Friday, 15 April 2011
-
Suffragette City
Let's put connotations aside for a second. According to Merriam-Webster's definition of a nerd, we come to: "an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits."
Well, perhaps.
But, in this denotative case, I will rally against this bastion of American lexicography to proffer an unstylish, unattractive, and socially inept thesis: more women should be nerds.
I am an investor in the principles of feminism or womanism or equality or whatever you want to call it. That is to say, I believe in the apparently still radical belief that women should hold equal stature in our eyes. We can reasonably believe that women can succeed in politics, academics, art, and finances - to name a few things - on the same level as men. The sky's the limit, minus the TV ratings between the NBA and WNBA. (Bottom line: fewer lay-ups, more 360 tomahawk jams.)
But, with all this theoretical mumbo-jumbo, I don't really see a whole lot of equality in action. I don't see women asking guys out. I see women expecting to be picked up in the guy's car. I don't see women jumping to pay for their own drinks. (In some cases, my ultimately undying apathy can commiserate. If there's anything I love, it's free drinks.) Perhaps most disturbingly, I see some quasi-intellectual attempts to rationale an excuse for utter subservient behavior. (Evolution is a scientific theory, not a social death sentence.) Are we as a society giving up so lowly to sink to Vichy womanhood? (Oh, I went there.) I certainly hear more stories of women giving up their jobs to move in with a guy who has little to no career in mind than the other way around. WTF, mate?
It is unflappably difficult to be a woman in the modern world. Feminism is being shucked and devoured by its own proponents for its failure to de-radicalize its image. Marketing is everything, after all. Then, on the outside, traditionalists wantonly wail against the notion that men don't need to necessarily run the world - that equality might really exist. Rock and a hard place? I think so.
So, I say, ladies, for the sake of us all, take up the burdens of the world and be a damn nerd.
It is surely unstylish to bark confidence like a .50 cal, but it's what we need right now. It is certainly unattractive to the baseline of American sexual politics to get what you want when you want it on your terms. It is socially inept to ask for numbers and stand above the bullshit games. For all those workers, mothers, and artists, small personal changes over a wide population can really make a difference.
But the fact of the matter is that I just don't find those old-fashioned gals up to par any more. In a post-punk, post-postmodern, post-post world, I want more and I want a woman who wants more. I don't want to date someone who isn't going to push themselves to be the most creative, most intelligent, wisest person they can be - and that sort of fury and passion requires a world without glass ceilings. If this garners slander or the rigors of flippant ignorance-mongering, then I guess I'm asking for Supergirl. But what the hell kind of world do we live in if we can't read the comics and want to believe something in them is true?
To live the life of our theories - to build lives together on these intellectual foundations - is to touch on the joys of having intelligence in the first place. In Cyrano de Bergerac, Rostand throws out a gem to us all through the titular character: "But one does not fight because there is hope of winning! No! ... no! ... it is much finer to fight when it is no use!" At the very least, we have the benefit of some use, which is just a little ole thing like advancing the species.
There is only the consolation of a score of failures ahead for any woman willing to believe that she can follow her own pursuits, and equally a measure of failures for men looking for the same. It's a Sisyphean feat to say the least. But, I think, that sort of struggle is what makes any measure of being a human in love worth it.
After all these years of so-called sexual revolution, do you take feminism/womanism/equality to heart in your relationships? Do you buck the trend?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: lonestardust
- Name: lonestardust
- Location: Austin, Texas, United States
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 11 Views: 0 24072 Comments: 0 264 View all posts by lonestardust
Comments (18)
I ...what? This is confusing.
Women should be nerds. Feminism = good. Women don't ...'live up to' that equality they ask for, so to speak? Feminism = bad name. Women, go be nerds. Not societal norm, but do it anyway. You want a woman who lives up to your idea of a feminist? Maybe? Follow your heart and you'll fail, but that's all right because we all fail, basically.
^ That's what I got from this.
I think the idea behind equality is that women should not have to fit a certain mold; they are free to be whoever and however they want to be. Whether that lives up to your idea of an 'empowered woman' or not is up to the observer, I guess, but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Some are comfortable taking the lead in typically 'male' endeavors, others aren't. That doesn't mean they regard the freedom of choice as to how they live their lives, which is what liberation is all about, as any less important.
"It is unflappably difficult to be a woman in the modern world."
