smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) (01/02/91)
In an article (Message-Id: <1990Dec29.204059.10264@uunet!unhd>), rg@msel.unh.edu (Roger Gonzalez) wrote: | I'd worry that the associating too closely with this movement would lead | to connections with the really radical feminists, whether you agree | with them fully or not. You give them strength. Good. All power to them. Feminism, you see, is a terribly amorphous concept, but at its core is one central philosophy: every woman and every man should be given equal treatment in society, in the workplace, in the home, and under the law. This de facto equality is much more difficult to achieve than the de jure quasi-non-discrimination that is found in many countries. The reason for this is that systematic and systemic barriers exist to women. Most people in North America have realized that it is inappropriate to be overtly discriminatory on the basis of gender, and I would have to search hard for a corporation in Canada or the U.S. which still has a codified hiring or pay-scale policy which calls for discrimination against women. Unfortunately, other barriers exist, for instance, an old boy's club type of company which seeks to hire people who share common interests, such as golf or baseball or collecting sports cars or other stereotypically male activities, or a company such as CN Rail which, because there are so few women (ca. 4%) employed in certain positions, such as mechanical engineers, do not provide separate toilet or shower facilities for male and female staff. In the second case, where women are given short shrift because they are in a minority, women are made to feel uncomfortable, and the company pays no attention to the needs of the female staff, perhaps hoping they will vanish. CN justifies their position on this matter (and others) by reiterating that only 4% of the staff doing this type of work is female, and since only a very few women apply and many do not remain for more than two years (often quitting complaining about the conditions they must work in), there is no great need to make accomodations. In the first sort of organization, the barriers are more systemic than systematic. Most people who hire individuals take into account not just ability and experience, but also personality and extra-labour activities. This is true of almost everyone. Unfortunately, when making a subjective analysis of who should be promoted into a managerial position, executives will choose someone they can easily relate to socially, and often (in the case of middle-aged senior management) this is a man. Perhaps it is because of a golfing habit, or perhaps it is some other "trait" or hobby that is the factor, but it does present a barrier to a woman who does not golf vis a vis a man who does. This sort of subtle pro-male bias is a principal cause of the "glass ceiling" through which women can see but not pass. There are many many other forms of subtle bias, which favour men over women when hiring or promoting workers. There are other goals of feminism: the safeguarding of the dignity of all women, be they workers or be they household engineers, and ensuring that society respects whatever choice of lifestyle a woman makes. Unfortunately, while much has been done to promote the interests of the woman working outside the home, viz. government-supported non-profit daycare, pay equity legislation and regulations, benefits for single mothers, and many other good steps towards a non-gender-biased society, less has been done to promote the interests and meet the needs of the woman who chooses to work in the home. Household engineers, "housewives", perform tedious, tiring, dirty work, in looking after small children and the finances and state of the domestic partnership. They often perform valuable and useful services, such as basic accountancy and bookkeeping, managing supplies, scheduling appointments (for the doctor or dentist, for example), managing social events, cooking and cleaning. If outside specialists were hired to do the work, it would cost several dozens of thousands of dollars per annum, and even if an a generalist were to be hired to do the same duty, it would run into many thousands each year. Yet too often these women get no recognition; they are poked fun at, stereotyped as soap-opera fanatics, lazy, or useless to society. When calculating GNP or GDP, most economists factor out the services provided to a domestic partnership, especially since it is seen to be done on a "pro bono" basis. This, sadly, is terrible treatment for anyone. To be told that since you are not directly paid for your work means that your work is worthless is awful. Of course, more awful is the household engineer who is not only unpaid for her or his work and consequently considered worthless, but who is also not allowed any financial independence by his or her domestic partner. Too often, the breadwinner keeps control the money, not allowing the work-at-home partner to spend any on, for example, a night out with friends. An arrangement like that is inequitable and unfair, and is unacceptable to any feminist. Many people choose to remain unaware of the scope of the problems faced by all women in Western societies. They grudgingly admit that there is "a problem" of some sort, and that something ought to be done. They often support legislation which ensures that people are paid the same for doing the same job, notwithstanding gender or colour. And quite often they state that things are not as bad now than they were, say, 20 years ago. They are right, but they do not recognize that most of the bias has gone underground, has become less systematic than systemic, and harder to trace, and harder still to recognize. It is hard to recognize, because good, "rational" people look to a posteriori arguments, and say that loads of empirical evidence indicates that visible minority groups like blacks find themselves having almost complete pay equity (corrected by region and by age-group and marital status, among other factors). These statistics, a