Topics Feminism

Question Do you believe that the future of feminism lies in downplaying our differences instead of "celebrating" and emphasizing them? It seems to me that bar physical differences, male and female gender roles are largely social constructs, and the marginalization of women is as much due to their own awareness of their "difference" compared with men. A major example of this is the fact that we have a Minister for Women in this country. Is that not basically admitting that to be female is to deviate from a normative male standard, and that issues concerning therefore requires special attention? That is tantamount to admitting, accepting or condoning the fact that female interest is not present in all the affairs dealt with by other ministers (Finance, Health, Education), and it seems a contradiction in terms. It's more than positive discrimination - it's willful marginalization. On the part of women, obviously. It seems by seeking to put ourselves on an equal level with men we have overshot and are now seeking to separate ourselves even more. Shouldn't the aim be to participate equally in all facets of life? I accept that there are still problems concerning gender equality in Britain, such as the glass ceiling, but I believe that has more to do with women wanting to have children as well as have a career, in which case they would be the first to admit that they cannot compete for the top jobs. Women now ave the possibility to value their careers over their families and can choose not to have children at all. Basically my question is why feminists seem to want to actively take men's superiority from them instead of accepting that we are essentially the same and should co-exist as such?

Accepted:
October 10, 2007

Comments

You ask a powerful and intriguing question. From where I sit, feminism ought to work towards a delicate balance of celebrating diversity and downplaying difference. Diversity should continue to be celebrated in the name of liberty so that our society is able to support maximal forms of human self-expression. Diversity should also be celbrated as a sort of vaccination against the oppressive potential of sameness. It's often the case that sameness--or the downplaying of difference--is achieved by repressing some people towards the end of re-making them in the image of other people.

On the other hand, the very ideas of woman and man (feminine/masculine) need to be undermined or at least loosened up a bit. Celebrating women (as a category opposed or differentiated in its contrast to men) can also constrain people by establishing confining norms about what it means to be a 'real' woman. Part of loosening the idea of woman will mean expanding it to include a diversity of woman, but part of it also will mean emphasizing the common ground between men and women that define us just as much as our differences.

Have feminists overshot, and do things like Women's Studies programs and Ministers for Women marginalize women. That is a bit of an empirical question, but so far as I know the facts of the matter there remains a lot of specific work to be done regarding issues that are peculiar to women that justifies their existence. One does see, and I think this a good thing, Women's Studies programs in the United States shifting their nomenclature to 'Gender Studies'. In this, I agree with Gloria Steinem that feminism must become humanism. But not yet.

I have a slightly different reaction to your question that Prof. Fosl does. The version of feminism that I subscribe to says that sexism consists in the existence of gender roles -- that is, in the social construction of categories of persons founded on differences in reproductive physiology or morphology. I envision a world in which (as Richard Wasserstrom puts it) there is no social significance assigned to biological sex. Gender categories, because they cover so many facets of life -- intellectual interests, modes of dress, choice of career, aesthetic preferences -- serve to regiment human difference. So if you know that someone likes big trucks and is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you can predict that that person's favorite movie is not Steel Magnolias. In a world without gender, human differences would be much less systematic -- people would thus be more different from each other than they currently are. Thus I think that the question you pose involves a false dilemma. One can admit -- indeed, insist -- that we are not inherently the same and still work to eliminate gender differences. The question is not "shall we have one or two different kinds of people?" but rather "shall we let people be fully themselves or not?"