So why the resistance to calling Brave a feminist movie? I'm shocked, really not so happy, to find hostility toward the word "feminism" in my own house. At my kids' age, or actually a year younger, I organized an event on feminism at my junior high! I've been a feminist forever. What is it about the word that turns the young folk off? I can only take my interrogations so far (teenagers, who needs 'em?), so this is speculation, but I think kids today take for granted everything we were fighting for back when I was their age. Of course women can be doctors, lawyers, newscasters (remember when all the anchormen were men?), athletes, soldiers. They can do anything they want, and should get equal pay for equal work, etc. etc. So the substance of feminism is obvious and uncontroversial. The problem, then, is ... what?
Speculation: to young people today, "feminism" doesn't actually mean freedom, equality, self-determination, and the like. It surely means that, but also ... (what?) ... I guess making too big a fuss about the wrong things, so being (somehow) a pain in the ass. A feminist is someone who insists on the word "women" instead of "girls", or tries to outlaw innocent fun like calling people "bitches" or "pussies". A feminist (in the negative sense) is constantly making a mountain out of a molehill. A feminist is against sex, or something, so allying yourself with feminism is unsexy.But no--I may have to undertake some stealth indoctrinating over the summer--really a feminist is just someone who is tuned in to the disadvantages that still hold women back, and who wants better for women. Feminists can disagree about all sorts of stuff. There's no party line about language or anything else, save fundamentals like equality, self-determination, and the like.
The NYT magazine had an amusing article about feminist comedian Caitlin Moran, author of the book How to Be a Woman. I may have to smuggle that into our house and leave it around. Maybe for the young folks feminism + funny = fine. We shall see.
Women are held back for all sorts of reasons. Often it’s because they have to deal with circumstances (such as looking after children at home) that some men also have deal with. And the number of men who are being discriminated against in that way is constantly increasing. By specifically striving to help women rather than anyone, of either sex in those circumstances, in effect feminists disregard the interests of men on the basis of their sex.
ReplyDeleteTo disregard someone’s interest on the basis of their sex is sexist. So I’m afraid a lot of feminism is sexist. In my experience, younger people see that more readily than older people, which is a pity. Maybe you can learn something important from younger generations, rather than assuming that you have something important to teach them?
As a mother of boy-girl twins, I'm pretty well poised to care equally about the welfare of boys and girls, to see problems of both genders, but also to see that there are particular problems for females. There is nothing sexist about have special concerns for the more oppressed sex. The notion is as absurd as saying it's racist to have special concerns about blacks or anti-heterosexual to have special concerns about gay people. I do have special concerns about women, and I don't hesitate to say it: so should everyone.
ReplyDelete@ Jeremy Bowman: I'm interested in reading the writings of any feminists who argue against helping men who find themselves in the circumstances you mention. Could you reference them for me?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a liberal, I find it hard to accept that any individual’s interests can be taken less seriously simply because of the group he or she has the good or bad luck to belongs to. It strikes me as unjust, indeed the very sort of injustice that characterizes racism and sexism.
ReplyDeleteThe writings of feminists are generally anti-liberal in the sense that they put the "empowerment" of a group before the interest of individuals. By acting to promote the allocation of scarce resources towards the group whose "empowerment" counts, their actions have the effect of withholding those resources from individuals in the other group.
I think there is less injustice of that sort in the US than elsewhere in the West, but in Europe there are various quota systems, social welfare schemes, educational resources, etc. that by favoring one group, in effect disadvantage individuals who belong to the other group.
"The writings of feminists are generally anti-liberal in the sense that they put the "empowerment" of a group before the interest of individuals. By acting to promote the allocation of scarce resources towards the group whose "empowerment" counts, their actions have the effect of withholding those resources from individuals in the other group."
ReplyDelete@Jeremy Bowman: I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying all feminists do that, or only that some feminists do that? And if only some feminists do that, then how influential are the ones you know of who do that?
Speaking as a liberal, I find it hard to accept that any individual’s interests can be taken less seriously simply because of the group he or she has the good or bad luck to belongs to. It strikes me as unjust, indeed the very sort of injustice that characterizes racism and sexism.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as an Engineer - you neither have infinite time or infinite resources - so you tackle higher priority - higher impact things first. You follow rules of thumb like the 80/20 principle.
I think Peter Singer has argued that if you have money to donate , then all other things being equal you should give to a third world country - a dollar may buy next to nothing in the US - but might be a tidy sum in some other country.
that might offend your sense of justice (i know it did mine) - but on calm thought it seems the smarter thing to do.
"I think Peter Singer has argued that if you have money to donate , then all other things being equal you should give to a third world country - a dollar may buy next to nothing in the US - but might be a tidy sum in some other country.
ReplyDeletethat might offend your sense of justice (i know it did mine) - but on calm thought it seems the smarter thing to do."
Would you donate it specifically to those individuals most in need in that third world country? Or would you feel just as happy for that money to go equally to the ruling class of that third world nation?
That is the essence of the problem with treating people as a group rather than an individual. As feminism's modern view of privilege would place all women in a disadvantages position, regardless of any individuals actual position. Logically following, one would donate to a third world country itself, and not individuals in that country in need, essentially would have been fine if that money went to Gaddafi or Mugabe, because they are part of a group "a third world country" rather than specific individuals in need.
Jeremy, there is a basic fallacy in your statement, "By acting to promote the allocation of scarce resources towards the group whose 'empowerment' counts, their actions have the effect of withholding those resources from individuals in the other group." To wit, the simple fact that the act of empowering women increases the resource pool by a large amount. You are assuming a zero-sum game, which has already been proven to be a false assumption.
ReplyDeleteI saw Brave yesterday with my brother, sister-in-law, and 7-year-old nephew. We all thought it was excellent. I'm hoping I can entice my 22-year-old daughter, who was born on the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, to go and see it.
ReplyDelete@ Michael Rudas:
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid I don’t follow you there.
Jobs are a scarce resource, and if preference in employment is given to men, then some women who would otherwise have got the jobs are excluded from them.
That is unjust. And if the sexes are reversed, it is still unjust, and for exactly the same reasons.
@liam.lah
ReplyDeleteWould you donate it specifically to those individuals most in need in that third world country? Or would you feel just as happy for that money to go equally to the ruling class of that third world nation?
Perhaps you missed the "all other things being equal".