Hi, I'm Laura Ingalls Wilder and I seem to only be worth studying if you're a woman! via mrhsfan @ flickr
Yesterday marked the beginning of my fall semester as I slog my way towards my BA. So far, so great. My first course is a gender studies class that examines women intellectuals, writers, and scholars from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. (It’s also my first gender studies course in ten years — long overdue.) Looking around the room as the two-hour class came to an end, I noticed something peculiar: there was nary a dude in sight. I mentioned this to a friend and classmate on our way out, and she commented that maybe any prospective male students would feel intimidated. I suppose she could be right, but what logic is there in being intimidated by studying the intellectual accomplishments of women and reading works by everyone from Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley to Laura Ingalls Wilder? It’s terribly frustrating, to be honest.
On the bright side, my class looks great and I’m happy that it’s definitely not wanting in attendance. Still, where are the guys? Is it really too much to hope that there might be a man out there who recognizes that studying women’s intellectual history and the broader implications in world history is something that does not need to be limited to students who lack Y chromosomes. SarahMC kindly pointed me to an NPR interview in which Bonnie Morris, a professor of women’s studies at George Washington University, speaks plainly about the stereotypes attached to that field of study. The interview, conducted by Bob Edwards, talks a great deal about feminism, and that’s when it struck me that not once during my class yesterday did I remember hearing that F word — which, in the context of what the course covers, makes sense. But was the mere possibility of discussing feminism in an academic context too much for some of my male counterparts? Did they see the course title (Gender and Knowledge) and expect it to be all about man-bashing instead of history? It’s worth noting that the course is actually within the history department, as there is no women’s studies/gender studies department at my college
So if any of our male readers stumble upon this post, I’d love to know if you have ever taken a women’s studies/gender studies course. If not, was it because it was not offered at your school or because you felt you might be out of place taking that course?
I was a history major and took several woman-focused history classes. They were almost always at least 85% female. at least.
Ladies with brains iz scary!
Is this intimidation (it is to laugh) about being in a class that is majority women, or about studying works by/about women? Is it intimidation? Or is it just dismissal of stupid girl-stuff?
And yes, my WS classes in undergrad (minor, there was no major at the time), were overwhelmingly female. I’d say 90% or more.
@PhDork: I think its dismissal. I don’t think men are intimidated by a class full of women, I just think they read the titles in the course catalog and yawn.
I went to an engineering school in the middle of the desert, where both women and women’s studies courses were lacking. Makes me wish I’d gone to a more liberal-arts-oriented school.
@S.O.A.L.G.
Strangely, because of the fact that my wife is a feminist scholar I didn’t take any women’s studies classes when I went back and finished my degree a few years ago. I just kind of felt like an intro or even 300 level course had very little to teach me ’cause when my wife and I started dating I basically started a graduate level study in feminism.
WifeRat’s shock and horror at a song sung after a rugby match led me down an interesting rabbit hole of journal articles and independent research. Other issues between us along the way led to me reading a whole fuckload more articles and books (I just took the radical feminist reader out of my backpack the other day) and joking that I was constantly getting assigned “homework” by my girlfriend.
I felt like I was better served to incorporate feminism into all of my studies (and really my whole life), rather than simply compartmentalize it in a single course. In retrospect though, the fact that I’m Black didn’t lessen my enjoyment of the African-American history classes I took, maybe I should have taken a women’s studies course.
Good luck with your studies!
I’m taking my first ever grad school class, and it’s an English course on 18th century women writers. We’ve met once so far, and there’s only one dude in the whole class, and he seems a little unsure of being there, and afraid to speak up. I was pretty disappointed in his participation in the last class, and hope that maybe he’ll be willing to speak up and offer a male perspective once in a while. A class isn’t much fun to me without some arguing!
Though I will say the F word came up a lot, even in our first class. We talked about the male gaze and feminist theories of space in literature and I even managed to talk about tits AND boners (after which the prof said, “I LIKE you!). I’m actually excited for the next class tonight.
