Sunshine and Light

It's a chick thing

Via Asymmetrical Information and Cobb, I came across a libertarian blogger who did a "takedown" of feminism. And in reading the post, while I agreed with some of his points, some were so egregiously wrong that I had to open my yap. Or type, whichever.

I should start, very quickly, with where I come from. I was much more "feminist" in my younger days, when I was in college and fresh into the work world. That was at a time when women didn't get degrees in engineering (6 of us out of 90 in my graduation year), didn't get much respect in the workplace (less than 10 women out of 40 thousand employees were managers in my company when I started), and basically were in phase 2 of the whole "equal rights" thing. I just could not understand why the only barrier to my doing certain things was my being female. Over the years as I see that battle dying down, and gotten a bit of world experience, my relationship with feminism has gotten...uneasy. The focus (to me) seems to have moved from we can do anything to you owe us everything. So I'm not precisely NOW's biggest fan.

However...

In Toddy Seavey's blog post, there are a few things that really stick in my craw.

1. Making A Priori Moral Assertions About Thoroughly Empirical Questions

This one becomes a "men are smarter than women" discussion. Towards the end of the section he says:

Yet the data suggest that there are intelligence differences between males and females, and without going into each sub-category of intelligence (ability to negotiate three-dimensional spaces, ability to read emotions from faces, recall, math, etc.), I will say that there seem to be both more male geniuses than female geniuses and more male idiots than female idiots. For a moment, the reader hoping (for whatever a priori reasons) to find “balance” in evaluations of the two sexes might feel relieved that in some sense the IQ differences appear to “even out” — but a tendency for women to bunch near the norm while males are more likely to rise to the top and to end up in prison is hardly, I think, the sort of simple “equality” that underpins most traditional, idealistic feminist thinking. Those differences have huge implications that we’re still sorting out and may render, for example, the application of affirmative action laws to gender “balance” absurd (and unjust).

How DO you go about comparing a population closely centered around one point, to a population that’s strung out along a wider continuum and declare one more whatever than the other? This doesn’t strike me as the kind of debate in which averaging IQs really covers what is intended to be covered.

I know this is a sore spot with some, but here’s my concern. By saying that women are not as smart as men, it ignores the fact that while there may be less female geniuses, there do exist female geniuses. Just as while there aren’t many women in math and engineering, I would object to not having been allowed to get my engineering degree because I’m a woman. And quite honestly I don't think he's made his point empirically on the intelligence of one gender over another.

Next up:

2. Refusing to Define “Feminism” Clearly Enough to Judge Its Value

I suppose the problem with defining Feminism is that it’s sort of like my trying to define liberalism or conservatism or any other ism. It involves so many nooks and crannies, that it would take a feminist catechism to really capture all of the ground that is covered by the politics and philosophy that is feminism. And over the years definitions and emphasis change.

The next up come as a nice pair. He starts out with generic headings which turn into rants about women choosing...anyone but him.

4. In Any Truly Useful Gendered Analysis, Ineradicable, Natural Inequalities May Well Matter Most.

5. The Feminsts Often Recapitulate Traditional Patterns While Demanding that No One Point This Out.

Maybe I’m being oblivious because I really am one of the weird ones in my lifestyle, but I’m calling BS here. I’m not saying that no women follow the description, but ALL women? Without giving away too much, I can safely say that I don’t fit ANY of the patterns described above, and good lord I like to think that my husband sees me as an equal partner.

I think that throughout he confuses how evolution may drive us with what decisions we make. Do we have a biological urge to procreate? Sure, but we have brains that go with it. That allows us to make decisions, weigh possible results, and decide who we will and will not interact with and sleep with.

I also know, beyond my 1 in a million lifestyle, several co-workers and lots of friends who also are nowhere near the women described above. Of the married women I know, several make more money than their husbands, a few have decided not to have kids, and couldn’t care less about the alpha male. Of the single women I know, not one is blowing the manager partner. Are these all simply anecdotes? Of course, but how would you describe what Todd Seavey uses other than anecdotes with embellishments?

Other than that....there are things that are applicable, that are fair criticisms, and in some cases criticisms that I make myself. But the above areas are weak, and it kills my appreciation for other points that he makes. I know it's supposed to be funny, but alas I have that weak feminist sense of humor....

posted by MyHusbandRules @ 10:51 AM