I used to fight feminism with all my arsenal. I used to refuse it entrance into my brain, not because of some underlying misogynistic theses in my world view or anything, but because I knew it would depress me to think frankly on the subject.
When my liberal education (I started taking college classes with nigh radical professors) tore down the barricades, my prophecy came true. Knowing that Society (and I mean the vox populi, not the boys and girls of liberalism and progressivism) writes me off as incapable of cognizance, as deserving of less pay, as somehow more inadequate than the other forty percent of the planet does depress me.
So, I want to know why. Why does this "we can't have a woman for president, because once a month, she might push the Red Button" bullshit still hold? Why does my anatomical difference immediately relegate me into the category of a "weaker species," when I am more cerebral than most men I know and probably more willing to put up a fight? Moreover, why are all my intellectual endeavors treated as some kind of joke or, worse still, as if I become something less than a girl, less than human, even?
A girl in my Abnormal Psychology class asked the other day what the feminists are still fighting for when there are "bigger fish to fry." I'm not signed up with NOW or anything, but personally, I'm fighting against the fact that there are less than twenty female US senators, that there is only one woman in the Supreme Court, that Condoleeza Rice-cum-Madeline Albright have obtained the highest positions women have ever held, and even those are four assassinations away from a presidency. I'm fighting against the resurrected notion that something that I say has less meaning than my male counterpart, simply because I'm a girl. I'm fighting against another resurrected notion - that women are best at housework and "pink collar jobs."
I'm fighting against this president's diligent efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, because I don't think that a panel of octogenarian men should determine what I can and cannot do with my body. Because they'll never be pregnant. They'll never have to raise a child. They can say, "Thanks for the good time, doll. Here's a hundred bucks. Buy the kid a stroller."
I'm fighting against a certain Russian actor, who says that submission to a woman's desires makes him less of a man. Grow up, punk. We don't live in the seventeenth century anymore. I'm fighting against the same actor's wife, who, influenced by his Tom Cruise-like propaganda, proclaims that she doesn't want to be ambitious, because that will make her "lost" to her husband and child. As if my entire life is defined by my husband and child (neither of which I have, being barely of voting age).
Fuck it, I'm even fighting against discrimination in the illegal sector. Why do the Ochoas, Pablo Escobar get all the recognition, when a woman surnamed Trujillo became the first successful cocaine dealer of the '70s? Does Bonnie only get attention because she was involved with Clyde? And why don't we ever hear about Mother Mandelbaum? She was more proficient at extortion than the Westies, for crying out loud (granted, we never really hear about the Westies, either. And that's a shame. For those of you interested, read the book by TJ English)!
To quote a bumper sticker, feminism is the radical notion that a woman is a human being. When you ignore sixty percent of the world's population, don't be surprised if a Lysistrata scenario ensues. It's not entirely impossible that after thousands of years of disfranchisement, abuse, and ridicule, as perpetrated by almost every institution and almost every man - from the IMF to Pat Robertson - the "weaker sex" might have something to respond with.
We are women, after all. Here us roar.
Women have gained a lot in the last century: a lot of respect, a lot of appreciation, a lot of recognition of their own achievements. But it's not enough! I am sure in the future there will be no more differences, but at the moment, we still have to fight for some of our rights. This discrimination founds itself in the mentalities of billion of people. We have to change these mentalities.
Allow me to unravel the flaws in your argument:
1.) I can't believe you bought the canard that women receive less pay because they are women. Women receive less pay because they work less than men. The average American woman works 1600 hours a year, while the average American man works about 2100 hours a year.
2.) I was amazed to learn that there is a worldwide female-male ration of 60%/40%. That is probably because your claim is empirically false.
3.) I have no idea what your academic endeavors are, so therefore cannot comment as to why they are ridiculed. Perhaps it is because you are a psychology major. The psych department has never been the stomping ground of the big brains on campus. Maybe you should try a science.
4.) You made an appeal to "octogenarian men" with regard to abortion. I do not imagine that you have objection to octogenarian men finding a right to abortion in the constitution. I am curious to know how you are fighting to maintain Roe v. Wade (which was largely gutted by Casey). Surely you are doing more than impotently posting on the internet.
5.) I don't know why you object to the fact that there are only twenty women senators. They are all popularly elected, so that would be a pretty big conspiract, especially since (according to you), 60% of the voting public is female.
6.) Despite your previous post extolling the virtues of proper grammar, your paragraph regarding the Russian actor and his wife is incoherent. All I can say is that as a married man, my wife and child define my life. I only hope you are lucky enough to experience that one day.
7.) Your paragraph about sexism in the illegal drug trade is so asinine that I am unable to comment on it.
8.) Please, please learn what it means to be disenfranchised. It means that you cannot vote. Yes, for thousands of years, women did not have the franchise. However, neither did men.
9.) Again, you insist that women are 60% of the world's population. This is empirically false. The worldwide male-female ratio is 106 men to every 100 women. In other words, the world is 51.45% male, 48.55% female.
Allow me to refute:
9.) I don't know where you get your statistics, but there are more women than men on this planet. The ratio is not sixty-forty. I know that. I wasn't quoting gender-specific datum, and this is evident from the informal format of my post.
8.) Look up the definition of "disfranchisement" in a dictionary. You will notice that there are two definitions for the word. One of them concerns voting. The other one does not.
7.) What is so asinine about my statement regarding sexism in the drug trade? Women, historically, do get less recognition. Perhaps if you read more about the subject instead of automatically saddling your mule because you disagree with me you'd be more qualified to argue this point.
6.) Provided that you are literate, you would recognize that there is nothing incoherent about that paragraph. Please learn to step outside of the three-word sentence structure. As for your family, I am so pleased for you that nothing but two people defines who you are. It's a fitting, limited definition.
5.) I said there were less than twenty female Senators. If we're going to get into constituency technicality, let me point out to you that female candidates are seldom accepted as serious contenders. If you recall the Iowa Caucuses of 2004, most of the questions were directed to the white, male Democrats involved. Carol Mosley Braun was given two, possibly three queries in the entire debate. If you call that equality, then you must surely suffer some form of delusion.
4.) If you had actually read the Constitution, I would be presented with a worthier opponent in this discussion. Having read it, you would know that nothing in the Constitution guarantees a right to an abortion. The right is only implied by the Ninth Amendment, which is often ignored by our judiciary. As for my related activities, please lay your worries to rest. I'm doing what I can.
3.) Seeing that you are a man, you would not be familiar with the roles women are expected to play in this society. This has nothing to do with my major (economics, by the way). I interact with men on a daily basis and I am more attuned to the dynamics of these interactions than you may be.
2.) I believe I've already covered this.
1.) And women, my son, work less than men (though this statistic, of course, doesn't include their work in the informal sectors) because of the so-called "second shift." Perhaps you can transgress your chauvinism to look into it. It's a sociological phenomenon that entails women doing housework beyond the proverbial 9-5. Cooking, cleaning, and laundering men's feces-stained undergarments often interferes with women's ability to work more. Plus, there's the irregularly-escapable burden of child-bearing, which can result in more career limitations.
I encourage you to take a sociology course before you fall off that adorable, iron-fisted pedestal of yours.
you go girl!