Since its genesis and beyond, the predominant complaint of feminism has been a matter of reductionism. A female teacher needlessly snaps at a male student? A girlfriend says something illogical? Forget professionalism and maturity; think nothing of miscommunication and frustrated vagaries. No, they’re women, emotional and unhinged. This is to be expected.
But while such instances exemplify extant
sexism, pervasive and subtle, worrying that these qualities lead to intellectual laziness is not frivolous but imperative. Increasingly, feminists seem radicalized, reducing the complexity of male and female interaction
to patriarchal social constructs that often don’t mirror reality. With an
accelerating frequency, we see the aggrandizement of the hazardous belief that
anytime any man does anything to make any woman feel in any way uncomfortable,
we needn’t consider a lack of professionalism or maturity, there was no
miscommunication or frustrated vagary. It was sexism, pervasive and subtle. It
is to be expected.
Life, of course, is not so simple, and feminists,
attuned to such reductionism from centuries of persecution, should rediscover
the need to find it in themselves.
Consider, as a small example, the recent
mandate which would have forced religious institutions to provide birth control
to women as part of their healthcare plans. Was the reaction against such a
mandate, as many feminists have suggested, an instance of sexism, a repeal of
women’s rights?
Hardly. This was little more than the
latest rehashing of a question which, nearly alone, has been the bread and
butter of political philosophy: If governments exist, in part, to compel the citizenry to do things it isn't otherwise inclined to do, is there some
limiting principle? Where is the line between necessity and tyranny?
Feminists didn’t respond by answering these
legitimate fears of government overreach – nor was a coherent, sensible
rebuttal particularly difficult to find. Instead, having no sensitivity for those being compelled
to do something they found morally unconscionable, feminists declared there was
a War on Women. Most of the country promptly, and justifiably, tuned out.
As another example of feminist distraction,
take Jack Welch. At a Women in the
Economy forum earlier this year, Mr. Welch commented: “Surely there are [sexist] attitudes out there, and a company has a job to
foster an atmosphere. But let’s just talk about what happens in some of this
atmosphere. We started, at work, a women’s forum. We got up to 500 people in
the women’s forum. The best of the women would come to me and say: ‘I don’t
want to be in this forum! I don’t want to be in a special group! I’m not in the
victim’s unit! I am a star! I want to be compared with the best of your best! I
don’t want to be over here!’ Great women,” he passionately concluded, “get upset about going
into the victim’s unit!”
Mr. Welch then went on to speak about the
necessity of role models and celebrations – especially for women and minorities.
Fervid feminists were (predictably) outraged. Other women were (predictably) in agreement with Mr. Welch. The latter sensibly recognized that Mr. Welch wasn’t saying that women don’t deserve higher roles in business, nor was he arguing that these forums weren’t necessary (the fact his company has them is testament to that fact). No, what Mr. Welch was articulating, from a plethora of personal and business experience, was the tendency for the best women in his company to not take part in women’s forums.
This is controversial? This is ignominy?
 |
| This is not sexism; this is funny. |
In essay form, they cavil (and
expect others to cavil) about the concept of the “friendzone,” its quiet misogyny, its clear implication
of entitlement.
And if you disagree? If you feel compelled
to resist reductionism and note that situations involving “friendzoning” are
often matters best understood in terms of professionalism, maturity, miscommunications
and frustrated vagaries? If (heaven forefend!) you’re a women and you disagree?
Well, that only shows how pervasive and
subtle sexism really is.
Small wonder only 29 percent of women classify
themselves as feminists. Alas, it is to be expected.
There is a difference, I feel, between the opinions a feminist espouses, and women who are loud on public forums express. I classify myself as a feminist, because I feel that women should be treated as equals to men in the workplace and everywhere else.
ReplyDeleteLouder women have become more reactionary than actually fighting for the cause of feminism. They want arguments, and they want to tell you that you're wrong. They feel they do not need men and therefore masculinity has become obsolete.
If you wish to write an article like this, please point out the difference between reasonable feminism (like the woman who doesn't wish to be in the 'victim's unit. That's admirable feminism), and reactionary feminism, often called 'radical feminism.'