Theory Nerds!

[Mary]

Howdy all,

Well, as most of you know, I study political theory, which tends to be far more abstract and philosophical than very specific policy discussions and partisan politics. On the off chance that anyone is particularly interested (ohhhhh Holzman, where aaaare you?) I thought I'd try starting up a board for theory geeks This means we DON'T talk about Kerry v. Bush, specific details of Iraq policy, or No Child Left Behind.... instead, we sit around discussing sweeping issues like whether freedom and equality are consistent, whether individual freedom is necessarily the highest political good, whether socialism could ever be viable, whether we live in a post-feminist age, etc etc.... just some random suggestions....

But, for anyone interested, I'll take the latter first. Some commentatorss have suggested that feminism is done with and over because it *already* got everything it wanted - that women have achieved equal rights (this, of course, refers to Western democracies - if you take a global view it's obvious that women don't have even formal equality in numerous countries) and that we are now on a level playing field with men. If that's the case, then, women who still identify as feminists are either confused, whiners, or trying to secure special protections above and beyond men.

What do people think? Do we live in a post-feminist age?

....I won't be offended if no one ever replies to board....

Cheers,
M

[Kensterberg]

I strongly disagree with those who argue that men and women are now equal. Not when sex crimes (which are crimes of power, not sex) are rampant in this country ... not when women are required to take their clothes off in order to have succesful careers in film or music ... not when women STILL make only seventy five cents to every dollar that their male counterparts bring in ... not when men still make up the majority of admissions to post-graduate schools and earn the most post-graduate degrees (I'm real sure about the other points, I'm not sure about the exact ratios on this last one).

It's also significant (IMO) that the people who tend to be the most vocal regarding this "post-feminism" movement are the ones who are most likely to benefit from a return to "traditional" values -- i.e. white males with some economic power. As I always tell my students, be very suspicious of anyone who benefits from keeping you down tells you that you're not being kept down any more. Does that make any sense?

Great idea for a board, BTW. I've stayed away from the CE board, even here, just because I'm sick of the arguing over details. But I'm happy to have a more broad based discussion here. So thanks!

[Dr. Drum]

Strikes me that some of the points that we hear advanced in support of the idea that feminism is 'done' are similiar to the arguments that used to be advanced as to why the labour movement is obsolete. For example:

the movement's constituency has largely disappeared because workers/women have gone beyond all that and aren't interested anymore,

most/many of the movement's aims are now part of public policy or legislation, i.e. collective bargaining rights, labour standards, safety regulations, voting rights, maternity benefits, equal pay for work of equal value, anti-stalker laws, (in this country) unimpeded access to abortion etc. etc.

[chrisfan]

I know that I'm going to fail to clearly state my opinion on this one, but I'll try anyways. Do I believe that men and women are equal? No. But I do believe that in some ways, women have achieved the equality they were seeking, and are now looking to go beyond that. I see it in changes in the workplace that are illustrated in everything from flex time to baby showers that cut into the work day. Are these things good or bad? Well they're good for the individual people, but is it the role of an employer to contribute to a person's well being? I don't know, but I tend to say no. Also, while I agree with Ken that sex crimes demonstrate that we have not achieved equality, I do think that in many ways, as the abortion debate plays in to this discussion, women have gone beyond equality by declaring that the men who father children don't have an equal say in that child's exsistence. If the woman doesn't want it but the man does, it's aborted. If the woman wants it but the man doesn't, the man is paying child support for 18 years.

So I guess I'd say that the answer to this question, IMO, is neither yes nor no. In some aspects, women are still fighting for equality. In others, I think they've gone beyond equality, and I don't really like it.

[Meursault]

K Mary what do you want to know about Political Science? I'm here..

[chrisfan]

I will also throw out that while I agree with you Ken on several of the areas you've thrown out I disagree with some ... primarily the notion that women have to take their clothes off to have successful careers in film and music. Sure, they get more attention when they do. But do they do it, are they pushed to do it, by men trying to keep them down or take advantage of them, or do they do it because of themelves? Honestly, I've seen too many examples (admittedly many in pop culture rather than any sort of scientific evaluation) where women naturally go to the sex sells angle, because it's easy. Obviously, that does not apply to all women. I'd have a hard time picturing Madeline Albright or Condaleeza Rice saying "let me take my top off, THEN those Senators will listen to me!" But when you're looking at people like Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, or the women on The Apprentice, I don't think they're forced to play the sex card. I think they CHOOSE to use that card, because they know it works, and they know it's far easier to do that than to work harder on a level playing field.

[RocDoc]

In a legislated, equal-rights/pay-down-the-line sense the sexes obviously haven't gotten to equality yet...tho they're inching far closer than they've ever been.

But the social/biological aspects are always going to impact on 'true' equality and for the fact of the existence of THAT, things can only hope to be approximate due to the division of, let's say 'Biological Abilities' and/or 'Biological Givens'....

