Feminism Is Stupid
Come Together? Yes, We Can. – washingtonpost.com
Women are bound to disagree. Feminism itself remains one of the most dynamic movements — the most debated, fought over, fought for, blamed and reclaimed — of the past 40 years, in part because so much is at stake.
Last week the Washington Post published a (kind of dumb) editorial by Charlotte Allen wherein she goes on at length about all the ways women are stupid. Oh, my! The outrage! Over a thousand angry comments were quckly posted. Within days at least two answering editorials had been published (here and here) and Allen appeared live online at the Post’s web site to (not very successfully) defend herself.
Maybe you’re already starting to feel a little outrage of your own over my claim that feminism is stupid — and I really do think it is — but just hold your horses for a bit. I’ll get to that. First I want to briefly explain why Charlotte Allen’s essay was dumb.
When she’s not simply providing useless anecdotes to back up her argument (that women are “dumb”), Allen cites studies showing that men have a fairly small statistical advantage over women in terms of their ability to imagine three-dimensional objects. Also, men get in fewer (but more severe) car accidents than women. That’s all very interesting, but Allen neglects to mention that — statistically — the differences between individuals of any sex are greater than the differences between the sexes.
Put simply, when it comes to overall ability, the kind of person you are as a complete individual is a lot more significant than what your sex is.
Taking all that into account, it is entirely true that women have been denied equal access to the opportunities to which their essentially equal abilities ought to have entitled them. So why is feminism not a good thing?
Well, I’ll tell you. Because that’s why I’m here.
Feminism is stupid as a tactic for obtaining equal opportunity because it’s divisive.
Bear with me. This isn’t the argument you might be thinking it is.
The problem isn’t women’s rights. The problem is human rights. By focusing our energy on our own group (women), we unnecessarily confuse and complicate the problem. We create opportunities for people like Charlotte Allen to distract attention from the essentially universal problem of creating equal opportunity for ALL people — regardless of their sex, their race, their religion, their whatever — and make it easier for people to dismiss us.
This is not to say that feminism and movements dedicated to equal rights for particular groups haven’t been effective. Of course, they have. The problem is that they haven’t done much for groups who lack the numbers necessary to force people to listen to them. Gay people in this country are still waiting for the basic right to marry, for Pete’s sake.
Fragmentation into “women’s rights”, “black people’s rights”, “disabled people’s rights”, and so on, has really slowed down the attainment of universally recognized rights for ALL people.
And that’s why I think feminism is stupid.
I am feminist.
Firstly, are you not dismissing feminists out of hand, claiming they’re not seeing the big picture?
“their sex, their race, their religion, their whatever — and make it easier for people to dismiss us”
Gender roles are inherently divisive. They deny men their emotions and sensitivity and they deny women the power to be themselves, without stigma, in the social arena.
I want everyone to be able to walk down the street and not be singled out and yelled at because someone wants to make a display of societally sanctioned dominance over them. I want my sibling to have the right to participate in whatever arbitrary social institution like marriage she likes, should she so choose. The example you gave, homosexuality, particularly emphasizes the trouble with restrictive gender roles; the heart of feminism.
Keeping to the particulars of this topic, are not gender roles the most divisive and controlling social institution?
It’s not right to mush everything together. I think we can afford ourselves the differentiation between the struggles of for example, an African American man and a Chinese girl. Their experiences are going to be different. The manner in which they relate to the world and their identity in it are different and chances are, the ways they need to heal/grown from the internal and external pressures their environments have placed on them are also going to have to be different.
How is your argument different than something like, “Native American rights movement is stupid because we should all be fighting for universal rights.”?
One size doesn’t fit all for making the world a better place.
It is possible, rather, I believe it necessary to break apart systemic problems into small bite sized pieces and still maintain a larger vision of the problem.
Excuse me for bringing out the adage about the elephant, but it can only be eaten one bite at a time.
Kirby.
Why shouldn’t we ALL work on improving ALL peoples lives instead of focusing on just one certain group, OR certain problem.
The problems of the Black American, and the Chinese Girl are solved when we get to the point where EVERY group, and EVERY individual has equal rights.
And furthermore, the greatest divisive topic is Religion. It constricts so many people, from so many backgrounds. Maybe sticking together against that divisive issue is something we ALL should fight for.
As for your elephant, if it is set in the worlds largest deep fryer, you can invite the entire world for a piece.
Andrew,
The emphasis you place on the problem is so general, what would be the next actionable item in your plan to improve things? Your position has no teeth because
Feminism doesn’t exclude people. To fight for the rights of one disenfranchised group doesn’t preclude giving support to another group’s struggle.
As though, if I were feminist, I couldn’t also be concerned with any other problem.
If I fight to give women the power to go to school in a third world country or make their own decisions about their reproductive health in a first world country – I will have absolutely no energy left over to care about anything else? That is ridiculous. We need many specific foci on a broad range of issues, not just one general unfocused recognition that something’s not right around here.
Your position is so general that couldn’t even bother to actually critique my argument, just repeat essentially what was said in the original post as though repeating yourself in a louder voice will help express the intricacies of your position.
P.S. Thanks for using WORDS IN ALL CAPS; IT REALLY HELPS GET YOUR POINT ACROSS AND MAKES ME FEEL AS THOUGH YOU RESPECT MY INTELLIGENCE.
P.P.S. The problem isn’t religion, its patriarchal hegemony that teaches people to rely upon it. Philosopher Emmanuel Kant spoke about this phenomenon (minus the specification of patriarchy) in his essay about enlightenment. He describes enlightenment as the point when a person/society is mature enough to form their own judgement instead of deferring judgement to the responsibility of those considered experts.
You are using the “pop” words used by extreme/fanatical feminists. I’m ignoring you. The problem is caring about only one group. The group you are attached to. You can definitely be for women’s rights, and not be a feminist. I support everyone’s rights. I’m not going to pick a man over a woman and vice versa. You can’t have true equality unless (everyone) is equal on all basis. Why would I pick to support women of someone who is black? Or someone who is atheist? Or someone disabled? Why can’t I fight for all of them? I surmise you’d pick over everyone else.
Wow – label me and disregard me as extreme/fanatical because I’m pointing out the holes in your argument?
So everyone has rights except someone you claim as radical?
I don’t have the right to have my argument evaluated on its own merits?
Ignoring someone in an intellectual debate? You astound me with your intellectual maturity!
Good luck changing the world Andrew.
If you’re just on the internet to touch yourself instead of engaging in actual discussion with another person, then go back to 4chan.
Did I say “Kirby is a fanatic”?
No. But that kind of is my point.
Faggot.
“You are using the “pop” words used by extreme/fanatical feminists. I’m ignoring you.”
You can’t hide behind implicitness.
If you, however, have Autism and only do not notice the intricacies of non-explicit communication in discourse, please forgive me holding you to your words in a neuro-typical manner.
Regardless, “Faggot”? Seriously? Homophobic slurs? Have we descended so low so quickly? I’m a girl besides this generally disqualifies me from “faggot”.
I’ll take that as when you say everyone needs right – you mean everyone but radicals and GLBT? How can you claim to care about rights at all?