How do I explain this to my daughters?

Here's a fantastic (if long) comment from Metafilter about personal safety and the experience of being a woman. What do I know, but it feels very real. The question is, how do I prepare my pre-teen daughters to handle all of this, to remain safe without living in fear?

Schrodinger's Rapist

Get past the shocking title, because this essay is a great reminder for guys on what a woman is thinking when you approach her, as a stranger, in public. Curious what you think, Olga.

My only quibble is when she says (to guys): "Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? " She's assuming the answer is no, but she's wrong, especially for younger guys.

In the same way that it's hard for men to realize how much women (need to) worry about sexual attack, I think many women don't realize how much guys (esp. 18-30) are at risk of physical violence in day to day life. For no other reason than, some guy is trying to show how how tough he is. The recent beating death of that guy in Chicago was a wakeup call, but really not that surprising to me. It just happened to be videotaped.

Mr. Sanchez

Is it wrong if I'm not consumed with redecorating the house like some other spouses I know? I don't know if it's exhaustion from two months of preparation + taking care of stuff that I put off during those months, + a headlining gig (comedy) + a writer's conference -- but I can't really pretend to be fascinated by moving the furniture around just so.

Besides, there are still a lot of repair projects (remodeling seems a bit grandiose) to do on the house.

Mrs. Saltveit

While Mark was posting to the blog like wildfire, I was busy getting married.

Actually we both got married, to each other no less.

Yet, somehow, I became consumed with wedding prep, in a way that Mark did not ~ and the reason I write about this is that I wonder if it's a girl thing.

We agreed to create as simple yet meaningful an event as possible, and it was as DIY as could be ~ but I still found myself counting the silverware and glassware in order to calculate the number of wine glasses and forks (not to mention tables and chairs) I'd need to rent so our families and closest friends would be comfortable. I created the invitations and announcements, designed and purchased the gifts for our wedding party and guests, took care of shopping for Mark's daughters as needed, and coordinated with our bridesmaids and ushers about what to wear. I bought the bubbles instead of rice.

It thought provoking and time consuming and I enjoyed every second of it.

Mark did his share of the most important things; he rented the park site, downloaded a tons of songs for the dance party, and was in charge of all the food shopping and cooking for the reception (thank heavens!). We went ring shopping together.

It wasn't out of laziness that he didn't tend to the minutiae; he had decided he wanted to do quite a bit of remodeling before my parents arrived for the wedding, and he went at it full force. In the final week before the wedding, even after my parents arrived, he was still busy sanding and painting while I went shopping for fabric with my mother and my cousin.

My mother made my veil and my cousin made the flower girl basket and my bouquet. Together my mother and my cousin sewed the cushions for our two ring bearers. Our friends Maya & Maria helped decorate for the dance party, our friend Dañel created our cake topper, and my friend MaryHelen volunteered to decorate for the reception...

Happily.

Women need to be more evil

Looking at our last two posts, I figured out how to crack the glass ceiling: women need to be move evil.

I don't mean sneaky, snarky, stab-you-in-the-back with a smile; that happens all the time. I'm talking flat-out, yeah I'm selfish, try-and-stop-me OWNING IT. Can you think of any examples, in all of history, literature, or film? Cruella de Ville is the exception that proves the rule, and she's, well, a bit cartoony. Even Leona Helmsley saw herself as the champion of cute little doggies.

Instead, women instinctively claim the moral high ground, like Governor Granholm chastising men for having affairs (with women). And women are the harshest judges of other women. Someday, when any mom can go to divorce court and let her ex take full custody so she can focus on her career -- or even just say she's happy to get back to work because her baby is wearing her out -- without apology, we will have taken the final step to equality. Because no one blinks when men do these things. But the risk of hearing "BAD MOTHER" whispered in the background hamstrings women's choices.

It's similar with fiction. Why are more characters men? Probably many reasons, but one is that a writer never has to apologize for, or justify, male characters. A lot of women characters attract visceral anger, especially if they are bad guys. (See, my mind naturally filled in bad... guys for strong, mean characters.) Anyone who creates such a woman risks being called misogynist or unrealistic. Male characters can be angels or antichrists, and it will never occur to anyone to question the author's choices.

Men are just like that, sometimes. When women can be just like that, sometimes -- for any value of that -- then the glass ceiling will be gone.

What is with you men?

Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, on Bloomberg TV discussing the Mark Sanford affair:

"My reaction is really about his wife and kids. I mean, they are friends of ours and I'm just -- I am floored by this. I would never -- if I were betting, I would be the first person in the pool to say that is not him. This is really -- I am just really shocked by it. And, my heart goes out to Jenny and the kids. And, I hope people can at least give them their privacy. What is with you men?"

I dunno, but most of these politicians are having their affairs with a woman. What is with you women?

Now I'm a strong advocate of monogramy, if not a bit judgmental about affairs. But the stereotype that "men are dogs" baffles me. Aside from gay liaisons and I suppose threesomes, aren't there always going to be an identical number of men and women cheating? My theory is, men get the reputation for cheating because women are better at hiding it (ie deceit). Men just get caught more.

What's holding women back? A dirty little secret...

