A friend of mine sent me a funny chain letter about the word "bitch." In response I was trying to track down one of my favorite feminist quotes. I never did find it, but in the process of looking for it I came across this:
Pat Robertson - 1992
"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
It made me wonder why it is that feminism is so threatening to some. And I speak of feminism, not feminazism which I find somewhat distasteful myself, and somewhat counterproductive to the cause of equality. I wonder if it is fear which precipitates this type of thought? Can he truly believe this? In a rational, practical, realistic way?
I often joke that my philosophy of life is: why choose when you can have both. I joke...but I mean it at the same time. I love my career; I am challenged by it, and excited by it, and frightened by it. And when I engage with my colleagues, I attempt to do so as genderless individuals. I say I attempt because, ethically or not, I am not above using sex to my advantage. And before hackles are raised, I am not referring to sleeping my way to the top - you have to draw the line somewhere, but rather sex more generally. I consider it a tool...bros before hos is still regularly used in any occupational field, and I think that sex is a valuable and legitimate tool to be used in an attempt to break into that circle.
But I digress. My point is that, though my career is important to me, it does not diminish my desire to be a wife, and a mother. I value my femininity, my prowess in the kitchen, my nurturing side, chivalry in general. I certainly want to have a family, I have no desire to kill my children and I am not a lesbian. I recognize, and often celebrate the inherent differences between men and women.
But I don't to be told I can't do something because I am a woman. And I want my actions to be evaluated in a way that is not colored by the fact that I am a woman. I want to live and work in a world that rewards on the basis of merit, pure and simple. And I abhor the notion that people like Pat Robertson interpret that as being evil or unsatisfactory or as undesirable, somehow.
Why must we place limits on the capacity of people to live and thrive? Why must we force people into socially approved and defined boxes? Why must we force people to choose? Why do we interfere in the lives of people who are not interfering in our own lives? Why are we so arrogant as to impose our own moral judgments on others? Why is our focus on judging others rather than enabling them? Why are we not more concerned with bettering ourselves - living as good global citizens?
Damn you, Pat Robertson, for judging me. While it's true that I do not officially ascribe to any one of the major organized religions, I can tell you one thing for certain - No God of mine is that arrogant or that exclusive, or that vindictive.
9 comments:
Culinary prowess. Nice.
I know. It frustrates me, especially since men don't seem to even think about it, or value it. But at the same time, so what? Yes, there are differences, and life for everyone is difficult, as they perceive it. Men are insecure and threatened by empowered women. I mean, aside from sperm providers, they aren't really necessary? (Oh yeah, and jar-openers and schleppers.) Well, I don't buy that, but the people who oversimplify people to their genders are small-minded and unintelligent in a certain way.
Why? Life isn't fair and often painful. So what?
yes!!! go lindz... if issues topical to tom were a nail-head, this post'd be the hammer!
i've been in several major discussions about this recently, and i usually get wolfed - largely due to my lack of knowledge, but i don't think any feminist would inform any female the way i've been didacticated at - which leads me to my big problem with it: because it is a movement based on selective identity it is intrinsically chauvenistic.
i understand that it is seen as the great equalizer; social penitence for historical oppression; and a ripening of what it still has yet to achieve (pay/power based on merit etc.) but there's no systemic change: i fail to understand why it has to be called Feminism, wouldn't all parts empowerment be acquired through tenets of Humanism? then i can not only be empathetic but also identify, and if i can identify i will be able to better myself directly, not just through support of someone else. does not founding something on identification almost grant the other, perceiving threat and bio-sociologically ignorant, the mistaken recourse to slander and overgeneralization in turn?
this is obviously an overcooked and polemicized reply, as i do believe in the rights and reasons of a feminist movement (and not just because i think lesbian witches as being pretty much the sexiest image i could ever conjure) but this argumentation's become deeply personal for me recently, and the form it's taken was that of superimposition on and encroachment of my beliefs. if i am to be left out of a progressive stance because of my inadvertant manliness (questionable), then how does it benefit me to support it?
great post lindz, you lesbian.
ps. however, if i think of feminism as a methodology rather as a goal, i cool my heels some.
pps. i also recognize that feminism is a subsect of humanism... but it's not readily apparent.
