« The True Left and National Review in Bed | Main | Review of Freakonomics, Part One: In which my review of the book begins and I explain the downside of blogging anonymously »
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Feminism Again
Because of bumping into an old friend a few days ago and sharing some thoughts, I am going to risk returning to a controversial subject of the past.
First, a disclaimer: I believe that women should have the same opprotunities and responsibilities as men, and men should have the same opportunities and responsibilities as women. This is self-evident, I think. We aren't there yet--indeed, we are a long way off--but I think we are closer than we ever have been. I also think that men and women ought to respect women's choices generally, whether they choose to work outside of the home or stay home and raise children. But, of course, in order to truly be able to truly say that these are choices women (and men) are freely making, the choices must be more available to everyone--which they aren't yet. So we have a lot to work on.
As I mentioned, a few days ago, I bumped into an old friend. We had lost touch, but we caught up quickly. He went to medical school, did a residency, and is now finishing his fellowship. His wife and kids have been trucking around with him as the demands of his career required. It turns out that now he and his family will be moving into the relatively small town that she is from in order to be near her parents. Now, this isn't his optimal choice. By a wide margin, he'd rather live in a big coastal city with culture than in a small inland city with his inlaws. But he also recognizes that his wife has been making big sacrifices for him over the past few years, and now that his career is portable, he is going to make sacrifices for her.
I thought about this and realized
that I actually know a lot of people in identical or similar situations, that is, people in "traditional" family structures who go where the husband's career take them for a few years, but then settle down where the wife prefers.
This got me to thinking more generally about "traditional" family structures, and I realized that although we generally think of these families as male-dominant, and although in many important ways they are, women in the families also wield power and responsibility in very important ways over family and community decision-making.
When we see a power-imbalance, we have a general tendency to view one side as altogether powerful and the other as meek and powerless. As a result, we end up ignoring, and worse, denigrating the individuality, expression, power, and control of the supposed victim. This is unfortunate and unnecessary.
I know this has all been said before and is debated endlessly by feminists who identify with various "waves" of feminism. And before I catch grief for being a supposed anti-feminist, please read what I said before about equalizing opportunities and responsibilities. My point is only that by denying the power of women even in traditional family structures, we only denigrate women themselves.
Posted by Hillel Levin on May 5, 2005 at 12:14 PM in Culture | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83442f57f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feminism Again:
Comments
I don't know about your friends, but in general women are much more likely than men to care for their parents, whether it's the actual day in day out work of physical caretaking or whether its being close by and making sure that they are being cared for, than men. Moving closer to your old and ill parents... not necessarily an expression of freedom. The man is probably free to choose not to move close to his family because one of his sisters has already arranged her life to to look after them.
Posted by: Tara | May 18, 2005 11:34:30 PM
I guess the main problem is that you are congratulating what I consider to be a main symptom of the problem. You want us to recognize and value women's power in the home and on the PTA. I think the fact that that is where women wield power is the problem, as it holds them in their dedicated sphere of influence and prevents them from branching out.
Posted by: rivki | May 5, 2005 5:18:14 PM
Rivki, when you state that you "think there's something wrong with a society that presents women with fewer choices than men. I believe that this dearth of choices leads to women choosing to fulfill traditional roles that they may not really want to fulfill," I agree with you fully. I think you are deliberately mischaracterizing my remarks, in fact, because I said many times that we have a lot more to do in order to equalize opporunity, responsibility, and attainability. And I don't think that one denigrates women by saying so because, in fact, I have said precisely this (and don't think I am denigrating women by doing so). And in fact I have expressly acknowledged that women in traditional relationships have significantly less power and choice than men. And I think that anyone who reads my posts will agree that this has been my stated position all along.
What I find odd is that you think it is offensive to merely suggest that women in such relationships in fact wield a lot of power, those less than their husbands. (I will point out, though, that husbands in such relationships are also limited in the choices they can make, though not so limited as the wives. As I said long ago, we are products of our culture, and for many men in such relationships, it simply isn't a choice to switch places with their wives, even if they wanted to.)
Let me ask you this: what if a bona fide female feminist wrote articles and books on precisely what I am saying? Would she no longer be a feminist? Would she be permitted the transgression because she is a woman, whereas I am "patronizing" and "offensive" as a result of having written a few paragraphs on a blog?
This is all very odd to me because, in fact, we agree. The only thing we disagree upon is whether it is improper for me note--after specifically acknowledging the big problem--that women really do have power.
I don't know whether you are deliberately misreading and mischaracterizing me, or whether it is subconscious. Not being an armchair psychologist, I won't hazard a guess. But you are misstating my points for the sake of attacking me. And that's unfortunate.
Posted by: amosanon1 | May 5, 2005 4:46:35 PM
Rivki, I really do appreciate the armchair psychology, but I suppose it is a good thing you are a lawyer (I think?).