My recent post about why fewer plays by women are produced got me thinking about standup comedy, which I've been doing for 10 years now.

There are many more male than female comics. Based on my personal experience, the reasons match the results of those theater studies pretty closely. In other words, the leading causes for fewer women comics are 1) fewer women try standup in the first place, and 2) other women are much more judgmental about women comics than male comics. (A third reason seems to be that life on the road, away from freinds and family, sleeping in your car on off nights and in grungy club condos on gig nights, bothers men less.)

Of the women who try open mics, from what I've seen, a higher percentage go on to success. But very few try. Also, when they do, I often hear comments from women in the audience like "Why does she have to be so nasty?" I rarely see men react that way to a woman comic.

The why gets complicated. Part of it is that comedy is generally transgressive, and we have no problem culturally with men being transgressive, but get confused by women who are. Notice how rebellious women are almost automatically labeled as "sluts" regardless of what their rebellion is, or who they choose to sleep with.

But certainly, the role of women in all of this is one of the reason why I think complaining about "the patriarchy" is worse than a waste of breath. It confuses the issue, and takes us further away from making progress, by implying that "the man" is keeping women down.

Gender bias in theater? Yes, but it's complicated

3 rigorous new studies looked at whether there is gender bias in theater, i.e. whether plays by women get produced less often, or are not allowed to play as long (regardless of profitably.)

The results are striking and unexpected. Theatrical artistic directors defend the fact that most produced plays are written by men, by saying that men simply write more plays. The study actually confirmed this; there are twice as many male playwrights, and they're more prolific to boot.

BUT -- when the same play was sent out, half the time under a man's name and half under a woman's, the "woman's" play was rated significantly worse overall. Here's the twist: male artistic directors and literary managers rated them exactly the same, but female ADs and LMs downgraded "Mary's" play.

The third study looked at the 329 new plays over the last decade on Broadway, where we can roughly assume that money is the main criteria. Plays by men outnumber those by women 8 to 1. The plays written by women that were produced made 15-20% more money than men's plays -- but they weren't allowed to run any longer.

Conclusion -- there's money to be made by producing more female-written plays on Broadway. And this stuff is complicated.

Women Lead the Revolution in Iran

After playing a leading role in the Iranian campaign, women are now
taking charge in the demonstrations protesting the rigged results.

"The iconic pictures from the revolution 30 years ago were bearded men. This shows the new face of Iran -- the young women who are the vanguards of Iran," says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endownment. Last weekend, during the biggest demonstrations, "the protesters included many women, some of whom berated as 'cowards' men who fled the [thuggish] Basiji [militas]."

It's interesting to wonder how much the personal plight of women there fuels their courage politically. CNN quotes a 19-year old as saying "When they want to hit me, I say hit. I have been hit so many times and this time it doesn't matter. I just want to help my brothers and sisters."

Rape Culture

Terms like "rape culture" get bandied about far too casually in the U.S., given that there are places where it's absolutely accuate. The BBC reports that in a new, confidential survey in South Africa, one FOURTH of men admit having raped women, half more than once and 73% starting when they were teenagers.

Gang rape was described as "a form of male bonding," though one in ten men said they had been raped themselves by other men.

This survey covered 1,738 men in both urban and rural areas of KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape provinces, and used an electronic device to keep the results anonymous.

And Iran, Iran so far away

The hot election race in Iran has a lot of fascinating angles -- Ahmedinejad's blog vs. Mousavi's Facebook, the rural vs. urban split, figuring out how much true change the mullahs will allow -- but the subterranean campaign over women's rights is maybe the most important.

I'm no expert on Iran, but the contradictions are intense. The world's only major theocracy is also one of its biggest democracies, and 70% of the population is under 30. Ultra-conservative in some ways, it's also internet-savvy and highly educated. 60% of university students are women, but only 15% of employees.

I read a heartbreaking story somewhere about the power of one simple symbol: leading challenger Mousavi holds his wife's hand in public. Amazingly, that has been taboo and even illegal until recently. The quote that got to me was a woman voter hoping that this simple act might lead to more affection in marriages generally.

Not that Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, is any kind of shy wallflower. She's a leading academic, former university chancellor, former adviser to previous president Khatami, and accomplished painter. She told the BBC that she views politics as art, and saw her her (daring) choice of veil - "a black chador with a flowery scarf peaking from beneath it - as a beautiful composition."

It's strange to imagine how repressed Iranian public discourse must be; women are arrested if they don't wear a veil, or if their dresses and coats aren't long enough, and even Rahnavard doesn't dare criticize the wearing of veils. Beauty salons are one of the few places where women can remove their long coats and veils and speak freely. But that simple act of holding hands has become a rallying cry of opposition to Ahmadeinejad's conservatism, featured on Mousavi's campaign posters.

And on the last day of public campaigning, Mousavi supporters pointedly formed a 20 kilometer chain -- holding hands.

Math Class Isn't Tough Any More

Forget what Teen Talk Barbie said. A new study from the University of Wisconsin found that "girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well." This is true even in high school and even in measures requiring complex problem solving, areas where gaps were found in older studies.