Attractions of various sorts always have a dynamic and the male-female attraction colors EVERYTHING in most societies, especially in modern societies...'power' among various sub-groupings will be distributed among male or female lines, OFTEN going along with the most superficial determiners of who's attractive' and who's not...impossible to overcome.

[chrisfan]

Another thought to throw out on the equal pay issue ... ARe women at all to blame for the inequality in pay? Typically, women are more likely to leave work to raise children. They're also more likely to take days off for sick kids, take maternity leave, want flex time and part time status to accomodate families. So are women not being paid as much because of a system of inequality, or are women not being paid as much because as a gender, we haven't made the commitment to the workpalce that men have?

[Kensterberg]

Chrisfan -- this is a really good question, and one that perplexes professional social scientists as well. I think that the problem is this: women are still the ones who are encouraged by society to take time off, which in turn limits their earnings potential. If men and women truly had equality of opportunity, then both men and women would have the same options regarding family time. But we're not economically equal -- not even close. Men are still expected to put work first, while women are expected to put their families first. Why? Well b/c this is still our social norm, our societal expectation. Despite all the lip service we've paid to equal rights in the last few decades, fundementally we expect Ward to bring home the bacon and for June to be there for Wally and the Beave.

No, I don't expect that we can waive a magic wand and erase the subtle societal pressures which create gender inequality. However, I do think that we can (and generally do) agree that gender inequality should be minimized, and it's obvious to me that there's still a long way to go in achieving this.

And congrats M, I think your theory geek board is getting off to a decent start ... now what's your take on this issue?

[Mary]

Hi folks,

Wow, it's a pleasant surprise to see this board actually taking off! What I'm kind of hoping is that by sticking to fairly abstract issues, we can avoid some of the partisan bickering that springs up when we get into specific candidates and policy suggestions and such. But we'll see

As for my own thoughts, well, I think most people on the boards know I identify as a feminist, so I'm pretty intellectually hostile to the idea that we live in a post-feminist age. In fact I think it's a very effective ideological smokescreen that prevents many of us from seeing the many ways in which we inhabit a society that is still structurally biased against women.

But it's been interesting to read chrisfan's respnses, insofar as I think they point up the fact that our difference of opinion isn't even so much about the place of women in society, as about the meaning of free choice and equality. Reading Chrisfan's post about how women who take their clothes off to improve their careers do so not because they are "forced" to but because they "choose" to becaue it's easier just makes me want to respond - well, why is it easier? Because we live in a society that, through its norms and history and array of mass-media images, produces girls as subjects who are trained to think of themselves as sexual objects. So yes, they ultimately have a choice insofar as no one holds a gun to their head and demands that they strip, but I think you have to see that "choice" in a broader social context.

Of course, this is where Chrisfan and I depart on nearly every issue, it really is a fundamental left/right distinction, I think. Chrisfan says that "personal responsibility" is her ultimate dictum, the foundation of her politics. So it follows logically that she would hold women accountable for taking off their clothes to advance their careers. I don't think people always have total freedom to make these kinds of choices - I think the sort of society we inhabit very much affects who we are and what kind of choices we can fathom making. The fact that people aren't coerced at gunpoint to make certain decision, for me, does not mean that they are perfectly "free" to decide whatever they want.

As for the issue of equal pay for equal work and all of that....I agree entirely with you, Ken, and for very similar reasons to the ones I mentioned regarding women taking thier clothes off to advance their careers. It's not just that women are "less committed" than men to the workplace because they just happen to prefer staying at home with their kids - it's because the society we live in relentlessly instills in us the idea that raising kids and tending to the home is primarily a woman's job. Anyway, the problem is so much deeper than this and has to do with the way in which we devalue domestic labor and refuse to even think of it as true labor, or work, at all. I don't really think we'll live in a postfeminist society until the day arrives when people (of either gender) who stay home to raise children are no longer thought of as "not working"....

But shit, this post is becoming endless, so I'll save the rest of this for later!

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

I agree with both of you, Ken and Mary, in that the whole issue is kind of a chicken or the egg sort of thing. And perhaps, by saying this, I'm answering the question by saying "no, we have not reached a post-feminist age". I guess I would argue that the women who are willing to give in to those expectations -- the woman who takes her eigth sick day in 2 months to attend to a sick child (or to go to the school field trip), and the Janet Jacksons of the world (or the women of the apprentice) who are willing to take the easy way out and use sex to sell what they want to sell -- are in a way selling out the feminist movement by settling for cosmetic changes, without demanding real change. Truth is, I think that women are willing to sell themselves (women as a whole) out way too often. They're not willing to come together solidly enough to REALLY make a change. This can be seen in something as simple as adultery ... a man gets cheated on by his wife, he's pissed at his wife. A woman gets cheated on by her husband, she's pissed at the little tramp who slept with her husband.