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Maybe outside the western world.... Maybe.
But in the U.S.? No friggin' way. This is so laughable that my sides hurt just thinking about it. It's so hard having dates paid for! It's so hard having people open doors for you! It's so hard getting a vag-pass for EVERYTHING!
Seriously, say that to all the men in coal mines and out fighting wars to protect all us lucky individuals who DON'T have to see peoples heads being blown off. Men do all the dirty work in this country, and on top of that misandry still runs amok because some feminists keep focusing on all the Hitlers of society and none of the Ghandi's of society.
I can certainly concede that females have their issues in the U.S... But it's really friggin' frustrating to act like women are still being 'oppressed' (as if they were ever oppressed to begin with; women and children first ring a bell?) when they are quite possibly the most privileged group of people in the history of the world.
@Blind_Paraplegic@xanga - There's a new WSJ article out that actually says women make 8% more money, on average, than men.
What I find offensive is that just because I choose to be a woman that expects a man to be "the man" in relationships, i.e. picking me up for dates, playing the more dominant role, etc. does not mean I'm trying to set back feminism. Why is it so wrong to want to be a woman? I like the traditional woman, I want to be the girl, the one who needs to be protected and cared for. I'm sorry I'm not conforming to the trend of women acting like men and breaking gender roles. Doesn't mean I hate these people, it's just not for me. Ultimately men and women will never be truly equal, there are difference within us. But the point should be that we can choose to do and be whoever we want. Sure it might show "power" to ask a guy out or whatever, but I don't want that, I don't want to be the assertive one in my relationships and that does not make me a weak person. Honestly I don't want a timid man, who can't ask me out or make decisions, and that's what I prefer. I stay true to what I believe, if I want this sort of gender role in relationships then I am true to that. I'm not that bitch that wants my man to pay for everything but then emasculates him by whipping him in the relationship. I let my man be the man, end of story. That doesn't mean I'm being "oppressed" or that I'm some "submissive". I just believe there needs to be a dynamic in a relationship and this is the one I choose.
Never even considered this.
@starcrossedloversdivine@xanga - Yup. Heard about that one.
Here's the one that everyone should read regarding the supposed 'pay gap': http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
Phenomenal post, thank you for writing this! Most people are for equality in theory, but when it comes to practice -- to women paying their own way, being financially and socially independent; to men doing their fair share of domestic work, understanding that 'no' means 'no'; to both women and men getting over their socialized, restrictive gender roles -- substantially less progress is made.
For those who REALLY want to know what feminism is and what it stands for, here's a series of FAQs that serve as a great intro to feminism:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/
@Blind_Paraplegic@xanga - The CONSAD study, which claims that the 'pay gap' between men and women doesn't exist, has been criticized for masking, rather than measuring sexism here :http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2010/11/26/how-the-consad-report-on-the-wage-gap-masks-sexism-instead-of-measuring-it/and is disproved by MANY other studies, such as:"Wood, Corcoran & Courant (1993), Journal of Labor Economics; Dey & Hill (April 2007), American Association of University Women Educational Foundation; “Women’s Earnings” (Oct 2003), United States General Accounting Office; Blau & Kahn (June 2006), Industrial and Labor Relations Review; Mandel & Semyonov (Dec 2005), American Sociological Review; Boraas & Rodgers (March 2003), Monthly Labor Review; Johnson & Solon (Dec 1986), American Economic Review; Mulligan & Rubinstein (August 2008), Quarterly Journal of Economics; Fields & Wolft (Oct 1995), Industrial and Labor Review."
The gender pay gap is real, and the CONSAD study far from disproves it.
Here's why a lot of people have an issue with modern feminism--They appear to want the good privileges but not the bad that comes with true equality.
The fact of the matter is that there ARE inherently different choices made by men and women in the workplace. Men tend to work in riskier jobs. I know you've heard the statistics about the differences in death rates between men and women on the job--it's around 90% men. Same with in the military. Men make up over 90% of the deaths in the military as well. Why aren't feminists trying to get women into the more undesirable lines of work that only men do if they are truly after equality? Or are they just trying to get the good things?
Additionally, why are feminists not speaking up about things like differences in requirements for men and women to do the exact same job for the exact same pay? Fitness requirements for the military are not the same for men and women, for instance. Men have to sign up for selective service; women do not. Men are sent to the front lines to fight and die while women stay in primarily non-combat roles. I can point out a lot more inequality where women are actually the privileged class.
