Is it just me, or do feminists say and do a lot of strange and often hypocritical things?
I'm going to be examining a few parts of the feminist movement in my next few articles, as a prelude to some examination of women in general. The feminism-oriented posts are kind of a "women in politics" jam, with a "women in interpersonal relationships" series to follow. I am especially interested in feedback from women on the points I'm going to be raising here, so don't hesitate to send me some email.
Before I really get started, though, I suppose I should give you an idea of where I'm coming from. Back in the early and mid-1990s, I was rather active on a couple of feminism discussion groups - including, most notably, the Fidonet FEMINISM echo. I joined these discussions and considered myself a feminist because I believed feminism to be the proper term for the belief that men and women should be treated as equally as possible. While there were some people there who fit that definition, and I remain proud to consider myself in the same group with them, others fit the more common stereotype. For instance, there was one woman who would pipe up every so often to say that men shouldn't be allowed in that echo, and she'd very loudly refuse to address posts either to or from men. That's not feminism; that's "reverse" sexism. (Much like "reverse" racism, the only thing reversed about it is the target. While it's politically incorrect to be racist or sexist, "reverse" racism or sexism is discrimination against The Oppressor and is usually quite all right in PC circles. Let's not pretend there's anything noble about it, eh?) Ultimately, I changed my tune somewhat and started identifying myself as an egalitarian - same beliefs, for the most part, but without the female-superior baggage attached to "feminist" and with the more general aim of promoting equality for everybody - male, female, gay, straight, black, white, blue, green, you name it. My core beliefs hadn't changed, merely the scope I applied to them and the name I used to describe them. The basic credo here is "equal rights for all, special rights for none."
Back to the FEMINISM echo, though. (For those who've never heard of Fidonet, an "echo" is something like a cross between a Usenet group and an email list. Messages are usually directed to a particular person, with the understanding that everything is public and that it's not rude to "break into" a discussion to say what you think. Echos are generally referred to by their Fidonet area tags, which are the universal names for those areas that ensure mail gets dropped in the right groups on each system. Area tags, at the time, were written in uppercase with numbers and underscores allowed - hence, "FEMINISM".) I spent enough time there that I think I can identify most of the common stereotypes as belonging to certain participants there. No, I'm not going to name names, but I can usually attest to conversations with each of these stereotypes as a real person who firmly held the stated beliefs.
Perhaps the stereotypes can be best explained with an example. One topic that I can remember coming up was the question of female firefighters - someone pointed out that fighting fires is a male-dominated occupation, and suggested that more women should be given those jobs to balance this numerical inequity. I think a radical anti-feminist spoke up first, saying that women aren't strong enough to perform the duties of the position, and that their presence would be more likely to inspire heroic measures from their male teammates if they were in danger - leading to a serious threat to everybody involved. Besides, he continued, women fail the physical tests in overwhelming numbers. Naturally, an extreme feminist replied that women can do anything men can, and that the only reason women were failing the physical tests is that they were set artificially high to exclude women. She contended that the standards should be lowered so that women would pass in greater numbers.
Both of these people, in essence, were overstating points that actually have merit - but by couching them in this sort of rhetoric, those points were likely to get ignored. Furthermore, by including valid points with wild conspiracy theories and quack psychology, both parties are degrading their own arguments. The egalitarian side responded that the true requirements of the position should be determined by careful study, and that the physical tests should fit those requirements. Once the tests are set properly, open 'em up to anyone who wants in; if they pass, they pass. In other words, the job comes first. I don't care how the physical tests are set; an unconscious 300-pound man is going to be one hell of a load to carry out of a burning building, and only people who can get him out of that building - whether male or female - should have the job of evacuating him. Setting the tests lower to admit more women would adversely affect the performance of the actual job duties, which is effectively cutting your nose off to spite your face. Yes, I'll admit that such a system would result in more men than women fighting fires - but by hell, they're all going to be capable of doing so. Besides, this system grants both genders true equality: the objective standards are open to all, not skewed to result in a numerical equality that only works on paper and relies on special standards to accomplish even that.
Anyway, that's about where I'm coming from in this series. Tune in next time, when I'll actually start covering real issues in some sort of depth. (Most likely, I'll be tackling pornography next week.)