Conventional wisdom in the last few years has been that boys are more extreme than girls both ways -- found more often among geniuses but also more often among failing students. This study was not kind to that conception, either. While boys were more common at the 95th and 99th percentiles, the gap is narrowing, and in some other countries and among some US ethnic groups (such as Asian Americans), it doesn't exist at all. Where greater variability was found in boys, it "correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes." I bet Larry Summers feels like an ass now. (Well, probably not, but he maybe oughta.) via

Abstraction!

Yes, exactly. The whole complaint about objectification is, "I'm not being treated as a person, but as an abstraction, a source of sex, or arm candy to show off to friends, maybe even a Madonna on a pedestal, but not me as a real person."

Here's the irony that kills me: the theory of objectification does the exact same thing. Instead of individual realities -- "my boyfriend doesn't listen to me and just wants to do it" -- it makes a general rule about all of society, all men. Then you link it to oppression of women and rape, and of course men tune out. When a discussion starts from the claim that something all men do -- look at women lustfully, without necessarily cherishing them as individuals -- leads to rape, guys are going to conclude that the whole discussion is pointless BS, and they're pretty much right.

Here are some realities: some men stare at women in a creepy way, and pretty much every woman I know has been grossed out by this on more than one occasion. Sometimes, if you challenge a guy who is staring, he gets angry and aggressive. (There's something to the fact that predators stare at prey, but it can be overblown.) A lot of women have been raped and/or attacked, many more than is commonly acknowledged or discussed. And it's a fair guess that actual rapists can act creepy like this, and don't treat women as individuals.

It's not hard to see how that could get abstracted into a general theory of rape culture. But that's when it all goes wrong, because it's not everybody. From a general theory, you can develop all sorts of logical conclusions that are false, because they ignore other important realities. The reality there are very few rapists, and some of them don't act creepy at all. That rape is as much about violence as sex. That most men look at women (and at porn) without committing any sexual offenses or even being creepy. That women also look at men lustfully, without treating them as individuals, all the time. ("Oh my God, don't look now but that guy who just walked in is SO hot.")

I'm sure rapists objectify, but pretty much everyone objectifies, especially when they're school age. We date people for status (because they're cool, or popular), because they're hot, because we share their taste in bands or drugs or politics. Or because they're like our parents -- or different than our parents. It's only with maturity that anyone, man or woman, gets past that and treats their partners as individuals.

Funny!

My brilliant friend Tim Krause recommended this Onion News Network video.

Have a great weekend!

Definition

No, I'm not talking about the fine sculpted torso featured in Mark's earlier post but rather, the definition of objectification.

A quick online search yielded:

The act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing; a concrete representation of an abstract idea or principle.

The process by which abstract concepts are treated as if they were concrete things or physical objects. In this sense the term is a synonym for reification.

The process or manifestation of objectifying (something).

Treated as an object.

The positioning of Others as objects for the benefit of the Self. See Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic.

I am most intrigued by the first definition, that objectification occurs because a concept (such as "woman", "man", or "child") is just too complex to grasp without reducing it to concrete terms.

A cry for our ability to embrace complexity, may depth save our souls.

Upon Reflection...

I had drinks this evening with good friends. I shared my feelings of frustration at my inability to present more than a gut response to the question of whether objectification leads to abuse. Their responses:

Objectification may not lead to rape per se but it is symptomatic of a society in which rape occurs.

Pornography, or any act that compromises a woman's dignity, is wrong not only because it is disrespectful but because it perpetuates an image of inferior women.

Fine food for thought, many thanks to my friends!

Distraction!

Although I was too distracted by that photo to clearly read Mark's post the first few times around, I finally tore my femalegaze away from that fine naked torso to take in the content of his post.

Okay, I admit it: objectification happens to and by us all. I am not driven to attack anyone sexually because I've seen some attractive photographs. And given that, in our society, we are surrounded by pictures of attractive people on various media and most people do not rape other people, there may be no causal relationship between the two events.

Yet I find, even when I intellectually admit that Mark's similes may be true...

(See's Truffles are to Kittens w/cancer
as Objectification is to Rape)

...in my gut, I cling to the connection. I think it's because of how I feel when I see attractive or objectifying photos of women: conflicted. I admire these women for their great looks and their dedication to looking great, yet think less of them for spending so much time on their looks. I might like the clothing, but dislike that I can't afford these outfits; likewise with locations, fabulous places I'm unable to visit.

These photos bring out the worst in me, my insecurities, pettiness, envy. I don't like this mind trip that's been inflicted upon me (I never turn on the television but I can't hardly avoid the supermarket magazine racks). Daily, I am bombarded by images of "beautiful" women. I won't go as far as to say, "it's like rape", but there's a quality of violation. My day is altered by the insertion of celebrated, mass-distributed images that I wish I didn't have to see.

The other horrific part is that, if I give up the notion that objectification leads to abuse, then I'm left with the excuse, "it's human nature." That's too scary. I believe there are actions we can take to deter rape.

Objection!

Of course feminists want the abuse of women to stop. But people who don't call themselves feminists -- and feminists who don't buy the theory of objectification -- want the abuse to stop, too. Which has nothing to do with anything -- some of the worst sexist crimes are justified as ways to prevent women from being attacked (e.g. cultures that force women to stay in the home, not work or go to school).

