Frankly life is pretty shitty for (e.g.) rural peasants of both genders, and while in general in the past men had more independence and ability to choose their life direction, etc., I’ve always been pretty skeptical of attempts to rank the two in any absolute way. Men got killed in high numbers in war. Women got raped by invading armies. Men worked extremely physically demanding jobs that made their muscles and bones give out by age 40. Women worked differently physically demanding jobs that resulted in terrible repetitive stress injuries. Men often had legal rights over their wives, but of course had all kinds of ways of exerting their own influence and control. In some societies, many men were stuck as lonely bachelors while women were forced to become bottom-of-the-totem-pole second or third wives. Etc.
There is absolutely an important and in many ways terrible impact on a society from having one gender mostly in charge of the official hierarchies of social and political control. But it’s also the easiest thing to examine and understand from afar, and so it can overshadow other (maybe just as important) parts of the culture.
[edit: I skimmed the essay under discussion and part of it makes loosely the same point as this latter. One thing it does which I find annoying is that in using Larry Summers’s sacking as an example it ignores that the faculty wanted Summers out long before his famous comments, for completely unrelated reasons. His misdeed was not “to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought” and to characterize it that way is quite misleading. I also am annoyed at the analysis of histograms of grades, test scores, and salaries as implying more about innate ability than they do about cultural assimilation.]
Men worked extremely physically demanding jobs that made their muscles and bones give out by age 40
Yes, this is kinda the little secret of Feminism. They see that men have "good" jobs like CEOs and want some of that for themselves, and who wouldn't? But they overlook that men are also collecting the garbage, working in the mines, and generally doing all of society's dirty, dangerous jobs. Where're the calls for "equality" in those industries?
"When you think of a sanitation worker — riding on a garbage truck and dumping trash can after trash can — most people would picture a big, tough guy in their minds. But out of 7,000 uniformed city workers nicknamed "the strongest," 200 of them are women. In honor of women's history month, the department celebrated some of the the first females to suit up in green. Verilyn Gallo was only the third woman in the department. Now, 21 years later, she says when people see her drive the largest Sanitation truck there is they still can't believe it:
GALLO: I drive "the wrecker" — any piece of equipment that the department of sanitation has — I could pick it up. I have people in the truck - who say, you don't drive that big truck and I say, "oh yes I do."
REPORTER: Sixty-year-old Gallo says she still enjoys her job and the physicality of the work and is no hurry to retire."
The original claim seemed to be that women were hypocritically wanting equality only for the good CEO-type jobs.
How the original poster missed the many women who have chosen to be (and often fought hard against the same prejudice they meet in "prestigious" careers to be accepted as) police officers, firefighters, soldiers, nightclub bouncers, oil rig workers and do various other dangerous, dirty or under appreciated jobs I have no idea.
But I thought the example presented summed up the issue quite well given the obvious enthusiasm the worker had for her job.
There is certainly an argument to be made that "feminism" is not the best name for itself, but regardless, that is its name and it certainly is true that that is what feminism is. It is not about trying to get more rights for womyn while ignoring the areas of society where men are oppressed. That's total nonsense and completely ignoring the real problem. But that's not what feminism is. Feminism exists to challenge and ultimately destroy the mental programming we've been subjected to that causes us to assign specific roles and rights to people based on what we perceive their gender to be in the first place. This idea of gender is something that oppresses all of us, male, female or whatever, and feminism is a movement to destroy it. Seriously, that really is what it's about, regardless of the impressions you might get from the name.
If `civil rights' means `equal (to whites) rights for non-whites' and `gay rights' means `equal (to straights) rights for gays', then the civil rights and gay rights movements are both `equalism'.
A group which sees itself as oppressed can't just wishy-washily campaign under a banner of `equalism' if it wants to effect change. It must first identify itself as a group of people with something in common, and which is somehow oppressed according to that something. This way it can articulate the problem it sees, and what needs to change. After that change has come about, then we can all just be equal people.
Ah whoops - that was a mistake. But my point still stands that to advance equality can require that a group organise under the banner of an -ism or of x rights.
There is absolutely an important and in many ways terrible impact on a society from having one gender mostly in charge of the official hierarchies of social and political control. But it’s also the easiest thing to examine and understand from afar, and so it can overshadow other (maybe just as important) parts of the culture.
[edit: I skimmed the essay under discussion and part of it makes loosely the same point as this latter. One thing it does which I find annoying is that in using Larry Summers’s sacking as an example it ignores that the faculty wanted Summers out long before his famous comments, for completely unrelated reasons. His misdeed was not “to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought” and to characterize it that way is quite misleading. I also am annoyed at the analysis of histograms of grades, test scores, and salaries as implying more about innate ability than they do about cultural assimilation.]