. It was all “stay at home moms are awesome, but working moms are ruining their child’s lives.” Then the posts started getting even weirder, and then the next thing I see is posts that women have no business going to college, and their main reason for existing is to chuck out kids. I’m no feminist, and love being a mom, but I thought this was pretty f@*king ridiculous.
The worst part is that I began wondering about the dudes who were giving her standing ovations in her comments section. Holy hell….I started clicking through to their own blogs from the comments section, and these guys really hate women. All they write about is how women are nothing but attention ho’s and sluts, that there’s no good women who want to be mothers anymore, and all this rage about women not “submitting” to their husbands. Then I noticed they all seemed to talk about some “red pill” thing, beta males becoming alphas, and the “manosphere”. I didn’t even know this was a thing.
I was disgusted. As much as these “ladies” and “gentlemen” rail against man-hating feminists, they are doing the exact same thing!
Women have no business going to college? Waaa?
As for this red pill thing, is that a Matrix reference? I’m lost.
***Oh wow, I just googled red pill manosphere, and now I have been enlightened. And by enlightened I mean I just laughed my ass off at the man words dictionary. I had no idea that was a thing.
I just read The Handmaid’s Tale a couple of months ago. While I don’t believe that the Republic of Gilead is about to rise, it is interesting to note that the garbage this woman is writing is exactly how the cult extremists in the novel gained their following.
I re-read that several months ago, and it made me even more despondent than it did the first time (in college), given the current political climate and rhetoric.
I just don’t get the focus on BAAAABBBBBBIIIIIIIEEEEEEESSSSS(!!1!!1111!) that is currently going on. The world has far too many people, and Americans are the worst of the lot as far as keeping this planet habitable for human (and much of animal and plant life). The American birthrate still stands at a little over 2/woman, even though it’s been reduced by the recession. So long as we’re pumping out as many new people as people already exist, there aren’t risks of economic collapse or, even, a shrinking society. I know, I know, part of it is that WHITE women aren’t having as many babies as BROWN women, and that scares the bajezzes out of the conservatives. But, overall, it’s INSANE!
You know what *might* get the birth rate up among white, educated women? Reasonable parental leave and decent, affordable child care. But, that doesn’t sit well with the man, so it’s much easier to just legislate away reproductive rights and civil protections. I have a question for this crazy conservatives: do you really want me making lots of liberal babies? Because any child of mine will be raised without god and with a heaping helping of social and economic liberal views. Your base is not going to have more kids because of your insane ideas. They’re already more likely to have (more) kids than liberal women. So, really, you’re just, in the end, going to make it easier for us to reverse your BS.
It’s tired argument that the world has to many people, therefore we should not focus too much on having babies.
First, all the people in the world are not the same age, education, gender and, truth be told, usefulness. No matter how many they are, each age group, gender, educational achievement, etc, MUST be continually replenished to forestall human extinction.
Secondly, it is a very lame argument, because, using the same logic, no matter what profession you are in, there are already TOO MANY PEOPLE in that profession, and that fact did not stop you from going into it.
Excellent book. I’d love to hear Venker’s take on it:)
I just want to punch Susan Venker in the nuts. Stupid euniched bitch.
Bitch makes me want to go out an found an company as a CEO- maybe become a well educated high powered attorney… oh wait.
Well, if your current career as a high powered attorney becomes boring, you can always fall back on Plan B, aka punching people in the nuts for money.
I have to agree with your premise. Here entire argument is flawed since she doesn’t use words according to their definition. Men and women are different. That is fact, but it has nothing to do with equality. She is playing with the definitions of words to make her point and it just doesn’t work that way.
” I walked around the block with my dog, and when I came back up the other side, the guy was still there, and a new round of people were honking and yelling, and not just at the poor dude, but at each other in their hurry to cut one another off in the name of getting on with their day. Right as I made it back, another man had pulled off the road, and he got out and helped the guy push his truck away from the intersection. …”
You didn’t bother to help him either. You passed him by at least twice…maybe thrice. You never offered to assist him. You are not better because you didn’t honk or raise your hands; ignoring him is just as bad.