Meanwhile, a hundred or more kittens have cancer in America today, as we speak. At some point, the fact that I haven't received See's chocolates in years (except for the dreaded nuts and chews) DOES make a difference. Right? Same logic.

Objectification theory is apparently based on the classic South Park dot-com business plan:

Step 1. Men look at women sexually without really knowing them as persons. (Women apparently never do this).
Step 2. Said looks reinforce patriarchy.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Rape!

Is there any evidence that even one part of that chain is true? Does that sound anything like the reality you experience in daily life?

Objectification ~ Eye Candy

Very funny, and well put, except I take issue with calling objectification a myth. And with the notion that feminists are in it for the money.

Feminists (women and men) are sick at the thought that 1 out of 3 of our mothers, daughters and sisters have been physically abused, and feminists want to figure out what's at the heart of this so we can make it stop. We don't want men to be abused, we don't want anyone to be abused. There are degrees of objectification, some of it is attractive photos of women, some of it is bruised women in bondage, some of it is sexualized little girls. And sexualized little boys.

At some point the images DO make a difference.

Box of truffles on the way.

Objectification, Leading to....?

Great post, honey. The woman in that picture you posted is totally hot!!! Oh wait....

I think you hit the nail on the head with this question: "if objectification of women ... is one of the direct or indirect causes for the disrespect towards women that results in behavior such as rape, slavery, or discrimination, then clearly it needs to be decried."

Exactly. That's the big if. And if everyone's failure to send me See's dark chocolate truffles causes cancer in kittens, then you all need to get off the stick, you selfish monsters! (Dark butter creams save kitties just as effectively, by the way.)

The objectification myth is very powerful and manipulative rhetoric. By tying something universal and inevitable -- looking with sexual interest -- to one of the most horrible crimes known to man, via a vague but sort-of plausible theory, feminist ideologues have created a cause that can't be debunked (or won). As long as humans like to look at (and be) attractive people, there will be media "objectification" for them to criticize, safe in the knowledge that nothing will ever change.

The only problem is that this discussion does nothing to reduce rape, and distracts everyone from the reality of gender in the world.

Objectification 2

(this is a "graduated" post of an earlier comment, with additional info)

Can men have the same privilege too, asks Mark? I have two responses.

One, men are not the only ones who publish or promote images which objectify women.

Two, although these statistics are a bit dated, I imagine they present a relevant picture of circumstances in the US (I'll look for ones more current):

An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999). This statistic is found among a host of others, compiled by UCSC's Rape Prevention Education program.

I agree with you that objectification occurs in all directions, and it is hypocritical to object only when it is directed at women.

However, if objectification of women (and yes, we need to discuss this term at greater length) is one of the direct or indirect causes for the disrespect towards women that results in behavior such as rape, slavery, or discrimination, then clearly it needs to be decried.

Objectification may affect or influence its varied audiences in different ways and have different repercussions for its diverse subjects.

Ultimately, my answer to your question is simply another question: can women can have the same privilege of being objectified without it leading to abuse, please?

Objectification

Regular readers know I find most feminist complaints of "objectification" kind of hypocritical, vague and just off-base. Especially concerning e.g. ads in magazines aimed at women. (I'm definitely not speaking for Olga here.)

Judith Warner's column in today's NYT is a great example of mental backflips justifying why it's nonetheless OK for her to ogle Obama without making her less intellectual, high-minded, etc.

Of course it's OK. We all desire, as well as think. No one's accusing her of starting down a slippery slope that leads to rape and battering. Why aren't men given the privilege of that same benefit of the doubt?

Slavery

I read Mark's post about the rape kit backlog and searched for information on the situation here in Oregon. I was only able to locate information for 2003. Apparently it's not as bad as the circumstances in CA; our state's backlog is 10 weeks according to this report. The next step is to contact my Congresspeople, as Mark suggests and let them know this is on my mind, that I am outraged. I suppose this will make a difference, assuming others will also write about their outrage. But I have a feeling it may not and this saddens me.

I search on, find other blogs that focus on human rights abuses around the world and am reminded that for me the very worst crime is sex slavery of children. I will never forget the night I read a story in the NY Times Magazine that opened my eyes ~ I had no idea this was happening in our world, I am naive and obviously protected. Needless to say, I didn't sleep that night, wondering what I could do to stop this depravity, wanting to run to the border to rescue children. The next day I went to work as usual, though I've never been the same.

Two posts on Diane Beeler's It Dawned on Me blog that caught my attention and expressed so many critical concerns:

It Dawned On Me

What Price for the Sale of a Child?

I cannot compare my life to the lives of these deeply wounded children, women and men who have been abused physically and mentally, tortured by their captors to the point where neither the victim's freedom nor their captor's incarceration can erase the scars and fear that lingers on in the victims. So many simply report that they are now "dead".

But I am also a slave of my own weakness. Not knowing if there's a way to truly help, I do little to fight any of this. I have a million reasons why other tasks take precedence ~ things that propel me forward in life, into happiness. Perhaps it is because this work plunges me into despair that I avoid it.

None of us are free until all of us are free.