In fact, I do think there is a very real problem. And if you haven't gleaned that from the world of my postings, then you are either reading too closely or too broadly.
First, in fact, my home is not quite so traditional as you think.
Second, to the extent that it is (and it is, in many ways), it is something I obsess over everyday. I don't seek to defend it; in fact, I've spent much time trying to change it and am generally depressed about it.
Third, you seem convinced that no one is denigrating "women's work." Ever see "Meet the Parents"? The whole gag is that the guy is a male nurse. (Also, he's named "Focker," which sounds a lot like something else, but that's a joke that has no relevance to this conversation.) I think that many feminists either overlook or ignore the power women wield, and many anti-feminists seek to trivialize "women's work." And the effect of both is the same. And perhaps you are correct: maybe feminists don't deny this. But in my experience (including here on the blog), it is often overlooked. Not without good reason, mind you, since the BIG issue is striving for equality of opportunity and attainability. But, this being a blog, the whole point is to post thoughts, musings, and reactions--even, or especially, when they are minor.
Fourth, the proximate cause of my post, as I think I said, is that we had a long discussion about how wives back up and truck along with their husbands to benefit the husbands' careers. I think that this is absolutely true, and in fact I turned down a great one-year offer for a job a few years back because I wouldn't ask my wife to move for one year. But this conversation with my friend just happened to relate.
One last point. A relative of mine spend a year as a doctor among tribes in Africa about 35 years ago. Recently, he went on and on about how the tribes had no culture and no real "society," as he put it; he also felt that this was due, in part to their victimization by the west.
Now, it happens that I am somewhat unfashionably west-centric in the sense that I think our culture, warts and all, is preferable to tribal african culture. Personally, I am glad to live where and how I do rather than in tribal africa. But I have a visceral reaction to the idea that tribal society has no culture and no "society" or social structure; and I further react negatively to the idea that these people are nothing more than a mass of victims who can't form serious social relationships as a result of western dominance.
So, I recognize that the west has victimized these people. And that's the big point. And we should do something about it. But there is an important little point here too: these people are not "just" victims. They are individuals with culture and social organization, albeit one that I don't identify with and would not, at this point, choose. If we deny them their individuality, their structures, their culture, and so forth, we victimize them yet again. I'd be surprised if you disagree with me.
Now, obviously, african tribes are not the same thing as women in contemporary america. That isn't the point. But there is analogy here: In both cases, the big point is that there is a problem; an imbalance; and even a victimization (of different kinds). But in both cases, there is also a little point--but not one so insignificant that it doesn't merit discussion on a blog--that we overvictimize, dehumanize, and disempower people further when we ignore or deny their individuality and power. To recognize such individuality and power is not to say that everything is fine, by any stretch. If that is what you are seeing in my posts, then it is an illusion, a phantom.
If you are simply saying that you don't think people (feminists, non-feminists, or anti-feminists) do this, then we just disagree about something relatively minor. And you can nod your head with my posts, and then just mutter under your breath "jeez, what a waste of blog space."
But I don't think that's what you are saying. I think you are saying something about me. And I think you are wrong.
Posted by: amosanon1 | May 5, 2005 4:37:35 PM
AmosAnon perhaps our point of contention is this. I think there's something wrong with a society that presents women with fewer choices than men. I believe that this dearth of choices leads to women choosing to fulfill traditional roles that they may not really want to fulfill. You think that I'm denigrating women who make those choices, but that's the last thing on my mind. As far as I can tell women who choose traditional roles are simply making the best choices they can make with the opportunities that they are given. They wield the power that they have, but the power that they have is severly limited by the fact that they're female and have chosen what is, in the end, a limiting role.
Acknowleding that women generally have less power than men in traditional marriages isn't denigrating either the women or the ways that they choose to wield the power that the have. And in a discussion about relative power and feminism it's not particularly useful to spend time talking about what power a woman already has. Because that's not the point of the discussion and it minimizes all the power that the man has in the relationship. And yes, that minimizing is offensive.
When you're talking about the relationships of admitted haves and have nots it is a diversionary tactic to talk about what power the haves lack and what power the have nots have obtained. It minimizes the discrepencies. And congratulating the have nots for wielding what power their have not status gives them is pretty damn patronizing.
Posted by: rivki | May 5, 2005 4:25:34 PM
Thomas, perhaps you misunderstand me. My point is that there is nothing new to this "trend" of women having some sort of say about where the family ends up living. (Oh, and I'm distinguishing trends because I'd never tell a woman she was being victimized by her decision to stay home or move with her husband, it's her choice.) It's not revolutionary, it's not feminist, it's not a statement about relative power in relationships. So why does AmosAnon choose to make this post? From what I can tell he's saying that we shouldn't make assumptions that women have absolutely no power in the home and that we shouldn't denigrate what power women do have. Which, ok we shouldn't and I don't know anyone who does, but what's the broader issue?