My undergrad English major program required one “non-canonical” class (read: one course on books by women, POC, and/or LGBT authors). I took the “Representations of Women” class and there were two guys in it. Out of like 50-70 people. Both were gay (I knew them both well, so I’m not speculating). My husband, who was in the same program, took it later and I was, I think, the only man in his smaller class.
In law school I took two seminars – “Gender and the Law” and “Feminist Legal Theory” – that had 10 students in each. No men in the former class, one in the latter. Interestingly, he was a straight guy who had been in the Navy and wrote an great paper on the treatment of women in the military.
This is the same as asking why there aren’t white students in a class on African-American history or literature. And the answers are the same: intimidation, lack of interest (as in, it’s not my history or literature so it can’t be interesting), fear of ending up being the class villain.
The only one that’s just prima facie invalid is the middle one, since it’s possible that a class on an oppressed group which has a member of the oppressor group could turn on that person as the representative of the oppressors. But any good teacher would stop that from happening, and I think it’s a chance worth taking because your view of the world will be so enlarged.
Thanks for all the responses, ladies AND gents. Thanks in particular, Newt and HillRat for chiming in. HillRat, it is interesting how some people love studying things they already know about and others feel like a single course won’t advance their knowledge. We’re on opposite sides of the fence, I suppose, but I get what you’re saying.
I should have noted in my original post that when I first took a women’s studies course ten years ago, it was at my first college which was all-women and therefore having it 100% female students was inevitable. Was I naive to be expecting at least one male face in yesterday’s class? I’m not sure.
Mischiefmanager, your point about fearing being labeled the class villain is an excellent one. Personally, I would not have automatically branded any guy in a women’s/gender studies class as a straw man stand-in for the patriarchy, but I can understand that fear. I had a similar fear the first time I accompanied my ex-girlfriend to a Queer Women of Color symposium; I was 18 and still wrapping my mind around the extent of white privilege that’s afforded to me, and was nervous for about 0.2 seconds that I’d be The Enemy because I wasn’t a WOC. So yes, your point about “villainy” is well-taken.
I was taught Feminist Legal Theory (my one and only class) by a man, and there were four men in my class. Ah, Canada.
@PhDork: Yes, I also think you’re right about the whole “dismissal-of-silly-fluffy-women’s-stuff” aspect. It would be really cool to distribute an anonymous questionnaire to both men and women students at my college and ask if they’d take a gender/women’s studies course and why or why not.
@funnyface: My experience of men in female-majority classrooms is the opposite–they can’t WAIT to explain things to us.
Me too, Spark. Funnyface, I think it’s a good thing the guy in your class is willing to sit back and listen. Consider it a blessing that he doesn’t think he’s got to mansplain everything!
@SarahMC: yes! I had one gender specific class in law school and the lone male in the room TOTALLY dominated the discussion.
In college, I took a literature of black writers (or something to that effect) course. Like Maritsa, one non-canonical course was required. I remember an acquaintance telling me that he thought this requirement was stupid, because we were studying authors who haven’t died yet and haven’t “stood the test of time.” So I agree with PhDork that these types of classes are dismissed as fluff.
mischiefmanage’s comment reminded me of all the guys who complained about how they were unfairly charachterized as sexists when a female teacher mentioned feminism (oddly enough this never happened if the teacher was male). So I suppose it’s a combination of dismissal and fear of being characterized negativity that keeps most men out of women’s studies classes.
@SarahMC: Mansplain! I will use this term often.
Well I went to a single sex college so it was mainly all laydeez, all the time. But in law school during my first year we had one week where we studied feminist legal theory (it came in other times but this was the only week devoted to it) and the men in the class, even men who were relatively sensitized to gender issues, were almost to a one EXTREMELY uncomfortable, hesitant, defensive, embarrassed, or silent. It was very interesting to me having had limited experience in mixed gender classrooms talking about gender. I spoke with a bunch of the guys after class to see how they experienced it. They used words like “marginalized” to describe how they felt. I found it to be very useful, and encouraged them to consider that they way they felt in that one class may approximate the female experience in the classroom for many women and girls much of the time. I think it is really sad that so many men get to the age of 25+ having never been in a position where they sat in a classroom and were forced to examine their gender privilege. Maybe we could get passed the avoidance, discomfort and defensiveness into productive and collaborative discussions if gender issues were earlier and more frequently mainstreamed instead of being an “Extra” class that girls can take for personal interest.