Rape Kits

DNA testing of rape kits -- the physical evidence collected from victims' bodies -- can result in indentifying and convicting rapists even when police have no leads. The hard scientific evidence cuts through a lot of the horrific attacks on rape victims that defense lawyers often pull at trial.

And yet -- many police departments don't even process all of their rape kits, or wait so long that the statute of limitations expires. The National Institute of Justice estimates that 400,000 rape kits sit untested nationwide. Human Rights Watch reported that in Los Angeles, which has the nation's worst backlog, 12,669 untested rape kits are sitting in storage, nearly 10 years backlog. The arrest rate for reported rapes has dropped from 30% in 1999 to 25% in 2007.

I simply can't understand this. Police excuses are weak at best -- tight budgets, mumblings rape cases being complicated. Some bloggers are too quick to cry sexism over minor issues, but I don't know what else could explain this. (Ideas, anyone?)

After a rape victim testified about this issue before Congress in 2001, money was appropriated to help clear the backlog and beef up DNA labs. But rape is consistently de-prioritized compared to other crimes. The law was amended to let the money be used for any crime, and half the states have not even spent all of their money.

The weird thing is that, unlike most political issues, this has a simple solution: test the rape kits promptly. New York City eliminated its backlog of 16,000 rape kits in 3 years, and found over 2,000 "cold hits" -- matches to otherwise unsuspected criminals -- as a result. It also adopted policies to make sure that kits are processed within 60 days of collection. The arrest rate for reported cases of rape went up from 40% to 70%.

Thanks to HRW researcher Sarah Tofte and Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT for bringing this to light. Why hasn't it been picked up more? Why aren't politicians, right and left, tackling this obvious law-and-order problem with an easy fix?

If there was ever an issue worth contacting your Senator or Congressperson about, this is it. Insist they follow researcher Sarah Tofte's recommendations: 1) Require at least 30% of the DNA testing grants go to rape kits; 2) require states to report how many kits they processed, and how many are backlogged; and 3) allow states to pay private labs for DNA testing.

And press your local police department on whether they have a backlog, and why.

Have Mercy

Yes, oppression and cruelty are systematically wielded on other human beings throughout the world in ways that I and women I know have never experienced. I am grateful to not live under such horrific circumstances, and can not help but wonder how such violence thrives. Is inflicting pain truly just human nature? Not even animals are so mean.

And so, understanding that there are degrees of oppression, I turn to a much smaller, more subtle expression of male dominance, that is not only condoned but considered reassuring by many contemporary Americans.

Last night, I attended Easter Vigil Mass in a beautiful modern church, celebrating the baptisms, confirmations and 1st communions that took place at that service, reaffirming my own beliefs in the process. It was a notably diverse congregation, welcoming. The priest was filled with holy spirit, and the choir sang beautifully.

During the service, the priest had used the phrase "pass over" a couple of times, acknowledging the concurrent Jewish holiday indirectly. Then, the traditional 1st reading was replaced by a dramatization of a student questioning a rabbi. Perhaps it is noteworthy that the student was portrayed by a woman. Presumably the rabbi was in a talmudic Q&A kind of situation with his student. However, the questions the woman asked were incredibly banal, not worthy of any of the four sons of the Seder, along the lines of "Tell me how the world was created". Religious insensitivity aside, the rabbi went on at great length recounting stories of the Old Testament. These are good stories to know, but I was struck by the lengths of the Rabbi's speeches given by the rabbi, relative to the one-line questions posed by the young woman. Very simply, the presentation reinforced the notion that men have all the answers.

May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God's name, for our good and the good of all God's church.

Real Oppression of Women

One of my frustrations with the gender discussion in America is the way that (I think) some feminists trivialize these issues -- for example, by complaining about a vague "objectification" of women in advertisements (many aimed at women), or voluntary cultural traditions like beauty pageants (mostly watched by women).

Metafilterite tkchrist made an interesting point recently, that no one seems to mind the objectification that permeates our commodified society -- e.g. the waiter is a food-bringing object motivated by money, not someone we have a relationship with -- unless it involves sexuality. I would add that "objectification" concerns seem to be a luxury of the affluent and probably reflect upper-middle-class concepts of taste ("classy" meaning "don't display sexuality") more than anything about gender. A lot of women like to look and feel sexy, sometimes in a public way with people they don't have relationships with, and I find it weird to call that "wrong."

There is real, terrible oppression of women based in patriarchy going on, all over the world, which makes it ridiculous IMHO to consider the U.S. patriarchal and oppressive because Cosmopolitan magazine has ads with closeups of women's body parts.

The NYT had 3 examples just today:
-- women in the Israeli cabinet were literally erased from photos published in two ultra-orthodox newspapers
-- cell-phone video emerged in Pakistan of a 17-year old girl in a burkha being publicly flogged while two men held her down and a crowd of men watched. A gay man was also flogged.
-- Afghanistan passed a law that apparently OKs waiving protections for women so that Shiites (10% of the population) can ban women from refusing sex to their husbands, or from leaving their house or seeking work, education, or medical treatment without their husband's permission.

NPR had a story about Spain under the Franco regime last century, where women who opposed traditional family structures or were politically active were defined as "morally degenerate" and unfit mothers. 12,000 children were taken from these mothers and sent to orphanages or given to right-wing families.

