Who died and put Nora Ephron in charge?:

And by the way, Laura Bush isn’t a feminist. You can’t be a feminist if you don’t believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

Um, why not? What exactly is feminism about? I’ve said it before, I don’t consider myself a Feminist, but a feminist. I find Feminism both dreary and alarming – dreary because it is so humorless, so dogmatic, so past its prime, and alarming because as a Man, I’m the enemy. I find feminism sensible and always relevant. The biggest difference to me is that Feminism is all about women being just like the stereotype of manly men at the birth of feminism – career first, sexual predator, all that nonsense, while feminism is about women being free to pursue happiness without gender restrictions (which means we need a healthy dose of masculinism as well). While I oppose abortion, it doesn’t enter into feminism because of the physical reality that reproduction is gender asymetrical, and there is nothing law or culture can do about that. Women are no more or less equal than men due to abortion law because are men not subject to it and there is no equivalent for men. So I’m happy to be a feminist, just don’t call me a Feminist.

Tags: Feminism

The Stanford Magazine, which the Alumni Association so thoughtfully sends to me despite the fact I haven’t paid to join (if you don’t count the thousands of dollars in tuition, which I don’t since my father paid that), has a section called One Question. They ask one question, and well known members of the Stanford community (i.e. not me) answer that one question. Last months edition (i.e. the one I’m currently reading) had an interesting juxtaposition of two answers. First up is a condescending piece of snot by a professor (who else?):

Marjorie Perloff is the Sadie Dernham Patek Professor of Humanities, emerita: Until recently, I honestly believed that the feminist revolution was irreversible. I took it for granted that women could now have real careers and be independent people. But as I read my daughter Carey’s 25th-reunion class book or the New York Times, I learn that little has changed. Indeed, in some ways, the situation has deteriorated as the “soccer mom,” the mom who “uses her SUV as her office,” is valorized. Moms in my day (late ’50s-early ’60s) who didn’t work outside the home used their spare time to work in the community and the arts, take courses, and so on. We would have been ashamed to be soccer moms and spend our afternoons chauffeuring kids around. So I regard the current scene with dismay but also with bemusement: it will change again just as everything does.

I suppose I could read this with a detached bemusement too if it wasn’t coming from a professor, so I’m forced to have nothing but dismay. This is the chief reason I have come to disdain capital F Feminism while I consider myself a small f feminism — I’m all for throwing open the doors of opportunity to all people regardless of gender (or sex) or race or pretty much anything other than criminal behavior, but where I’m also in favor of people deciding on their own what opportunities to persue, the Feminists are not open at all and only consider particular choices the right ones. I, too, am amazed when I read my reunion books how many of the women chose to stop persuing careers, and I’m talking about high paying, prestigous careers, to be full time mothers. But I don’t think they’ve made the wrong choice, just as I don’t think those women who continued with their careers made the wrong choice, because it’s their choice to make, not mine. On a side note (what, not in parentheses for a change?), I was shocked to read this from a professor; perhaps the instaprofessor wouldn’t be so shocked since he comes in contact to such disdain on a far more regular basis.

But the truly wonderful thing is immediately following they have the perfect rejoinder:

Jim Collins, ’80, MBA ’83, founded a management research laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and is the author of Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . And Others Don’t: I used to believe that the critical questions in life were about -what — what decisions to make, what goals to pursue, what answers to give, what mountains to climb. I’ve come to see that the most important decisions are not about what, but about who. The primary question is not what mountains to climb, but who should be your climbing partner. If you want to have a great life, the most important question is not what you spend your time doing, but who you spend your time with. First who, then what – life is people.

Apparently there are plenty of women (and men too!) who have also made it past what to who and have decided that spouses and children are the who, or at least the most signficant who, when it comes to answering who do you spend your time with. Amen, brother Jim.

Tags: Feminism

I’ve mentioned before I’m not a conventional Feminist. Well, according to women studies major and Miss America contestant Nancy Redd, I’m a 3rd wave feminist. Too bad my grandmothers aren’t around to find out. I knew I was at least 2nd generation since my mother, with two boys, made sure her sons never knew there was a distinction between man’s and women’s work (she also breast fed at a time when, in the words of my children’s pediatrician, doing so was a political statement). Anyway, I’m in complete agreement with Ms. Redd when she says “This is what third-wave feminism is all about: Be a career woman, be a stay-at-home mom, be Miss America” — and I’m confident that my daughter will live that future.

The author of the piece, Ms. Nesoff, disagrees: “Redd missed the point. She shed a quarter of the 158 pounds on her 5-foot-5 frame to compete for the crown, conforming, in the process, to current notions of beauty. Perhaps what’s being reclaimed by feminists who embrace beauty pageants and impractical shoes is not feminism itself but femininity. … Perhaps some women want to ignore the inequality that persists in our society by coating it in pink frosting. They can strap on those Jimmy Choos and pretend that there is no glass ceiling or rape or sexual harassment.”

Methinks Ms. Nesoff misses the point. The old style feminists seem to see equality only in terms of making women as manly as possible – thus the gripe about reclaiming feminity and conformity to current notions of beauty. Who wants to exchange the patriarchy for the matriarchy, especially if the matriarchy is trying to out patriarch the patriarchy? If a woman wants to wear impractical shoes to look good, isn’t that her decision? If a woman wants to wear work boots, eschew makeup, forgo current notions of sex appeal, have a career in construction, swill beer, and cuss like a sailor, more power to her – but again, shouldn’t that be her choice? Or she can strap on those Jimmy Choos and deal with glass ceilings, rape, and sexual harassment in her own unique style like the rest of us who aren’t demanding that others conform to our theories but who are trying to make the world a better place through our own actions.

Thanks to Dodd at Ipse Dixit for the link.

Tanya has an opinion, too.

Tags: Feminism