Gentlemen, you may want to leave the room for a bit, I'd like to have a word with the ladies, privately. Lately, I've been reading a bit of "women's issues" material. Don't look so shocked, my scope is broad (pardon the pun) and the titles caught my interest. Rather than bore you with the details, I'll just get the underlying message:
Why did feminism fail to deliver on its promises, and whose fault is it?
In article after article, in multiple books, in interview after interview, I keep hearing the same thread of conversation. Its been decades already! Why do women still have to settle for second rate incomes? Why are the majority of people living in poverty still women? Why are women consistently underrepresented in the ranks of policy-makers and corporate executives? What the hell went wrong?
I've heard women complain about the subliminal culture of "pink think", which is embodied in the pink-frocked June Cleaver anachronism squealing from atop a kitchen chair at the tiny mouse dashing across the floor. I've heard others point out the travesty of having "Daddy's Little Hottie" spelled out across the seat of shorts made for infant girls. Still others point to a culture that refuses to accommodate the realities of child-bearing and motherhood, forcing women to choose between care-giving and career. Others, inevitably, try to paint the word "traitor" on any woman who subscribes to what we popularly call "girliness", since they must necessarily be reinforcing unenlightened, chauvinistic stereotypes, mustn't they? It all boils down to that single question, however, "What went wrong and who do we blame?"
Well girls, here I am, the proverbial knight in shining armor to rescue you from you own ignorance: It didn't work, you twits, because you completely forgot to include half the population, the male half, in your calculus of social justice.
Intentionally ironic stereotyping not withstanding, and with the understanding that yes, no doubt that some women (I can't even begin to suggest a proportion) always understood this, you cannot expect that any sweeping change of social norms is going to take when you fail to define what is supposed to happen to half of the participants. Invariably, in every conversation I have ever had on the subject of feminism and women's rights, etc., I have not once had it explained to me what the lads and I are supposed to be doing while you girls are burning your bras and building a better tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, please; I am emphatically in favor of women's rights. What I have to take issue with, however, is that those gains for women in this country (and the world at large, but let's start small, shall we?) cannot come at the expense of the rights of men. That would include, as it happens, the right to have a say in our futures, which you cannot deny are going to be severely impacted by any sudden or drastic shifts in the social dynamic.
I could on in detail about gender roles, power relationships and a host of other highly subjective concepts. I could easily poke fun at the rabid-dogs amongst both feminists and their counterparts among more reactionary men. The fact is though, that I just don't care. I generally hate subjective debates and frankly, by this stage, I think we could safely say that the arrangement of life between the sexes (not genders, that's a separate kettle of metaphors) is a touchy subject, and leave it at that. Ultimately, the real problem isn't male chauvinism or regressive females. The problem, ladies, is that the very idea of feminism mutilates something larger, more important and ultimately more far reaching: humanism.
There really isn't any arguing that a great deal the English language and its use can give the impression of leaving you ladies out of full consideration, "Mankind, the rights of men, one man-one vote." Now, my stance for traditional language aside, obviously these phrases were never designed to slight, exclude, denigrate or subjugate you. Neither, I hasten to point out, was the term feminism designed to suggest that the lads and I weren't worth bothering over. The undeniable fact, however, is that feminism tends to focus overwhelmingly on the needs, desires and condition of women, without going so far as to mention men, except as adversaries. That is a serious problem. Seriously, do you honestly expect to be able to achieve any goal at all when you're treating half the human race as The Enemy?
If you really want to ensure the rights, freedoms and protections of women, then you need to ensure them for all mankind.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Instead of framing the discussion in terms of "women's rights", define your goals as human rights.Remember that you aren't alone in the world, remember that men, just as much as yourselves, don't want to feel neglected, disenfranchised or otherwise second-class. You might just find that you have more sympathy than you suspect. Additionally, never forget the axiom that many hands make for light work. Take my own case as an example: I'll admit now that, while I would back legislation that "guaranteed women equal pay for equal work," I would feel one whole hell of a great deal more comfortable with one that read, "guaranteed all people equal pay for equal work."
So, that's about it for now. I only have one other thing to point out, and that only for the grizzled, militant veterans of the feminist movement. For the love of us all, please, calm down. Stop being offended by the girl down the hall in the pink stilettos. If the underlying ideal behind feminism the liberation of women, then it is completely hypocritical of you to be offended when one of you practices that liberty in a manner of her own choosing. Even if that means looking, acting, talking and dressing like an infantilized, adolescent sexual fantasy.