There are a lot of reasons why feminism has been, unfortunately, discredited as a worthwhile ideology in the United States. Undoubtedly, one of them is getting upset about women's voluntary choices (politically correct or not) and calling it "patriarchal oppression" when real horrors are going on.

All about the kids

3 goods topics there, Olga -- cleaning, women vs. girls and "what is success?" I'm gonna save the first two for later.

I myself work on the "mommy track" despite being a daddy. In other words, I stay with a lower-paying job that gives me flexible hours -- being able to take my daughters to school and pick them up at 2:15pm on the days I have custody (2-3 days per week), and work late the rest of the week. (The flexibility also gives me room to do standup comedy, write and blog in my spare time.)

In other words, this is about choices more than gender oppression. My ex-wife does not work "mommy hours" and earns more than I do. As a computer guy, I could definitely make more at a different job -- say, Intel, which employs 15,000 people locally -- but I wouldn't see my girls until 7pm or later on the days I have them, and they go to bed at 8. It's just not worth it.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm a success. Maybe one reason for the statistic that "women earn 67 cents for every dollar men earn" is that women tend to define success more broadly than "who earns the most money." Maybe the guys who make more and don't see much of their kids are the ones who are losing.

Sorting it out

I return to the original intention of this blog, a chronicled discussion. Our relationship has raised questions about behavior and expectations, and we notice that some of the answers reside in our gender identities.

Why fold underwear?
Why sort clothing before washing?
Why do young girls not care about dirty socks in the middle of the living room until they're older?

It may be that some of the same mechanisms that are in play when considering these questions ~ culture, upbringing, and gender ~ are also foundations for the more difficult questions about violence and discrimination.

Changing the subject.

Success. Is it just coincidence or has the definition of success changed with the rise of feminism? Success used to mean having a powerful high-paying job of great responsibility, or being married to someone who did. Then women decided we wanted the action for ourselves. No longer was college simply the path to attaining our M.R.S.; we put off child-rearing until our careers were established. We learned how to swim with the sharks, run with the bulls, and land house-husbands. When we discovered the glass ceiling, the shit hit the fan.

However, something has happened in recent years; fewer people pursue management positions, preferring jobs that may pay less but also require less responsibility. Granted, with unemployment rising all around us, few will have the luxury of turning down stressful jobs that come available. But, all things being equal, job-seekers are opting for situations that allow them to spend more time doing things that enrich their lives (not just their wallets) such as spending time with their families or pursuing hobbies.

And changing the subject again, tangentially.

There's a name for jobs with hours that parallel the time that children are in school: "mother's hours". The workday starts at 8:30am and ends at 2:30pm. These jobs have been notoriously low-paying (with poor, if any, benefits attached) because employers knew that mothers needed to be with young children once the children weren't in school. I wonder if the economics have changed as more men opt for these kinds of jobs?

Authority

What gives me (or anyone) the right to write on gender? I recently bought "The Gender Knot" by Allan Johnson at the recommendation of a Metafilter contributor (or "Mefite"). I couldn't stand it actually (review to follow) but the discussion that followed was interesting. A different feminist Mefite dismissed me (and others) because we haven't read the "hundreds of relevant books or articles available in libraries and online."

Are there qualifications to even join this discourse? Do you need academic credentials, two X-chromosomes, or familiarity with the history of feminist discourse?

Let's look at Allan Johnson, whose book is apparently very popular. Academic credentials? He "lectures at Hartford College for Women," doesn't list a degree, and his book isn't based on social science (either his own studies, or others'). In any case, Metafilter the blogosphere is all about intelligent people trading ideas in good faith without the need for formal qualifications. I have some credentials myself -- even did some quantitative social science research back in the day -- and Olga has more, but people who brandish them always look like asses, I think.

Is it his personal experience, then? Fine by me. I think we are all qualified to share our experiences, if we stay specific and personal and admit the limits of our knowledge. But, aside from listing his personal psychotherapy as a credential, Johnson avoids sharing his personal story (in the part I read anyway) and fires off ringing, absolute generalizations about American society as a whole.

No, he bases his work on ideology and the opinions of writers who are not social scientists either, just strongly opinionated and often colorful polemicists (Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French, etc.) And like that one Mefite, he dismisses anyone who has not read all of his favorite writers on the subject.

Yes, there are hundreds of books like that, both conservative and feminist. And it's true that I have not read the vast majority of them. I doubt that Johnson or the dismissive Mefite have read many of the conservative ones; I'm not that interested in either kind of polemic. I am open to any original, well-written book based on either personal experience or social science though, and would love to hear more recommendations.

Olga found the perfect word for the writer's only qualification: authority. That was how she described this quote in which Ursula Le Guin, who I'm increasingly amazed by, discusses the lectures she is sometimes invited to give.

"I try to limit myself to topics on which, without claiming expertise or wisdom, an effort to think honestly and feelingly might do some good..."

THAT I think, is the authority (and the only authority) that anyone who writes on gender needs.

Reality Check

Oh yikes. Thanks for that link, Mark. Reading it reminded me that we're talking about higher stakes issues such as rape and lack of reproductive rights.