Of course I also witnessed similar acts of defensiveness and shut-down when racial issues erupted on my mainly white college campus. In general education needs to do a better job of teaching about systemic inequalities and privilege instead of giving us these narratives about how America has already defeated racism, sexism, and all other isms and that is why now we celebrate with Black History Month, or whatever.
I had the opportunity to take Womens Studies as an elective, but opted out primarily due to the fact there were other things that looked more interesting, I only had a couple electives and thought I should maximize what I felt would help me the most. It wasn’t that I wasn’t interested, I am. Nobody I know avoids classes because they think they will be marginalized, or villainized, or whatever, nobody I know I guess wraps their identities in a few hours a week! People just take what interests them the most, given their limited resources. As JD Regent says above, if we all HAD to take it early on it would be something else we were exposed to and that would help us pass it on and view things better. I don’t like the word ‘forced’ though, or ‘mandatory’. Another poster mentioned the sole guy monopolizing the discussion, the teacher should never allow that in any subject in my opinion.
Ronnie I am wondering about your resistance to forced or mandatory classes… I don’t know about your education but I had a ton of mandatory classes I had to take at all levels of education. I wonder why gender issues are seen as something that shouldn’t be “forced” in a classroom, as if it is not their natural place as much as calculus or non-feminist history?
I would also like to point out that I took no women’s studies classes in college (except for one class in queer studies which i LOVED and got the highest grade ever in, so it was really stupid of me not to take more..) for the same reasons that it was uninteresting or not vital information or that I was being exposed to the information anyway being a woman at a woman’s college. So this is not about me blaming others but also interrogating my own responses to material.
Yeah, like Ronnie said, if I hadn’t dicked off trying on different majors I was bad at (econ) or turned out to be sub-par, cobbled concentrations (international studies), I might have had more room down the road to take some feminist theory or non-canonical lit. That’s a lesson to anybody out there in high school: pound your AP tests. It’s a waste to be taking your basic science credit in your first two years when you could be expanding your mind with something you enjoy.
@J.D.: I’m pretty sure during my first year at law school we’ll have a week in which we study how women are economically inefficient, and contrary to natural law, after which we pass around James Madison’s embalmed scrotum and kiss it reverently. Ha ha, just kidding (maybe)!
oh cbears, that’s just every single other week in the semester. except the scrotum part. but maybe you’ll get lucky!
Ronnie I am wondering about your resistance to forced or mandatory classes… I don’t know about your education but I had a ton of mandatory classes I had to take at all levels of education.
JD, I think its just the word choice, like when my mother used to ‘force’ me to eat brussel sprouts. I prefer ‘prerequisite’. Even though I guess I got the iron and nutrients from the sprouts and even passed that to my offspring, to this day I won’t eat them! So if someone says, you should you know be forced to mandatorily examine your privelege, sucker, I think of sprouts. But if something is presented as a prereq to something better for everyone – say someone says, the prerequisite for supporting and growing all members of our society for our mutual benefit is to examine your own role and what you can do to help – then its no diff to me than learning how to be a good driver. We pay attention and react so often to how things are put rather than what is put perhaps. And I DID waste highschool Bear!
Pre-requisite it is then!
When I was in my early ’30s, I took a women’s study course in Cincinnati and a women writers course or two as well.
I think I was too old for the women’s study class. Being a feminist of many years myself, and partnered with a FEMINIST for several years by that time, not much of the discussion was new information to me. The reading list was great as I’d not read many of them, but the discussions were often too much “WHAT? Women end up paying more for used cars than men?” and less theory that I’d have liked.
That said, there was no feeling whatsoever that it was strange for a man to be taking the class and I felt very welcomed. I did worry some times that my presence may have had a chilling effect on discussions (due both to my age and gender) and tried really hard to let others do most of the talking.
