No tags yet.
If you wish to read the original post and the initial response first, click the links :))
*The author of this article would be grateful if you could fill out this form as part of their 'conversation'. All responses are anonymous.
The author responding to my comment has raised several points that I appreciate, but I would like to share my differing opinions.
Firstly, the author defined feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”. However, Oxford dictionary defines feminism as “the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.” Cambridge English dictionary defines it as “the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state”. Collins English Dictionary defines feminism as “Feminism is the belief and aim that women should have the same rights, power, and opportunities as men.” Moreover, with the term “fem-” in the name itself, feminism cannot “equal opportunity of sexes” with no specific focus on women’s rights.
Secondly, I genuinely do not think it is correct to solely blame society for our current situation today. This is suggesting a univariate, one-to-one relationship, which simply does not hold true for almost any phenomenon occurring globally. Research has shown that (1) Boys at age 3 outperformed girls in a spatial task, and girls matched up only when prompted, (2) Systematic students tend to enter STEM, and boys are characteristically more systematic (and less empathetic) than women, and (3) Expenditure efforts decrease motivation in women as opposed to men (and STEM requires a lot of expenditure). Girls today still outperform boys in English at a young age for a very long time.
Regarding your points about feminists supporting men going into the humanities: That’s great and all, but from what we see today: barely anyone recognizes this as an issue. Thus, solely pinning down women in STEM as the only problem regarding gender-balance in academia simply stigmatizes males, and suggests STEM as an ‘ideal’ (thus creating expectations for males to continue STEM). This does not help anyone. Rather, I would propose that we focus and sincerely highlight the overall gender imbalances instead of channeling down only one viewpoint.
The respondent also mentioned that beyond gender-differences, STEM has been discouraged to women in society: Yes, I agree. There is sufficient evidence to show that. This must definitely be addressed: We need equal opportunity. But we want equal opportunity for both the sexes. In fact, by encouraging a liberal male education as well (i.e, pursue whatever you desire), we can prevent those wishing to study the arts from forcing themselves to do STEM just to become the ‘breadwinner’ of the family.
For example, one gender problem is that boys tend to perform worse in school. A lot of this is to do with the education system and higher disagreeableness in men (which has shown to partly explain the large men CEO positions and higher salaries - but that is an entirely different topic I won’t talk about here). Are we not, then, trying to change the education system to resolve this problem too? Or encourage boys to develop better habits, quit gaming, to build an equal life? If we truly focus on gender-equal advocacy, men and women will both be more involved and we can resolve so many more issues than we are today.
Regarding the ‘working woman’ ideal: I love your definition of feminism. But, if only society followed it. Only if people genuinely thought so. Maybe they do - Nobody knows. Perhaps this is something to investigate. Do feminists tend to more believe in the ‘working women’ archetype? I would be curious to know.
Replying to your comments on my statement: “Women’s rights groups, just like children’s rights, is a case on its own.”. Here, by women’s rights I mean certain issues, such as physical abuse and sexual assault. Children also suffer. So do certain marginalized groups. And so do certain women. These should be addressed, by feminist-specific groups.
However, today feminism is simultaneously being used as an umbrella term for more wholistic issues such as the gender gap in STEM, the archetypal “working woman” and even the pay gap to an extent (again, I can discuss this later) - this neglects the also existing problems faced by males and thus is counterproductive to the movement.
Regarding your point on women not being expected to be men: Yes, this was exactly my point. Else why aren’t women fighting to become construction workers (largely male)? Why not miners, carpenters, agriculture-workers, etc.?
I also agree that both sexes should be treated equally: Legally, and as civilians. And this will, consequently, lead to better prospects for women in society as well.
Responding to your comment on my ‘shallow-mindedness’: Following the definition of feminism, “the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes”, and conducting a holistic analysis on it, is not stigmatization. I hope one can respect personal viewpoints and not label another as shallow-minded for voicing unintuitive perspectives.
Moreover, my article was not a question of personal belief. It was exactly a question of how feminism has changed society’s viewpoints. It was a question of how the media has altered the worlds’ views, creating these problems that is deeming feminism’s initial purpose ineffective. For example, only 7% of British people consider themselves feminists. Why is this?
This is exactly why I had proposed my earlier solution - redefine feminism, or make a new, holistic name for it. I’m not speaking out of personal bias. It’s a concern, and I hope to make opportunity better for humanity.
The reason I specifically chose to focus on one aspect was in order to conduct a proper analysis on one issue rather than listing half-backed points about multiple concerns. I could have easily chosen another issue in feminism, and have briefly mentioned some of them in this response, which I am happy to discuss further.
Denouncing the word “feminine” may be sad in theory, but in today’s society we need to look at what’s going on. In the US itself, only 20% Americans consider themselves feminists. However, 82% of respondents believed that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals”. A majority of people in the US and UK consider ‘feminist’ and insult rather than a compliment. There is literally a new word, called anti-feminism. I myself, know several who literally joke about feminism. If removing the term “feminine” from the movement itself seems too morose, then we should seriously combat this stigma, and the implications it is creating - possibly through education or otherwise. We should talk about how it’s important for both men and women, since many proclaimed feminist issues are not solely about women. We are all humans, who want inclusivity.
So I stand my ground: We must redefine feminism, or create new terminology. If we choose the latter, then perhaps feminism must remain a movement, but its lines drawn more clearly so to be limited to pure female-specific issues (e.g. physical/sexual abuse), as opposed to attempting to capture a much larger subset of problems plaguing both men and women - in different manners - today.
As Simone de Beauvoir says, "I wish that every human life might be pure, transparent freedom.”