How do we, as a society, let those things happen? How do we, as individuals participate, even if indirectly in the kinds of behaviors that add up to condoning these things? What is biological about these events? What have we evolved beyond?

G'night...

Patriarchy and Weight

Are you saying this patriarchy makes my butt look big?

The more I think about it, I'm convinced that unspoken assumptions are the main problem in discussing gender issues. The term "patriarchy" irks me because I feel it has so many built in assumptions. And not for everybody, I know -- that's part of the problem. Joe thinks it includes assumptions 1, 3 and 5-9; Susie includes 3-7 and 10. No wonder it's hard to communicate.

Your last post (which was great by the way) really clarified this for me. You wrote: "is there one united force that's to blame for all the inequities? Or are there many sources, influences and factors, which when combined create one overall event: the oppression of women (and the underestimation of men)."

Or take it even further: maybe there's not even one overall event? Maybe U.S. society has a very complex mix of advantages and disadvantages for men and women, which is different for given individuals and greatly affected by the cross-winds of class, ethnicity, geography and urbanization, as well as social trends and economic realities.

It soothes our brains to reduce huge messy complexities to simple ideologies, on both the left and right ("oppression of women", "traditional family values"), but I think these labels are slogans that don't describe reality well.

Is there really one "event" or status for women in the U.S. today that accurately encompasses Mormon fundamentalists, Manhattanites, Nazarenes in Alabama, movie stars in Hollywood and Cubans in Miami?

After all of our progress, after suffrage, women's liberation, changes in sexual harassment laws and now female majority law schools, if after all of that we lump America in with societies where women can't drive or go to school, doesn't that discourage reform and tell us change is hopeless?

The discussion is about the boys too.

I totally agree with your point. Heck, I are one! I raise it because it's a pretty well known phenomenon (boys taking over the discussion) and I've seen it happen myself. Somehow it reminds me of that old quip -- "I've talked about me long enough. Why don't YOU talk about me for a while?" -- except in reverse. Here's a pretty good and clearly stated summary of the issue, at least on the web.

The Weight of Patriarchy

Aside from "a patriarchal system of society or government," Patriarchy, according to the Oxford dictionary, means "rule by the eldest male of a family of a family; a family, tribe, or community so organized." Not only sexism but ageism too!

The word "patriarchy" is not entirely worthless ~ it means a great deal to a lot of people. It's a loaded word, and I appreciate your list of connotations often conjured up by the word, but find them a bit extreme. I don't think of patriarchy in such sinister, conspiratorial terms.

I believe we should figure out how to discuss "patriarchy" in a way that doesn't completely dismiss its value (as a word or as a concept), that opens up rather than shuts down the conversation.

The question for me is, is there one united force that's to blame for all the inequities? Or are there many sources, influences and factors, which when combined create one overall event: the oppression of women (and the underestimation of men).

Can "patriarchy" simply be a word that describes these events as one phenomenon, owing to the perception that the people who "benefit" most from its existence are male?

And in any case, is patriarchy (or whatever word we use to describe the whole phenomenon of oppression & underestimation) simply powerful because it is the status quo? Not because there's a male mafia in control, but because we've grown accustomed to it, because we somehow nurture its existence?

I can already see , we also need to define oppression. What are these gender-based events we're talking about? What are the inequities exactly? Men holding the door open for women? Women taking men's surnames when they get married? Girls not doing well in math once they reach high school? Porn?

Patriarchy

To me, the term "patriarchy" is worthless. I'm not saying there are no ways in which society is structured to harm women; just that this word is so loaded with different meanings and associations that it ruins any discussion it touches.

"Patriarchy" conjures up images of a Mafia council of old men who decide how society is run, for the benefit of guys.


In a recent Metafilter discussion, it was used variously to refer to laws against women owning property, Afghanistan under the Taliban, the U.S. in 1953, the U.S. today, and Saudi Arabia. In fact, every society in the history of earh is said to be, and have been, patriarchal. (According to Wikipedia, the notion of an earlier, matriarchal stage has been discredited.)

So, is the U.S. or Britain a patriarchy today? There's no way to sensibly answer that question. A word that means everything means nothing.

As much as anyone using it might deny this, there is something about the term that has built-in assumptions:
1) that men organize society, deliberately;
2) that they run it for their own benefit and to the detriment of women;
3) that women gain no benefits from the way society is run today, and have no control over it;
4) there is no valid basis for any of the differences in the social reality of men and women;
5) there has been no significant progress in gender relations, ever. After all, we're still patriarchal, right?

In case you can't tell, I think that's a ridiculous portrait of reality.

Hang on a second...

You mention how some guys take feminist arguments and end up "making the conversation about them". I understand what you're saying, and agree that often the focus of the conversation shifts to how men are treated unfairly by society, etc.

But even if they don't quite understand or are able to articulate how, the discussion is also about them.

He says....

This is exciting! I'm fascinated with discussions of gender but find so many of them get bogged down in predictable arguments. Some feminists complain about patriarchy, often in academic, abstract terms. Some guys get defensive ("I didn't do nuthin.") or make the discussion about themselves. People personalize the discussion, immediately generalize their experience to all of society, and feel hurt or find it unfair. Etc. etc.