I think women’s study courses ought to be required for all students.
@ Tim — this was what my Representations of Women class was like. Among other things, we read Pride & Prejudice and The Yellow Wallpaper and there was a lot of eye-opening. “What do you mean women couldn’t inherit property?” and” Why didn’t she just leave?” I was shocked.
@JD: That is brilliant. Feeling that you’re a member of a minority, with the “uncomfortable, hesitant, defensive, embarrassed, or silent” feelings that causes, is an experience we should all have, so we know what it’s like. The men in your class were lucky enough to experience it in a safe, confined situation. Most people who experience it aren’t so lucky-they get it every day of their lives. I bet that going through those emotions was at least as educational as any of the material that was presented.
@Tim: Thank you so much for that comment, it really was great to read about that experience. I think your worry about being a “chilling presence” is understandable, but personally I would have welcomed you into my class yesterday with open arms!
@Ronnie: Prerequisite is a great word. Crawling is a prerequisite for walking. Walking is a prerequisite for running. Women’s history is a prerequisite for understanding history as a whole.
@SOALG: Reading Wonkette is a prerequisite for reading Jezebel is a prerequisite for reading Harpyness is a prerequisite for not getting my homework done before 8.
I am a woman, and I have always considered myself a feminist, but when I ventured outside the business faculty to take a women’s studies course I was absolutely appalled at what I heard. It was indoctrination into a very specific set of radical left wing beliefs about women, gender, society and truth that left me just gobsmacked.
Case in point: domestic violence was always discussed as if it were women being abused by evil patriarchy loving males, with not a single second of attention paid to the fact that the majority of domestic violence is actually against children, and that women are major perpetrators thereof. In fact, several of the mothers in the class vehemently defended their right to smack their children, without giving a moment’s consideration to how they might actually be raising the next generation of men who think it’s okay to use violence to solve problems, or victims who think love is compatible with a slap across the face.
The women in the class, were, quite frankly, utterly deluded about women and about men. I have no trouble understanding why men run screaming in the other direction from women’s studies courses. Why sit in a class where you are going to be vilified, scapegoated and cast into the most evil role possible, while your classmates pretend women play no role in history, culture or society.
And now some of you, no doubt, will say, “but women DON’T play a role in history, culture or society. Not a meaningful one anyway, and certainly not one in which we can take any part of the blame”.
Women’s Studies is one of the most utterly useless disciplines on campus. It is high time that aspects of gender were simply incorporated into mainstream disciplines and enough with this insular, pathological segregation.
I didn’t think it was possible to get three threads with 70+ posts in two days; but Andy, my friend, something tells me you just got us there.
Without addressing the first few paragraphs of your comment, Andy, what do you suggest we do while we wait to be incorporated into regular ol’ history and literature courses?
Do you feel the same way about all interdisciplinary courses?
I also took no women’s studies classes, despite becoming (mostly after graduation) quite interested in gender & sexuality issues.
One problem is that, unless you already have given some thought to feminist issues, it’s very easy to accept the dominant frame–men’s history/writing/etc. just *is* history/writing/etc; women’s is special, distinct, in need of justification. Most coverage of feminism in mainstream media reinforces this view. I suppose professors could do better about promoting their courses, but my sense is that most students pick classes based on preexisting interest in and opinions about subject matter.
Maybe “Mad Men” will help promote interest in this sort of thing…
Women’s Studies is one of the most utterly useless disciplines on campus
Huh.
And that was one of the most utterly useless comments that’s been left on this site.
I’m not sure if you noticed in my previous comments and my post that I said I would LIKE to have men in this course with me because it is NOT about segregation, as you profess. Out of curiosity, how do you propose to incorporate gender “into mainstream disciplines”? The study of gender and how it affects women AND men is a valuable discipline, your one negative experience notwithstanding.
Some other thoughts:
Part of this is simply that much of what we’re talking about is either humanistic or interpretive in nature, and these sorts of understanding are not particularly respected–either as career preparation or “knowledge,” period. There’s a real fetishistic physics-worship prevalent on campus, and in society as a whole. (Compare the standing in government and the media of economists as Wise Experts to that of, say, sociologists.)