I really want true equality. I want equal opportunity for everyone--but if someone can't cut it, don't lower the requirements for them because they are a certain race or gender. Don't give reduced sentences for things like murder based on gender.
Personally I wish they'd scrap the title "feminism" and replace it with "human rights advocate" and try to really address the bigger issues worldwide.
@rabbitsarecool14@xanga - Exactly. Rights and equality should be about choices and consequences. If you choose to live your life as a more traditional woman and live with a traditional man, that should be your choice. No one should look down on you for choosing to be a homemaker or whatever you end up doing--this is your life.
I'll openly admit to saying that I have a strong tendency not to trust people who say that they're playing traditional gender roles on their own decision. This is in part because it's much easier to say that without really understanding what it means twenty or thirty years down the line. (Again - I'm very biased on this, and it's not to say - in an objective sense - that people really don't choose these things willingly. From my own subjective perspective, though, it's usually been more of a fraudulent statement than not.) We, as a society, get sold the notion that women should stay at home and raise children. We get sold that men are the heroes and women make up a supporting cast who will probably become a liability at some point. This seeps into our way of thinking very early and takes some serious time and effort to break out of.
@Blind_Paraplegic@xanga - Female coal miners have a lower rate of injury incidence than male coal miners. (Not by volume - by rate.) So, maybe we should crack down on the gendered criticism of women in particularly tough jobs, because they might actually be safer to have in the workplace. (You also don't see women in these jobs precisely because of gender inequality. I don't personally know if you've spent any time in a rural community, but women aren't exactly accepted with open arms in traditionally male careers.) Oh, and I can't argue with the question about women in the infantry, because they don't even have the right to serve their country in that capacity. Although maybe I could ask some of those women about how they feel about the obvious protection of male soldiers in cases of sexual abuse and rape.
The reason they get things paid for and get security privileges isn't a positive thing for either gender, and shouldn't be treated as a benefit. (Unless, maybe, you have no dignity or self-respect... Then, go for it.) All of these so-called benefits are nods to the well-ingrained notion that women are the weaker sex. Because women can't bench-press as much as men and need to be protected for their baby-making bits, we should offer them a plush comfortable lifestyle. However, if you've ever read anything out of the 19th century written by a woman, these domestic scenes are cages. It isn't equality, it isn't freedom - it's either falling into a particular role or being out-casted and attacked. (Hell, I thought everyone had to read The Scarlet Letter in high school - or at least some Austen, for as intolerable as the writing is.) That sort of domestic cage is still very, very much alive - both for women and men.
What you may or may not notice is that I didn't use a comparative when I said it was difficult to be a woman. It's difficult to be a man - it's difficult to be a woman. I believe that when we fix the problems of one, we actually will move closer to fixing the problems of the other. However, given that patriarchy's been the modus operandi of Western society since the dawn of civilization, I'd say women have a little more catching up to do in terms of freedoms and equality deficiencies.
@unresolvedobscurities@xanga - Thanks!
@Cardinal626@xanga - I do hear the military argument quite a bit. I wish Congress would move the Selective Service requirements closer towards how the Israelis do it - but, then again, we're just now on the road to allowing homosexuals openly serve. (Apparently, the Canucks also allow women to volunteer for the infantry, which would be an obvious first step for us to take up.) All in all, watching the advertising the military puts out actually sums it up pretty well - men and women working side by side in a time of crisis, but the women are helping out back at base, assisting male infantry and taking orders from male officers. We really gotta work on that.
@Grtt@xanga - ya, what this commentor said!
this website is very good, you can go and see it
http://www.shoes4world.com/
Men and women are both oppressed, but in different ways. However, it is sometimes difficult to see the other gender's point of view because we aren't living it. It's an interesting problem, and one we will not be able to work on until we put aside the silly debate of which gender is worse off. America is far from equality for everyone.
@unresolvedobscurities@xanga - Interesting blog you linked there. Certainly some reasonable objections brought up in there, but the writer concluded certain things without giving the reader any links to his studies or anything like that. What I'd like to see is some studies that take into account as much as CONSAD did, or even more, that shows a great deal of evidence that women are discriminated against.
Also, if you could link to some of those studies. I'll check them out regardless, but it would make it easier for me.
