The first thing to admit is that I don't really know what feminism is. Mostly because I was too busy doing a sensible subject at GCSE (yay for Classics!) instead of History. So all I know is it is basically about women chaining themselves to things and running out in front of horses. Somehow, from all of this madness, we women got the vote, which is a good thing. I would be very cross if I wasn't allowed to vote. So that is part of what I understand by feminism. The other part is women taking control of their own lives and doing things without men. Possibly burning bras, though that does seem a bit strange.
I'm all for empowering women by giving them the vote and the chance to live lives separate from men but I wouldn't call myself a feminist. In fact, I don't like (modern) feminists very much.
I don't have an ism for what I think (perhaps you do?) but I definitely am one. I believe in EQUALITY. So I don't mean giving women lots of power, as I see the modern feminists doing. We are equal now, guys. We have the vote, we have all the same rights as men; what more do you want? There is no place for the feminist in the modern world*. In fact, I often think we ought to be doing a bit more to help the men now. Feminism has just gone too far and now men keep getting discriminated against. But does anyone care? Nope! We would care if women were being discriminated against, sure. But men are just men, they have loads of rights, they can look after themselves, right? WRONG!
Take the phrase 'business dress', for example. For men, this means suit and tie. Simple. But women can get away with anything and still call it 'business dress'! Floofy tops, ridiculous shoes, a whole jeweler's shop around their necks... This makes me cross. When I wear business dress, I wear trousers, a jacket and a shirt. Like a man, but without a tie. It is perhaps hypocritical [but is there anything wrong with that?] of me to say we should wear the same as men but not wear a tie myself, but I think women wearing ties tend to look less formal, so I don't do it. Anyway, this is just one way in which women have it easier than men. I know how it evolved, as we filtered into the business sphere there were never any clear rules on what we should wear, unlike for men. But if I were a man, I would be saying, 'if you want to come and work in our cutthroat business world, you're gonna have to dress like a cutthroat business person!'.
The other thing that drives me nuts is women who expect the same rights as men in certain situations but still to be treated like princesses. For example! Someone, let's call her Lettie, wants to work in engineering because she enjoys the subject. Fair enough, I say, go for it, Lettie! But don't turn around and expect your boyfriend to pay for all your dinners out. The tradition of the man paying for dinner originated because men earned more than women. If you earn the same (or worse, if Lettie was earning more, it would be horrifically unjust!) you should split the bill equally. You can't play the weaker sex card just when it suits you!
Also, the same goes for holding doors open for women. I hold doors open for people. But that's PEOPLE. I never even thought, until it was pointed out to me, that it was traditionally men that did it for women. I thought it was just politeness and that we really ought to be polite to everyone.
So, in conclusion, we should treat women and men equally. You may thing that this is the end of the story but, oh no! I have another (some would argue contradictory, but I'll try and be clear) point to make.
Nope, we shouldn't be discriminating against women OR men. But there is one thing we can discriminate on: ability.** Which means, in reality, I do discriminate against women in a way for certain things.
If you're a builder you need strong muscles to be lugging things around all day. You need to be able to withstand the elements, be it sun, wind or rain. You also need to have an infinite capacity for cups of tea. Anyway. Men, as a general rule, have stronger muscles than women which means that men, as a general rule, are more qualified to be builders than women. [There is uproar from the feminists in the background.] Hold your handbags, ladies, let me explain. Individuals are individual and should be assessed as such. I, a girl, am stronger than Wan, a boy. In this case, I am more qualified to be a builder than Wan. I am not saying that no women can be builders, simply that more men are suited to be builders than women, which results in more men being builders than women. (Echoes of Plato's PS here!)
This is why it is a ridiculous notion that we should be aiming to have 50% of our MPs as women. (I think I heard some rumblings of this a while ago.) In doing this, we ARE discriminating, but against men. Women are getting a cushier ride because they don't have to be as good as the men, because they are guaranteed half the places anyway. It also means that we are going to end up with a bunch of rubbish MPs, which is bad for the country in the long run. Going back to the builder example, we wouldn't want to be giving half of our building jobs to women for 'equality', it would be terrible! What difference does changing the profession to politicians make?***
However much we bewail that it isn't fair, the fact remains that men and women are not equal. (Earlier, I said I believe in equality. I think the previous view and this one are compatible, it's just that I haven't quite got the right words sorted out yet. They're all just strong feelings in my head.) Therefore they shouldn't be treated as such! Eleanor has a quote that sums this up neatly: "there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people". (I have no idea where it comes from, so I'll just accredit it to her, eh?) Eleanor is right.
I would actually take this argument further than is possibly conventional by saying that we should discriminate against women in the world of careers. (Oh yeah, feminists! I said it! Bring it on!) Yes, we should, because women are way more likely to run off and have babies than men. It's not their fault, it is just a biological fact that for a while women can't work while they're having babies but men still can. If you're an employer, you don't want to employ a woman and then suddenly have her run away off to maternity land. You have to pay her salary and find someone else to fill in for her. You can't make a woman sign a contract saying that she won't do this. (I don't think.) So what are you going to do? Employ a man, it makes sense!
No, not all women are going to run off and have babies. But lots of them will. Loads! It's biologically programmed into women to spend time with their babies.**** It is quite unfortunate for women who have no intention of having babies, I will admit. But they are very much in the minority. Sorry, ladies, I know life isn't fair. But, as far as I can see, this is as fair as I can make it.
---------------------------------------
* This wonderfully sweeping generalisation does actually need a modifier or two. It should really read: 'There is mostly no place for a feminist in the modern world,' but that doesn't sound nearly so persuasive. What I mean by that is sometimes women are still discriminated against for no other reason than that they are women. That's bad. I'm also only talking about the UK, as it's the only sphere I have experience of. I know there is lots of mistreatment of women in other countries but I don't know enough about it (especially as we have to think about culture and relativism) to pass any judgements.
** I think this is just about the only thing we can discriminate against, though this thought is relatively new and so hasn't been tested against very many real situations. I can't currently think of anything else that we can discriminate against but I might think of something later.
*** I reject the notion that women and men are equally capable of being politicians. I've been to debates, I know that men are generally better at speaking than women. Men are also funnier than women; comediennes are largely terrible. I don't know what it is, though. Charisma, perhaps? I understand that I might sound very much like a chauvinist pig right now but I'm just trying to be objective. It's what I've observed. It is my fond hope that I am one day just as good as a good man at public speaking and telling jokes. Is it sad that I think I have to be a man to do this? Not really, because I'm not trying to be a man, just be as good as a good one. To balance the terribleness of this argument, of course there are loads of things that women are better at than men. I think it's more difficult for a man to be a carer, for example.
**** This note is so that I can explain the evolutionary biology behind this statement without detracting from the philosophy, because it's about the only thing that I know about biological anthropology and it makes me happy to think about it. So! A women has a bigger vested interest in any child from the beginning, so she has a tendency to look after it more, to pass on her genes. (Yes, this is Dawkins, R. 'The Selfish Gene' [2006 edition]) Eggs are a lot bigger than sperm so the woman has already spent more energy in the child than the man, right from conception. Then the woman has to carry it, which means that she puts even more energy into the child. So she wants to look after it as best she can because if the child dies, it is a lot of wasted energy for her and comparatively little for the man. The man doesn't care as much, he can start again much more easily than the woman. This is why women are generally more maternal than men. It's not completely certain how it works with us today, though I think this kind of thing probably affects us more than we realise.
No comments:
Post a Comment