From what I glean from the universe of AmosAnon's posts on this subject, and I realize that I don't know him personally, is that he doesn't really think that there's much of a problem. Sure, he acknowledges a dearth of equality and opportunity based on gender but he doesn't want us to actually apply that to relationships. Because individual relationships are made up of individuals and choices made within the couple are not fiats from the man. But in doing so, in pointing out whatever power women do have in relationships, he's saying that the problem really isn't so bad. It's like looking at the wage disparity and saying "Well, you shouldn't talk about the wage gap because it denegrates women who do make money, even if it's less than a corresponding man." And, quite frankly, I feel that at least some of this stems from defensiveness about his position of "man of the house" in just such a traditional family.
AmosAnon point is: "I realized that although we generally think of these families as male-dominant, and although in many important ways they are, women in the families also wield power and responsibility in very important ways over family and community decision-making." And he doesn't want us to denigrate women who exercise power in such a manner. Except - a) no one is and b) this is the same kind of "power" that women have excercised time out of mind. This is precisely the kind of thinking that lead to "different spheres" protectionism. Except, instead of protecting women from the outside world he wants to protect them from criticism about their adherence to traditional roles. The outcome is the same - women stay in the house and satisfy themselves with domestic decision making and men do everything else. But somehow in the spirit of feminism I'm not supposed to be able to criticize it.
Posted by: rivki | May 5, 2005 4:04:10 PM
The trouble with posting on this topic is that it is extremely difficult to make oneself clear, and one is inviting attack.
First, I think Ethan and Rivki and I actually are pretty much on the same page as well.
However, I differ with Rivki if she thinks that no one is arguing, or at least insinuating, that women have little power within the traditional family structure. Indeed, in our previous discussions on the topic, not a single person mentioned the power women have even within these relationships. By contrast, people did cite the fact that wives are expected to truck around the country with their husbands when the husbands receive fellowships and teaching positions. I was merely pointing out (based on my conversation with this old friend) that the picture is a bit more complex than that. If that's obvious, so be it.
But you don't just say it is obvious. You go on to say that it is offensive. Let me point out what I think is obvious: my comments about the different spheres of power in traditional family structures is descriptive; it simply tells what "is." It does not tell you what I think normatively, what "should be." If you want to find what I think "should be," then you will reread my first paragraph, the one beginning with my "disclaimer." So descriptively, women and men in traditional family structures do wield power differently and in different spheres. To some degree, that's inevitable, since every family is going to divide responsibilities. But to the extent the responsibilities are always, or usually, divided along gender stereotyped roles, I don't think that's a good thing at all. (Once again, read my first paragraph.) HOWEVER, I do think it is worth mentioning that raising children, serving on a PTA, and so forth carries with it a great deal of power--regardless of who carries that responsibility. And I get the sense that a lot of people who talk about equality (and with whom I agree fully substantively) overlook this point, if not simply deny it.
Indeed, it seems to me that the jobs women traditionally do, including nursing and child care, have been characterized as "women's work," by feminists (who think women should do other things) and antifeminists (who think women should do these jobs exclusively precisely because they are women's work, not fit for men). In fact, these kinds of jobs are crucial and deserve no such denigration. I don't think women alone should be doing them, but I also don't think that the women who do them (even if there are only women doing them) should be considered "unliberated."
Rather, the focus should be on increasing, expanding, and equalizing opportunity, responsibility, and attainability for men and women alike. In other words, absolutely break down the barriers to equality (of which there are many), but don't ignore, denigrate, or deny the power even within traditional relationships.
If these points are obvious, so be it. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious. But I can't see how they are offensive.
Posted by: amosanon1 | May 5, 2005 3:33:50 PM
Rivki--Doesn't the post refer to societal trends, at least anecdotally: "I actually know a lot of people in identical or similar situations, that is, people in "traditional" family structures who go where the husband's career take them for a few years, but then settle down where the wife prefers." That looks like trend language to me.
I would think that an assertion of a firm division between the domestic sphere and the larger world is, in itself, antifeminist, in that it tends to re-inforce the traditional patterns of thought, denigrates the value of the work performed by many women, and, in the end, is anti-humanist, with market values predominating over any others. (If one has to ask which is the better or more satisfying decision--living near family or career fulfillment--then one has already given in to market values, hasn't one?)
Posted by: Thomas | May 5, 2005 3:19:10 PM
Amen. Rivki and I are on the same page about feminism.
Posted by: Ethan Leib | May 5, 2005 3:03:55 PM
"Women in traditional marriages do not have the same power as their husbands. Their powers are wielded differently and in different arenas, and on balance, the world is clearly phallocentric. Further, we aren't where we need to be in terms of equality of opportunity and responsibility. But, at the end of the day, let's not poo-poo the constant push and pull within each marriage and assume that it is always and only the husband pushing and pulling."