One more thing... There's plenty of dissent in the comments section of that blog link you gave... Hopefully you and whoever else goes to that link takes the other points of view into account.
@love_and_blackberries@xanga - You get it. Definitely agree with you.
@lonestardust - "You also don't see women in these jobs precisely because of gender inequality."
Definitely interested in seeing any citation you could give for that.
"The reason they get things paid for and get security privileges isn't a positive thing for either gender"
I can agree with that to an extent.
"I believe that when we fix the problems of one, we actually will move closer to fixing the problems of the other."
I get what you're saying... I really do. I just think it's based on a wrong view of reality. For example, the assumption that women are always the victims in domestive violence HAS NOT helped out both genders. The reason why we help out primarily women is because feminists believe that if it wasn't structured this way, then we'd be discriminating against women with regards to domestic violence, and they'd ultimately be ignored as victims. The problem isn't based on any evidence whatsoever. And because of stuff like VAWA, we've only further perpetuated women as 'weak victims' and men as 'neanderthal abusers'. It once again, hurts BOTH men and women because we keep mindlessly believing that we need to do everything for women so that we can 'even things out'. To give you a good idea of what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIE
"However, given that patriarchy's been the modus operandi of Western society since the dawn of civilization"
See.. We can have a reasonable discussion regarding this stuff.. But I find it really hard to believe that people actually think a patriarchy exists in the west. All I can do is introduce people to the term 'kyriarchy'. If you can agree that men have a fair share of rather harsh problems; if you can agree that feminism has a much stronger voice than that of men as a collective... Then you should be able to reasonably agree that we're living moreso in a kyriarchy than we are a patriarchy. Women have strength in this country. Strength that isn't just being handed to them by chivalry, but also by feminism. It's why we don't bat an eye when women hit men in movies and TV, but our hearts sinks when we see a female abused on screen.
@rabbitsarecool14@xanga - Agreed.
Here's the thing: equality=sameness. Just because my value and my rights are and should be equal to that of a man does not mean that my thoughts, feelings, tendencies and behaviors should be the same as his. I want to be equal to a man, but that doesn't mean I want to BE one.
@Blind_Paraplegic@xanga - 1) Google it. First page alone has a decent enough amount of information. Legal and social problems (1970s, Virginia) and more social problems (contemporary, West Virginia) on the first page - plus whatever you want to take from this book (pub. 2006, Appalachian-area - go figure) reviewed there too. Not exactly pulling from the highest of high in terms of academic sources, but it seems like an obvious issue.
2) I actually agree to the point of saying that the way domestic abuse is handled is just flat wrong. My job's to write websites for lawyers, and we use non-gendered language when we write about domestic violence - which is the same way the law should treat the situation. That whole Duluth Model mess is an example of a well-intentioned idea very quickly going to hell. However - that being said - I still don't think an ecological model fails... at all. In the case of domestic violence - and, frankly, most innovative programs made to fix gender (or racial, for that matter...) inequality - nothing's being fixed. The programs are just reversing the tables - which, actually, makes trouble for everyone. In affirmative action programs and domestic violence situations, women lose their dignity. (And men get to lose a whole host of things pragmatic and criminal.) ... I mean, I'm a little shocked that there was any contention from saying "if you fix one problem, you'll make headway on fixing another." I thought that was common sense enough.
3) Apples and grad-school oranges. Kyriarchy's probably the better term. I admit to say - I'm using "patriarchy" in the same sense as when I call America a "democracy" without any explanation about the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. I mean, men still own a majority share in politics, business leadership, military affairs, academics, science, sports, literature, religion, cultural norms, and we even still follow naming conventions that have women take a man's name - to some of the biggest points. There are important areas where women gain the upper hand - such as our embarrassing attitude towards basic paternal rights - but these are not the things at the top of the American power structure. (This is getting really Canterbury Tales-ish real quickly... Funny how we can go over six centuries of reading "Love wol not be constrained by maistrie," and still manage to ignore the advice.)
Thank you for writing this. I am a total nerd, by all definitions. Actually, I had this discussion with a couple of people not too long ago, about how a lot of ladies either shy away from the nerdom, or don't get too close, or are only nerdy enough to show up at conventions wearing revealing anime costumes. That's not a nerd. A nerd is obsessed with subjects that polite society likes to call "boring". A nerd pushes their brain like an athlete pushes their body.