rational person might say, point out that the process is working, and that _given time_, things will get better. This is the sort of argument that feminists face all the time. People do not want to see the problems in their society, and think that people who point them out are merely exaggerating to get attention. Like you, they feel that while agreeing that something _ought_ to be done is progressive, one must be careful when associating with a group which seeks to point them out in order to correct them. "Radical" feminists are just feminists who point out the problems in society more agressively than others, hoping that someone will listen to them, in line with the aphorism: "the squeaking wheel gets the oil". Many such people are called radicals, or as you point out: | I knew about the stereotypical "man-hating hairy-legged commie | lesbo rad feminist" description, but I dismissed it along with all | the other stereotypical tripe that we get force-fed every day. These are labels, hurtful labels, incorrectly attached to women who point out not only the effects of the gender-bias in Western society, but also the causes. This tends to offend those who recognize themselves or their peers as people who potentially demonstrate subtle bias against women. People who have benefited or who might benefit from the current system react with hostility to people who indicate how they have benefitted and how in turn others have suffered. Most men who have social or political power tend to think of themselves as well-meaning individuals who are not causing any harm to anyone, just like everyone else. Some of them, when told that they are unconsciously doing harm, say "I didn't know that; I will try to do better". That is where vocal, or radical feminists succeed. Other such men, though, react defensively, saying anything from "Your facts are wrong" to "What are you, some sort of man-hater?". This is what feminists must deal with. Still, I support vocal feminists of all varieties. I support them because they seek to eliminate a serious disparity between the two sexes. | The main | thought that ran through my mind as I read the articles posted by | the two main contributors to the thread was "why are these women | using the same pathetic techniques of stereotyping, slandering, | categorizing, and propaganda that men have used against women all | these years?" When dealing with emotional issues such as prejudice and bias, people become defensive. When this happens it is difficult to communicate calmly, and the calm party often has extreme difficulty convincing the nervous, defensive one. In fact, communication grinds to a halt. By demonstrating that they are *angry* that they are oppressed and _ignored_, they grab people's attention. That is good, since drawing attention to a problem is the first step to getting it solved. Sometimes, people will react violently against new ideas, and will lash out instinctively against the people who present them, calling them names. Rather than thinking about if and why they disagree with the new idea, they reject the author herself or himself. This is quite common in history, sadly. Perhaps angry, defensive people are engaging in the "sins" that you describe, but is not unusual, and it is not something which in any way should detract from the new ideas and the arguments in their favour. One should not refuse an idea simply because it hasn't been presented in a nice, safe, pleasant, friendly way. It is certainly not that feminists are "unenlightened". Feminists are _aware_, and are upset because of the scale and scope of the oppression women must deal with, and want to change it in the face of social inertia and defensive attitudes of those who can make changes. This will make anyone upset given time, and this is why we feminists occasionally seem to be bitter, vengeful people. We are not. | Its as if these women don't merely want | equality, as I had assumed, they want to kick men down to the same | point of repression women have faced. What you assumed was correct; no feminist wants to kick anyone down. People who feel threatened by the goal of free and open competition with qualified women who have always been handicapped often feel, perhaps understandably terrified. They talk of "revenge-minded feminists", and make life miserable for their new female peers who are competing for engineering or political jobs, and they want to preserve the bias in favour of men, even less qualified men. Self-preservation. This too must be dealt with, but not by mollycoddling or backing down to remove the illusions of the person interested in his career or spot in University. Fears such as this should only be dealt with by exposing them, since they are unreasonable ones. Not addressing a problem because someone is irrationally afraid or abusive is counter-productive, and the goals of equality and equity for 51% of the population is more important than the goals of male students or professionals. | The media is to fault, because it will | be the vocal ones way out on the limb that get the publicity. Being | noisy about something as dull and boring as "men and women should be | equals, with appreciation (and not repression of) their differences." | just doesn't sell. If quiet, non-threatening feminists are unable to effect change and noisy, politically active, vocal feminists are, then I think that if I honestly support the principle of "men and women should be equals &c.", then I should support people who say it louder than I do. They can get media attention, while I only get the attention of certain politicians, and since we are trying to achieve the same resuts, and are on the same side, I support them completely. I do not disassociate myself from "rad-fems" at all. -- Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.ON.CA> Disgruntled anti-GST Young Liberal. also seand@ziebmef.mef.org Jeune Liberal qui se fache a cause de la TPS. and /C=CANADA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TESTGROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov