Yeah, I definitely consider myself a feminist., on points 1 & 2. Although I do think #2 is a difficult one. Doing #2 through non-merit based means, like quotas, only undermines #1. I like your idea for gender-blind job applications. On some somposition competitions I have entered, you are asked to use a pseudonym on your piece, and I choose at least a gender neutral one, if not a male name. I also agree with lastclearchance's assertion that #2 can be acheived through better childcare services. Not only does our worklife assume that domestic responsibilities are taken care of by an unpaid family member, it is assumed that those duties will be taken by women. A woman with a family can be considered a less promising prospect for advancement and responsibility, and a woman without one is sometimes seen as unnatural. So the high-powered work world is kind of made for non-childbearing beings.I've always felt rather resentful that it's easier for a man to ave a career and family than for a woman.
The nature/nurture things has always bothered me too. I think currently our culture is very quick to conclude gender differences are caused by biology. (Just think if this trend emerged with respect to race/ethnicity). When almost every cultural artifact out there, from opera to TV ads, contains some message about gender roles, you have to give it at least equal billing with biology.
And even if there are significant biological differences between men and women, why does that necessarily translate into a definition of what kinds of jobs, education, etc they should pursue? In no other way that I can think of do we expect someone to make decisions purely based on biology. (ie, we don't compel people with great test scores to become academics, nor do we force big strapping men to become football players or construction workers.) One of the most powerful ideas I encountered in feminist theory is that biology does not equal destiny.
I have read some feminist theory, and yeah, some of it is kind of wacky, or overly pedantic, or extremist, etc. But I think that's a danger with any kind of theoretical pursuit. I've read some music theory that I think is wacked-out and useless, and makes me want to run from the study as a whole, and that's a far less emotional topic. I think it's hard to find good theory in a movement whose central premise is that women are free to choose any life path and are capable of pursuing it. It's hard to theorize around a central premise of non-definition. It's too easy to fall into us/them constructs (which only seems to fuel the feminsts as radical man hating female supremacists image). I also find that some of the conflicts feminists get involved in are not the most meaningful ones out there.
And even if there are significant biological differences between men and women, why does that necessarily translate into a definition of what kinds of jobs, education, etc they should pursue? In no other way that I can think of do we expect someone to make decisions purely based on biology.
And why do we seem to do it with respect to women and not men? One of the gender-difference theories I've heard bandied about is that men have more natural aptitude for math-type mental skills while women are similarly wired to have aptitude for verbal-communicative type mental skills. However, we still hear that women thus are less fit to be successful scientists or mathematicians, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest that men are thus less fit to be writers or trial lawyers.
I wish I had more time to participate meaningfully in this discussion, but I've got to get my composition finished by next week or else.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
The nature/nurture things has always bothered me too. I think currently our culture is very quick to conclude gender differences are caused by biology. (Just think if this trend emerged with respect to race/ethnicity). When almost every cultural artifact out there, from opera to TV ads, contains some message about gender roles, you have to give it at least equal billing with biology.
And even if there are significant biological differences between men and women, why does that necessarily translate into a definition of what kinds of jobs, education, etc they should pursue? In no other way that I can think of do we expect someone to make decisions purely based on biology. (ie, we don't compel people with great test scores to become academics, nor do we force big strapping men to become football players or construction workers.) One of the most powerful ideas I encountered in feminist theory is that biology does not equal destiny.
I have read some feminist theory, and yeah, some of it is kind of wacky, or overly pedantic, or extremist, etc. But I think that's a danger with any kind of theoretical pursuit. I've read some music theory that I think is wacked-out and useless, and makes me want to run from the study as a whole, and that's a far less emotional topic. I think it's hard to find good theory in a movement whose central premise is that women are free to choose any life path and are capable of pursuing it. It's hard to theorize around a central premise of non-definition. It's too easy to fall into us/them constructs (which only seems to fuel the feminsts as radical man hating female supremacists image). I also find that some of the conflicts feminists get involved in are not the most meaningful ones out there.
(no subject)
And why do we seem to do it with respect to women and not men? One of the gender-difference theories I've heard bandied about is that men have more natural aptitude for math-type mental skills while women are similarly wired to have aptitude for verbal-communicative type mental skills. However, we still hear that women thus are less fit to be successful scientists or mathematicians, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest that men are thus less fit to be writers or trial lawyers.
I wish I had more time to participate meaningfully in this discussion, but I've got to get my composition finished by next week or else.