Without dealing with the many, many, many points I completely disagree with on this thread (for lack of time, not lack of desire), I'd like to throw out a bit of queer theory for y'all.
Is there anything fundamentally different about men and women?
One might draw the line- as I'm inclined to- according to who has a y chromosome. Having done this, though, we must admit crossover in characteristics; I could be wrong, but as far as I know, there exist no characteristics that are so closely linked to the possession of a y chromosome that they could be used interchangeably as a gender identifier.
I'll grant that it can't be easy for guys to deal with some of the less legitimate changes that have come with second wave feminism. However, it may be useful to initially consider artificial manipulations of both advantage and disadvantage in terms of the specific characteristics they are (or should be) intended to deal with, rather than in terms of some generalized idea of gender.
Consider domestic violence.
We'll presume that a large imbalance exists in favor of women when it comes to the legal system and domestic violence.
I think penalties for domestic violence should be harsher against those perpetrators whose victims are less able to defend themselves. This means people who batter children, the elderly, or the disabled. It also means any batterers whose victims are smaller or weaker than themselves.
If it were possible for a system of justice and social atmosphere to adequately enforce this, I would be happy to support it. It may be possible. For the moment though, bias towards women in the legal system when dealing with domestic violence cases happens to, generally, help increase the penalties against those who fall into the categories above- against those who beat the other people who are least able to defend themselves.* As such, I find it destructive to correct- or rail against- this imbalance without first putting into place something that would better do the job.
Though you may take issue with the example, the concept comes across, I hope?
Even Maher admits that it is "for lack of a better term" that the labels "masculine values" and "feminine values" are applied. As such, wouldn't it make more sense to argue- if that is what one wishes to do- against the value set (or those who promote the value set) that we arbitrarily identify as feminine rather than against the behavior of human beings with no y chromosomes?
I say "arbitrarily" because I don't think the behaviors and preferences of the sexes as we are currently able to measure them accurately reflect much, if anything, implicit.
Perhaps this is from the bias of my position as a woman who- like most aspie girls- does not remotely hold a straight "party ticket" set, as it were, of "feminine values". I scarcely remember a time growing up when I was not told to be "more feminine"- and it always confused me a little, as, being a female, my behavior should be part of the definition of feminine, rather than some parcel to be weighed by the existing, exceedingly screwed up, definition. Do recall, less than a century ago this definition was a sole part of why women were discouraged, if not forbidden, from books. There's some bathwater here that begs discarding; there may or may not be a baby. I'm betting there is, but I'm not sure we can see it at all from where we are now.
The negative social enforcement on those who act outside their prescribed gender role is still too high.
The idea of this "feminized" future, and the idea that America has already adopted a full set of "feminine values" are both very disturbing to me. I value honesty, kindness, reason, empathy, and guts in about that order; a culture without honesty, reason, and guts would not serve me, or, I think, almost anyone. If these values were rejected completely, I would hope that such an action would be on the basis of the values themselves, rather than their shabby, pseudo-scientific association with one gender or another.
However, if we really did have a fully feminized society, there wouldn't be a wage gap. To accurately reflect "feminine values," we would have to pay all those liberal arts majors as much as engineers, and we'd also have to subsidize the bearing and raising of children a lot more than we currently do. There's a case for doing these things; I hope it will be weighed on the basis of actual merits. I expect it will simply be enacted (to the extent that it is enacted) by overly enthusiastic administrators who have little understanding of it's implications. *sigh*. Yay for the real world.
Another example; I'd like to see continued bias/support of women in mathematics and sciences. Do I think they deserve it more? No. I want it because I think in the long run it will increase the number, and the quality, of numerate, scientifically oriented individuals in the work force, at all levels- as well as evening out the gender gaps in those areas. Obviously I think that straightforward preference isn't what's keeping women out of science; I think there's a huge social component that needs to be overcome.
So- I'm asking for a handout for women- but in support of a "masculine value," and for what I would consider to be the common good- not just the good of the women getting the handout. How do you read this?
* I'm aware that women beat their children. I think my statement stands, due to relative frequency and other variables. I do some work with the child welfare system which I believe leaves me well informed; however, don't have stats handy, so if I'm wrong, let me know.
04 Aug 2007, 10:22 pm