@Andy – I agree with you that women’s contributions should be incorporated into history and literature courses, obviously. But that’s not the only purpose served by women’s studies (I believe many departments are switching to being called “gender studies”, which makes more sense as a name). Classes in women’s/gender studies teach about how gender-based oppression is a structural element of society. That’s not the same thing as teaching about significant acts of women in the past or significant writings by women. What you’re talking about is making history/literature/etc. classes gender-neutral rather than having them focus primarily on men. What that leaves out is studying the nature of society through the lens of gender — from that point of view, gender studies will be necessary for a long time. This is true as well for race and sexuality studies.
You are correct in saying that the view of most academic feminists is radical, although it has little to do with the left-wing per se. The goal of academic feminism is radical in that it wants to restructure society; that is the definition of a radical movement.
The role of women in domestic violence against children should of course be discussed and I believe your professor was remiss in not urging your classmates to examine their own urge towards corporal punishment. However, identifying women as an oppressed class and men as a class of oppressors — and I speak here explicitly in terms of classes and not individuals — is not the same thing as vilifying or scapegoating men. It is a historical and sociological fact that power structures exist in society to benefit men and harm women, just as power structures exist to benefit white people and harm people of color, and so on.
Straining… not… to… say… something… about… business… faculties…
I studied in Europe, where gender studies as a separate discipline seems to be less well established, at least at the undergraduate level. That’s probably due to the fact that you choose your major going in and there is still a relatively low demand for it as a major (although universities in large, progressive cities often have it as an option, they did in Berlin).
That being said, we got a lot of discussion about feminism and women’s place in society in my literature-based course. I suppose it would have been possible to avoid most of it by choosing other modules than I did, but some men did choose to do ones on women’s writing. And even those who didn’t definitely got exposed to some feminist criticism through lectures etc.
I graduated from a state school which is 80% women, we call it a historically female university. Taking a Woman’s Study course is a requirement for every student’s core curriculum, both male and female.
I took several, which is why I spent my sophomore year pissed as shit and with a great desire to hit many many people with big hammers.
In fact, contrary to Andy’s opinion, I find my Woman’s Study classes to be some of the most useful courses I took during my undergrad career. In those classes, I learned how to think critically about the parts of our society that are generally invisible, how to attempt to put myself in the position of people who are different from me and who have different opinions, and how to be aware of the effects of my own actions instead of stumbling through the world feeling that everyone who believes differently than I do is a deluded idiot.
Andy, I’m curious about a couple of things. No hidden slam here, just genuinely curious:
In what way were the students deluded about men and women?
Are you now working in the business world? if so, what’s your experience been as a woman?
I also have a general comment. I think before anyone takes any history course at all, they should be required to take a course on the teaching of history. It’s essential that the student understand the bias (intentional or otherwise) of the material and the professor, and his or her own biases. Only then, with an understanding of the various frameworks in which history can be taught, can the student learn and understand what he or she is learning.
@Ronnie: Prerequisite is a great word. Crawling is a prerequisite for walking. Walking is a prerequisite for running. Women’s history is a prerequisite for understanding history as a whole.
Thank you for inviting men to comment and then being welcoming, I thought this was a thread for men (I don’t like to interrupt women discussions) but now I see women arguing! Thanks also for embracing a term that isn’t as off-putting as some I’ve heard. I totally read this post as history, not theory.. they say all history is a myth anyway, so why not be open to filling in the infinite number of white spaces. Womens place in history is perhaps the biggest white space of all. As for theory, I went to college to have my mind pried open a little wider. I’ve seen some here say that a college courses job is to confront us with guilt and what not, I do not believe THAT, I believe that is what life is for, but I think college courses are the signposts that guide us down lifes road. I don’t want to feel guilty and ‘confront’ my shortcomings in a class I really need at least a 3.0 in you know, but later when I’m living with women (I hope) THEN.. THEN what I learned will help me reach a better place and confront the baggage I have been given/picked up along the way. I’ve had plenty of courses that mixed in a theory that was way different than what I’d been raised with – thats college! Anyway, glad the men here at least have been supportive, please invite us to share more often!
