Is it just me, or are many feminists outright hypocritical in pursuing their goals?
In last week's column, I briefly touched on hypocricy in the feminist mindset as it refers to pornography, saying:
The second assumption, which is at the same time crucially central to the issue and yet so deeply buried as to never be stated, is that women can be coerced in such huge numbers as to support the entire porn industry. Think about what the coercion argument is really saying: "Big bad men are forcing weak women to act out men's sexual fantasies, in numbers sufficient to support a multi-billion-dollar industry." In short, for the whole Coercion Conspiracy to work, women would have to be so weak-willed that men could dominate them in such numbers...an assumption that is precisely opposed to feminist dogma.
This week, it's time to dig deeper, because as politically incorrect as it is to say so, the hypocrisy does not end there. However, I'm here to tell the truth, not to serve the cause of political correctness.
Ask most feminists what the ultimate goal of their movement is, and they'll say "equality." The same goes for most minorities, as well - blacks, gays, you name it. (Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, I need to clear up a common misconception: WOMEN ARE NOT A MINORITY. Women actually outnumber men in this society; they're the majority. If they're not in positions of power, they must by now accept some responsibility for that circumstance.) They all want to be treated as well as The Man - that being the stereotypical Straight White Christian Male Oppressor that is keeping their group down - but that's only part of the story. You see, they're perfectly willing to argue for equality when it means a gain on their part, but they mysteriously clam up when they already have an advantage.
Confused? Fear not; I have examples handy. Women want the opportunity to face combat in the military (as expressed recently in Demi Moore's G.I. Jane movie), but you don't hear a word about them being excluded from registering with Selective Service. There's gross inequality in both cases, but with the latter they have an advantage in that if war breaks out, they can't be forced to fight. Consider that recently the last male-only college was forced to open its doors to women, while little is being said about the eighty-three female-only schools that still exist. It's all about choice, about equality when it suits them.
(By the way, since I brought up G.I. Jane, I suppose I should give it at least a mini-review; it is relevant to this article in particular. While much of it was typical feminist dogma - for instance, the Old Boy Network (Navy leaders) conspiring to keep women out of the Bastion of Manliness (naval combat forces) - Moore's character was a refreshing change. Instead of wanting special treatment, like the dual standards that I'll be discussing in a minute, she insists on actually being graded by the same standards as the men. In short, she was actually pushing for genuine equality, and I can respect that. The only issue I wish the movie had addressed is that sharks and menstruating women don't exactly get along; common sense dictates that a female SEAL couldn't function as a fully combat-ready member for one week out of every four, because she would be creating a real hazard to herself and to her teammates. Of course, since this is actually a matter where gender has a real impact on the job, I wasn't really expecting it to be mentioned, let alone dealt with....)
This is symptomatic of a fundamental miscommunication over the issue of "equality" itself. When I say that I support equality, I refer to equality of opportunity; everyone gets the same chances, and what they do with those chances is up to them. However, the Oppressed Minorities appear instead to want equality of realization, where men and women (and blacks, and gays, et al.) will only be "equal" when their proportions in any given segment of the workforce are at least roughly equal to their proportions in the populace. Don't see the distinction? Lucky you; I'm here to help.
Suppose I run a small business - large enough to fall under federal hiring quotas regulations, but small enough where I personally do the hiring. I'm committed to hiring the best person for the job, and I set out to make a new division. I have twenty slots open, all for the same job description. If I get fifty male applicants and ten female applicants, I have a hard choice to make...because I can either follow my conscience and hire the best twenty (in a gender-blind manner), or follow the federal guidelines and hire all ten of the women and fill the rest of the slots from the best of the men. And may God help me if I only get five female applicants; there's no way I can win then! Of course, I haven't even touched on the racial or other minority issues involved that would keep me from simply hiring the best applicants. In this case, equality of realization is actually fighting against equality of opportunity.
Not satisfied? Okay, here's a real-world example. Not too long ago, some feminists complained that the field of firefighting was guilty of gender inequity; there weren't many female firefighters, let alone women comprising half of that force. Firefighters let women try out for the positions under the same conditions the men faced, and the complaint then became that the standards had been "artificially inflated" to keep women out. In other words, women weren't passing as often as men, because the average woman actually is physically weaker than the average man. (This is no more a sexist remark than would be an observation that men have penises and women have breasts; that's a statement of demonstrable scientific fact. Uncomfortable, perhaps - but not sexist.) Therefore, a double standard was created, where men and women were judged unequally in an attempt to create an end result of numerical equality.
Did feminists get what they wanted? Sure; they were after numerical equality, and they forced the firefighters to accomodate them. Was the cause of equality served? Hell, no! To create the numerical equality, an inequality had to be created in the testing process. What was the real end result? The field of firefighting has lost effectiveness, as the standards for some members have gone down. You see, I'm a big man; if my house catches fire with me inside, I want whoever comes in to rescue me to be able to haul my fat ass away. I don't care if that person has tits or a dick or both; if they can get me out of there, they can do the job and they should be allowed to do it.
And that, my friend, is true equality. Skin color, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, gender...these are secondary factors that are usually (but not always!) irrelevant to a given job. Where they are relevant, they should be considered exactly as far as they are relevant, as with the menstruating SEAL scenario above. Where they are irrelevant, they should be ignored completely, and employers should be allowed to ignore them completely. Of course, I tend to consider this a competitive world in which an employer can't afford to dismiss a qualified person on the basis of secondary factors, but what do I know? After all, I'm just a Straight White Male Oppressor....