While I think I understand your point I don't really understand why you're trying to make it. How is a discussion that evokes a woman's influence on moving relevent to the issue of feminism? Is anyone really trying to say that every decision made in a family is made by a man and that a traditional marriage disempowers women to the extent that they have no control over any decisions? I have to say that I've seen no one making that argument. Even in the days before female suffrage women had some level of control over domestic affairs. Besides which, feminism makes no claims about individual homes and marriages but rather comments on societal trends.
Quite frankly this discussion, as well as several of your other posts on the subject, seem to call back directly to the bad old days of protectionism. Especially this sentence "Their powers are wielded differently and in different arenas." Bit of a fall back to the different spheres era in which the lady of the house was expected to stay in the domestic sphere and raise the children while the husband went out and provided for them all.
Posted by: rivki | May 5, 2005 2:55:56 PM
I was unclear. You are correct that women wield some power in “traditional” relationships. My point is that the power they wield is almost exclusively in the domestic sphere. Though I did not say it above, I agree that domestic decisions are important and should not be denigrated. (I think it is also problematic when women exercise exclusive decision making power over domestic issues, and men are excluded. Men should play an equal and active role in “family decisions” – where to live, how to raise the children, and even what to have for dinner.)
The problem that I was trying to articulate is not that women have no power in traditional relationships, it is that the domestic-based decisions that they make and thus the power that they wield may not be particularly fulfilling, empowering, etc, if that is the only power they have. Put another way, does moving closer to one’s extended family at the end of the day mean as much given the previous decisions made to benefit the husband’s career?
You are right that people need not attack the importance of the traditional power that a woman yields – i.e., need not argue that raising children is of no value to argue that women should have more in/do more with their lives.
Posted by: CBH | May 5, 2005 1:29:59 PM
You have either misread or misconstrued my post on two critical points. Indeed, the two most critical points.
First, I did not say that there is a balance of power; what I said is that it is unfortunate if we diminish the importance of power women in traditional relationships do have in order to delegitimize those relationships and structures. To put it perhaps more plainly: I have not suggested that wives in "traditional" (a bad term, but I can't think of a better one) marriages have power equal to that of their husbands; or that everything is fine and dandy so long as papa will eventually agree to move near mama's parents. What I suggested is the roles women play in traditional relationships are themselves important, and we demean women by ignoring or denying them.
Second, I did not say that men and women today have equal choices. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I said that equal choices would be the ideal, but that we aren't nearly there yet. Equal choices would require a society that would accomodate and respect those choices, which we do not even remotely have (though we are closer than we have been). The difficulty is that equal choices does NOT mean that the same percentage of men make a particular choice as women. And it will be extremely hard to detect whether an imbalance in choice is due to social forces (as it now clearly is, in very large part) that should be changed, or due to some other forces, which may never be able to be changed or even require changing.
So, to sum up: Women in traditional marriages do not have the same power as their husbands. Their powers are wielded differently and in different arenas, and on balance, the world is clearly phallocentric. Further, we aren't where we need to be in terms of equality of opportunity and responsibility. But, at the end of the day, let's not poo-poo the constant push and pull within each marriage and assume that it is always and only the husband pushing and pulling.
Posted by: amosanon1 | May 5, 2005 1:11:41 PM
Interesting post. I have observed the same phenomenon – wife moves for husband’s career; husband ultimately moves to be close to wife’s family. But I am hesitant to acknowledge that this series of events shows a balance of power within a marriage. If a woman has to cook dinner for her husband every night, is the situation more equal because she gets to choose what to cook? (Though I suppose it would be significantly worse than if she were cooking dinner and he were choosing what to eat.)
Also, the wife’s decision to be near her family smacks of traditional gender stereotypes. While the man’s career is considered important, the woman’s familial relationships are considered important in return. But that does not mean that the partners are equal.
There is a reason to fear gender stereotypes like this (a man’s focus is his career, and a woman’s focus is her family). It is all very well and good to say that women and men have the same choices, but the vast majority of people continue to make the same choices that were previously mandated. There is significant social pressure to make the same choices that others like you make, and the more people succumb to that social pressure, the harder it is for others to resist. For example, if it is considered “normal” for a wife to follow her husband from place to place until his career is “established” enough that she can ask to live near her family, is the world a more difficult place for the husband who has to follow his wife around for her career? Or the husband whose wife is not “patient” enough to wait until his career is established before insisting that her geographical preferences be taken into account?
Sorry for the long post, but I think that there is something wrong with using this pattern to prove the proposition that there is a balance of power in traditional relationships. Maybe others can do a better job of articulating why.
Posted by: CBH | May 5, 2005 12:57:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.