I do however really like and appreciate your personal approach to the subject. Measured and sophisticated both. GO LINDZ GO!
i also DO understand the rallying flag of a social cause. it makes perfect sense: stand up and be counted... but in terms of approaching status quo and the established, near-ossified 'powers-that-be', it'll invoke reactionaries like that Putz Robertson.
The first prowess of yours i remember was at this time of year, 1998, was when you suggested baked pumpkin seeds. i watched, transfixed, as you sortedt hrough the guts of that eviscerated pumpkin and through them in our atomic rez oven.. that was some tasty dish. i believe i shat coarse-fibered pulp the next day.
Wow...lots of food for thought.
2 things immediately:
1) I do agree that Humanism would be preferable but also, perhaps, more idealistic. Perhaps one day.
2) It bothers me that, Tom, you indicate that you don't believe that any feminist would inform any female the way you've been didacticated at. I don't believe that the movement needs to be intrinsically chauvanistic. You will have daughters one day, and a wife. And won't it be your business to see that they are not constrained by societal limitations?? Isn't it in your interest to see that they are judged on the basis of merit, rather than on the basis of gender.
Isn't that what feminism should be about? And doesn't that require dialogue between the sexes and contribution from both sides?
oh lindz, i do want them to be judged by their merit, as i ask to be judged in turn...
The consequence of course has been that merit has been thrown out with the bathwater and minorities (? for women...ok, the "oppressed")force continued recognition of their status as oppressed instead of their meritousness (ie. affirmative action, etc). When merit is proposed as a reason for inequality in the workforce you might as well have started burning chicks on pyres in the town square (ie. when Larry Summers implied that the global population of women is, in general, shitty at math and science...which is so obviously true). So, if you advocate merit-based societal standards, you must also accept that there are gender differences that have been programmed for over a billion years that can't be reversed by social engineering. (PS, in case of misinterpretation: I certainly recognize that dudes are shitty at many things also, as is apparent in so many of your postings, but if you want to solve some ordinary differential equations...).
Jordan,
Sure...I'm not going to take issue with the notion that there are inherent gender differences and consequently things that each sex excels at. In fact, I believe I alluded to that in the original post. And as for "oppression" when it comes to women in society today, I balk at the label. I think that the woman's movement has come far enough that to continue to insist on the label is actually counter-productive. I think it delegitimizes valid complaints that do exist. To a very great extent the door is open so stop whining and run with it. I certainly haven't complained about any apparent glass ceilings in my profession, but rather have attempted to develop strategies (regardless of how effective or successful they are) to maximize my ability to succeed.
To be clear, I am speaking only of the plight of women (that was supposed to be tongue in cheek). I cannot speak for minority groups, though I suspect that the applicability of my comments may vary depending on specific group and geographic location.
My concern is that both genders are given a fair crack at bat. That, in my opinion, involves a lot of things, not the least of which is equal opportunity at education. And even more so, that a judge of merit is not prejudiced by simply accepting that "gender differences have been programmed for over a billion years" in the same way they would accept that the sky is blue. After all, even you, as a scientist, would accept that mutations are not only possible but inevitable. Therefore, controlling for all other variables (i.e. education) an evolutionary aberration such as a brilliant female mathematician or scientist is not merely possible, but inevitable regardless of any attempts at social engineering.
And as for the dudes being shitty at things as represented in my posts, I certainly wouldn't say that it's all dudes in general - just the ones in my life. And for that I take just as much blame as I heap on them. After all, I am neither mute nor am I necessarily passive in my life. I hold out hope that one day I will find one as flawless as yourself (also tongue in cheek).
Yeah, I especially like how he puts lesbianism up there with killing children. Classy guy. I take it he's not into girl-on-girl.
Post a Comment