Turns out the dude in my lit course is a dud after all. Yesterday he expressed that he just didn’t understand why we spent so much time talking about sex and gender. UGH.
I took one Gender Studies class as an elective and wish I could have worked more in. I changed majors after my first year and so I didn’t have many elective hours available. The class I took introduced me to so much and I’ll admit that at the time I didn’t “get” all of it.
We had one guy in our class (small class of about 12) and he was a huge football player. His contribution to class turned out to be a pleasant surprise, not only was he respectful and attentive, he was able to provide a unique perspective. We talked a lot about the construct of masculinity and femininity in different cultures, and his experiences as a young black man were valuable. It was also great that he could draw parallels between our experiences and his without dismissing ours or making the class all about him.
It took him awhile to really participate in the discussion though. I think once we all got more comfortable and knew what to expect from the discussions, more people felt safe to speak up. I fully credit the success of this class to the fact that it was a small group sitting around a conference table, and a truly fantastic professor.
I’m a little late on this discussion- the school year started and insanity began- but I’m a Women’s and Gender Studies major at a New England liberal arts university right now. Our WMGS program is an interdepartmental program- I’m only required take three classes within the WMGS department as a major (intro, feminist theory, and senior research). This semester, my WMGS classes are in the English and Politics departments.
The Politics class, “Women as Political Actors” had three guys during the first meeting on Tuesday, who pretty much dominated discussion with their idiocy. Yea for not recognizing privilege! I wanted to give them the WMGS 101, but who has time for that?
The English class has far more guys, but is more of a gender and the body kind of thing than specifically women. The class idiots are still, as far as I can tell, men. They aren’t necessarily idiots, they just- don’t get it. They’re missing the background.
My intro WMGS class, which I took as a sophomore, had about 5 or 6 guys out of 45 or 50 students. More guys need a basic background in the concept of privilege, in feminist issues, all of that. But what I’ve decided as I’ve taken WMGS classes is that men are terrified of classes with the world “women” in the title. They won’t take them. If the class is about “women” then clearly it isn’t for “men.” Ugh.
@baraqiel, your post makes a good deal of sense. However, it takes for granted that gender is a major source of oppression in society, which is an ideological stance, not a proven fact. Class structures society far more than gender or race, for that matter. A rich person of any gender or color will always have more privilege than a poor person of any gender or color.
My personal story is one that generally sends radical feminists into paroxysms of ideological rage: I quit my job in international banking and am now a stay at home mother to my three children. I had always intended to quit, it was not a situation that was thrust upon me, and yes, I have the opportunity and the privilege because my husband is the primary breadwinner in our family. But of course, that is part of the reason why I chose him, and not someone else.
There are two reasons I have decided to raise my own children. Firstly, I have taken my baby’s need and desire into account, something women are rarely encouraged to do. A baby does not want or need to be dropped off a day orphanage for someone else to raise. Secondly, I have no desire to exploit some poor person (almost always a woman), and have her do a job I ought to be doing myself.
When people ask me if I don’t perhaps feel guilty that my husband has to bear the entire burden for our family’s financial well-being, I tell them that I’ll start earning half the money when he starts carrying half the pregnancies, giving half of the births (without drugs, as I did) and doing half of the breastfeeding.
Women have a biological role that makes it impossible for them to imitate men. And it is ridiculous that we should even try. This is what I mean when I say women are deluded.
Women cannot “have it all”. You can do one job well, or lots of jobs poorly. Men cannot “have it all” either. That is probably why humans tend to arrange themselves in units, woman and man, woman and woman, man and man. It doesn’t take a village to do a good job, but it does take two.
Andy, just because it’s best for you to raise your children full-time, doesn’t mean that other women who make a different decision or live under less privileged circumstances are “orphaning” their children. Perhaps women become angry not because of your decisions, but because of the accusations you make while describing them. It’s not necessary to put down or deny the experiences of working women or people with non-traditional nuclear families.