So here's a chance to try something that dodges these traps. We hope folks join in the spirit of fresh, reality-based insight (not dogma and defensiveness). Otherwise I'll happily delete your comments, if I can figure out how to do so.

Some starting points (biases) that I start with:

1) I think ideology often ruins these discussions, both on the feminist left and "traditional family values" right. If we're going to get anywhere, we have to accept how people act as a starting point, not what we think people SHOULD do.

2) Everybody has a horse in this race. (I guess that's same thing Olga said.) All of us perceive these realities from within our self-perceived gender. We tend to underestimate how different the other gender(s) see things, and overvalue our commonality with people who identify the same way. So humility and respect for the experience of others is a crucial attitude.

3) I'm pretty suspicious of academic work in this field, which (as a very broad generalization) I find starts with ideology and looks for facts to support it. Plus, much of it just doesn't make much sense. If you have to coin 10 terms in a 10 page paper, you are probably mystifying rather than elucidating. But I'd love to be corrected. Please email me pointers to good work.

Probably more later, I have to run. Mark

Meta One

I am already challenged by the nature of this discourse about gender, and not just because it's a heady topic. I am challenged by the demands of a conversation in which I have to be articulate, well-structured and logical. I don’t know whether my challenge is brought about by my lack of training in this arena (I was not on the debate team), the fact that I work in the arts and therefore operate a bit more often with the consensus of collaboration, or if it is a function of my feminine/intuitive brain. Few of my conversations are required to be so linear. Whatever the reason may be, and I suspect it may be a combination of these and perhaps more of which I am unaware, I will say that whenever I’ve been called upon to have this type of discussion, with argument and refutation, dialectic and synthesis, facts and figures that lead to a solid conclusion, it is with men. Ooops, sorry, but it's true; I find conversations with women are more open to interpretation, and can be successful even if many conclusions are reached. I don't have to defend my points as much. Perhaps if I were in a different field, say a lawyer...

Olga...

Chapter one

March 14, 2009

This blog started with a series of conversations between Mark & me, after Mark participated in some discussions on Metafilter, on the subject of gender politics.

We've been talking for a few days and finally decided to write down some of our thoughts and exchanges. At the very least it's a terrific conversation, and even though I may feel challenged to state points clearly, it's a challenge I'm enjoying. This is not a fight, I'm not interested in 'winning' and Mark assures me he's not either. We're interested in developing our own ideas (and yes, doing homework) on gender and its influences ~ politics, history, society, economics, genetics...

It began with the notion that there is a patriarchy at work in contemporary US society. Or is there?

Although I believe this, and can point to signs such as the inequities in labor practices, double standards, and biased child rearing, Mark & I are searching to understand what the word means. This has to be defined in order to understand our basis for discussion, as well as theories about where it comes from, what keeps it in place, and who benefits and who is hurt by its existence. How is patriarchy different in our society (and in our different cultures within contemporary US society) than in other places in the world, other times of history?

If patriarchy does exist, then both men and women are harmed by it, and/or any system that diminishes either’s capacity to be fully human. A young woman recently said to me, “I was offering him sex with no strings attached, isn’t that what men want?” With that question it was clear that she underestimated men's capacity to have and want meaningful sexual relationships. She may be empowering her own sexual nature, but I wonder, when it’s time for her to enter into a relationship that is both sexual and meaningful, will she be able to trust that her partner wants more than just sex from her? In which case, she has also undervalued herself as well as her partner.

Other thoughts to keep in mind ~

Our discourse is gender-informed. I can no more run away from the fact that I’m a woman, than Mark can from the fact that he’s a man. Our opinions will be inherently biased by not only our cultural views but by hormonal tendencies. More needs to be asked about which gender differences are genetic.

To further complicate things, gender is a spectrum. I am not 100% woman, Mark is not 100% man. Not sure anyone is. All of this is generalization.

Patriarchy is perceived as a form of oppression. The study of oppression is ongoing, has transformed, influenced and been influenced by popular culture. Ideally this work should not stop until oppression has ceased. It is possible that in the future we may no longer consider patriarchy to be oppressive, or it may be transformed to a point where it serves rather than oppresses. Not unlike democracy, it is only a system, a work in progress. There's a reason it has stuck around for centuries and in so many lands, and it can't just be that it only benefits men. Women are not that weak.

Some questions ~

Objectification ~ why do women like to look at beauty pageants? Is it because we have internalized the ‘male gaze’ (the male pov is the more valued) and embrace what is most important to men in order to succeed, survive, be attractive? Or is it because women like looking at women and fashion, health, talent, and intelligence?

What about male bodybuilders? Who watches them and why?

Why do women notice clothes on the floor and men do not? What are the studies that indicate that women and men have different sensorial capacities, i.e., women have better eyesight and hearing.

Intelligences ~ are men’s intelligences (logic, distance, strength) more highly valued than women’s (intuition, social, emotional)? What are gender-identified intelligences ~ I imagine I'm mythologizing these. Are there realms in which the different intelligences are more useful and therefore more valued? Public vs. private, for example: in the board room vs. in the living room? How does the discrepency in valuation support the status quo?

These are random thoughts to be pursued.

Hi Honey...!