I was told by a college professor one time that I could not say I was NOT a feminist because I was in college,and that alone said that I was for the advancement of women. If that is the case (and I can see his point) then I guess I'd say I'm one of the frustrated feminists who doesn't think that women are doing a good enough job of figuring out what equality REALLY means to know what we're fighting for. You want equality in the work place? No problem ... but you can't have equality as a mom at the same time. You know, the more I type this, the more I realize that I'm against having that equality. So what does that make me? I'm a woman, in the work place, who wants the freedom to advance ... but I don't want equality. I'm one screwed up feminist-don't-wannabe or something like that.

[chrisfan]

Apologies for my "dear diary"-like free flowing post. Just ignore me.

[chrisfan]

Okay, I will admit that I'm not very good at discussions like this, because I'm more of a "do something" kind of person then I "think about it" kind of person. That being said, the more I think about it, the more I think that it does us, as a society, no good to strive for true equality. If you have true equality, what do you have? Men and women both in the work place? Men and women both at home? Men and women both getting to do what the WANT to do?

At what point does "this is what makes me happy" not come into play? I think that we have a responsbility to do what is right for our society ... not just what makes us happy. A great deal of feminism, once you get beyong the basic let us vote/let us speak/let us work/don't beat us into cooperation, is about choice. But in having those choices, without giving men those same choices, where are we? If those choices just happen to fall into place for our responsibilities to all be covered, then we're fine. But what happens when they don't? If the way for a woman to have true equality in the workplace is to neglect her responsibilities at home, and a man has to do the same to maintain his place in the workplace, are we any better off? I'd say no ... especially in the longterm.

Now I'll give in to Prof Frank Henderson ... I'm not against feminisim. But at the same time, I don't think I can say I'm totally FOR it. To be totally for it, I think I'd have to be putting the needs of women ahead of those of men, or society on a whole. But we all work on a delicate balance, and I don't think you can advance the needs of women too far without damanging that balance.

[Ampage]

I don't necessarily buy into the theory that women "have" to take their clothes off to become successful in the movie or music industry. Not because anyone forces them anyways. I mean, Britney "has" to because she really isn't a singer. And certain B and C list actresses "have" to because they aren't the greatest thespians. But I think the ones who do not far out way the ones that do. And I think that some do it for their own reasons. I mean, Madonna wasn't stupid. Julianne Moore had no reason to go bottomless in "Short Cuts", it's a personal choice I guess. And speaking personally, I still think females are the stronger mentally (and thats not a put down, just guys are bigger, etc.), smarter, more sensible, caring, generous, tolerant to pain, etc. then men.

[Mary]

See, for me, the question isn't about happiness, but about justice. I believe that women should receive maternity leave because otherwise the workplace is unjustly biased against them, not because it makes them happy. Obviously the concept of "justice" is itself amorphous and highly debatable (next subject!) but all i'm saying here is that I'm trying to articulate a fair allocation of rights and resources between the sexes, which may well be totally misguided or may begin from a faulty conception of fairness, but I'm really not just trying to make people happy.

Really, perhaps the central issue for me in a feminist critique of society is the way in which domestic labor is not considered to be true work, coupled with the fact that the domestic sphere is still gendered feminine. This has ramifications all over the place, and if I tried to spell them all out, it would hopefully reveal the ways in which gender, race, and class all intersect in producing contemporary american ideology. But in any case, just one example will suffice: the very terms of the debate over welfare for single mothers - on both sides of the debate, left and right - issue from this unspoken ideological assumption that domestic labor is not real labor. Thus we assume from the beginning that single mothers on welfare are receiving a "handout", that they "refuse" to "work", that they are "lazy" - and the question simply becomes whether, in spite of all this, they shouldn't still receive some kind of help to keep them afloat, to prevent their children from starving. But even the american left here never challenges the notion that welfare mothers don't work. It's easy to construct single mothers as lazy, as just "popping them out" for the sake of a welfare check, if we refuse to see domestic labor as real work. On the other hand if we view childrearing as a kind of work, that radically transforms the entire conceptual apparatus of the debate over welfare for single mothers. Is it just a handout, or is it actually a kind of wage for the difficult and time-consuming work of child-rearing?

It's important to remember that, globally, the brunt of poverty still falls on womens' shoulders. We assume it's "fair" or "natural" or "inevitable" that, for example, divorces are almost always more financially shattering for women than for men because, yet again, we say, well hey, the guy is the one who actually made money, he's the one who actually worked. Again this comes from our refusal to see domestic labor as real work, equally deserving of compensation. This blindness is so embedded in our culture and our society, it's not something we consciously think about, it just feels natural, the way things have to be.

Sorry if this post is totally all over the place.... it's had to organize my thoughts on this into something relatively concise!!!

Cheers,
M