But what I really came here to say: my women’s college did an excellent job of integrating gender studies into all disciplines, so it is possible and it is being done.
@Andy “A rich person of any gender or color will always have more privilege than a poor person of any gender or color.”
I often hear this leveled against feminism and it always bugs me that it has stuck around. Comparing oppression and discounting one group because they are not as oppressed as another just doesn’t make sense. And it always included the incorrect assumption that feminism discounts race (or any number of other factors contributing to opression).
And I’ve never met a feminist who was sent into “paroxysms of idealogical rage” by another woman making the choice to stay home. But when they discount the privilege that has allowed them to make the choice and instead suggest that feminists are trying to “imitate men,” well, that’s a different story.
Andy, my paroxysms of rage are not about your choice to stay home but about the phrases you use to describe it, within which you cleverly hide your contempt and for women who are different. E.g., “raise my own children” implying working mothers do not raise their own children, “day orphanage” implying abandonment of unwanted and unloved children, and of course, everyone’s favorite, the moral superiority in having babies without painkillers – you are clearly SO MUCH BETTER than women who choose epidurals.
I’d say more but my paroxysms are inhibiting my coherence. I’m sure the patriarchy appreciates you buying into its strictures and passing on your learnedness to deluded ladies like ourselves. Marrying for money, so modern – why didn’t I think of that? You’re welcome to choose your choice, but don’t DELUDE yourself into believing others’ experiences are worthless and wrong.
Oh Andy. And to think I took you at your word when you said you were a feminist. But your follow-up comment is so riddled with anti-feminist phrases and gender essentialism that I can only conclude you are better left ignored.
@Andy – Well, yes, as you seem to think that what lives men and women lead should be determined by their capacity to bear children or lack thereof, then I do imagine you’d believe that gender oppression isn’t an objective fact. After all, if a woman properly should be in her (husband’s) house raising her (husband’s) children, then I suppose the fact that the options women have when they step outside that role are restricted and the fact that women’s bodies are highly policed and subject to violence in society wouldn’t seem that strange. I’m going to try this once — this post only — to see your response, and then if you come back with something reasonable I’d love to continue this conversation, but if not, then SarahMC’s probably right.
The key phrase in your post is “women have a biological role”. Feminism is based on the idea that we don’t, actually, and men don’t either. I’m curious about this — what exactly do you think women are imitating men in doing? I’m studying to be an engineer. Am I imitating men? How about when I wear pants? Or when I work out? Or when I program a computer? Many of my professors are women — are they imitating men? If I’m learning from them, am I then imitating men by proxy? What about my French teacher — he’s a man teaching a class of almost all women, in a discipline that is somewhat feminized and a department in which he’s the only male professor at present. So is he imitating women? Or were all of these other women imitating men when they decided to get their doctorates in the first place? That professor’s also gay. He has a partner of many years and is now the breadwinner for the two of them. Is my professor’s partner not a man because he doesn’t earn money any more? Are you starting to see how absurd these little boxes are? What if I don’t want children? What if I want children, but with another woman? Does any of that make me less of a woman?
I have great respect for stay at home moms — I was raised by one and had what I consider to be an awesome childhood. But the way I grew up isn’t the only way. A man and a woman can raise a child well, or horribly, or in between. But that’s also the case for a single parent of either gender, or a group of three or more adults or any other combination of people. The most well-adjusted person I know was raised by a polyamorous group. The majority of the most fucked up people I know were raised by married, heterosexual couples. Okay, you decided to stay at home. I don’t care about the reasons. What I care about is that other people may not make that choice, and that’s perfectly reasonable of them because they might not want the same life that you have. Your life is not objectively the best one, and for you to suggest that it is is arrogant to say the least.
And just an easy historical coda: the mixed-gender pair as a childraising unit is relatively new as these things go. Most of the “units” that you’re talking about were larger than two people for most of history in most of the world, whether because of polygamy or because married couples would live in larger family units in which children of both genders were primarily raised by a group of women.