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