""Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings" Response" Response

Not too long ago, (just this past Sunday, to be exact,) I wrote a post titled "Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings," essentially bashing feminism. My good friend then wrote a response to it, which is a fantastic read and I would encourage you to read. However, I must offer my rebuttal. Hopefully, this post will be of a higher quality than my first one, as I was rushed and decided to be lazy and not really get any resources behind my arguments.

Let me first start by saying that I really appreciate the response. It makes a lot of good points, especially about the muted group theory.

But it implied that I based my argument around that. I did not. I simply used it as an example of how women still being preached as an oppressed group. Which they are not. (And yeah, it was really confusing. I just kinda thought it was ridiculously worded and I didn't like it... (Readers bias I guess...))

I live in America. America is a capitalist country. We revolve around money. Y'all know that. So money means a lot to us, and when we think we aren't getting our fair share of the dough, we get angry. So as women in America are essentially equal to American men, we notice a slight difference in pay. And this angers women. So most people simply jump to the conclusion that it's the difference in gender that causes the difference in pay. And essentially, they are right. But you have to look at the facts, not the bottom line.

Women are different creatures from men. We get to give birth to children, which I have heard is an amazing and awful experience. It's our joy or our burden to bear in society. Not that that's the only thing we're good for; I'm by no stretch of the imagination saying that. But we women are the only ones who can give birth to children. We are natural caretakers. And yes, time off from work is necessary. Sure, maternity leave laws are a problem in America, but remember, we're all about money. "Are you saying that simply because women are having babies they deserve to be paid less?" Goodness no, but I'm saying that's the way it works. But by paying an employee who is not showing up for work and doing any work, a company or business loses money. The economy sucks here and the last thing an employer wants to do is lose money. The government is largely out to protect the corporation, not the individual. Once again, I'm not saying it's right, but if a man took 12 weeks off to raise his child, he wouldn't be paid either. It's up to the family to decide who raises the children, and in many families, that role falls to the woman. There is nothing wrong with this. Their would be nothing wrong with a man doing it either.

Another point (somehow missed in the response) is that women work fewer hours, just in general. In this Wall Street Journal article written by Kay Hymowitz, she states that "In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers." When paid on an hourly basis, this makes a huge difference. Later on, the article says, "Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage." Again, this is their choice. (I understand there are some cases where they are not given the choice. This is by no means okay and should be considered a dangerous relationship.)

"Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it's illegal to fire someone for simply being pregnant. But it's not illegal for them to fire people for being unable to do their jobs---even though with simple adjustments women could do their job fine and with fewer health risks." I get it's not fair. But once again, America is about money. And, did you know, in Iowa, we have a law that says an employer can fire you without reason? That is besides sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability. But if your employer plain doesn't like you, they can just fire you. No reason needed. The world just isn't fair.

"... the most basic of feminism is that women--just as the quote said---are human beings." This statement makes me upset. To believe we need a movement or ideology to assert that women are human beings, I feel, just emphasizes the very resistance we, even as females, have to let go of the archaic idea that nowadays women are still not viewed as human beings. Once we stop acknowledging that a difference exists, that difference is apt to disappear. It's not guaranteed that it will, but it's much more likely. For example, you know those people who are extreme "anti-racists" or "pro-gay" or something like that? They go around saying things like, "Oh yeah, I'm friends with like fifty African-Americans/Asians/Indians/Slovaks/Antarcticans," as if firstly that they actually are, and secondly that makes them somehow a better person than those who aren't what they claim to be. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That's how it needs to be. The first thing you judge someone by should not be their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their gender. And by pointing out that a difference between them, you are only helping keep the problem around longer.

So no, feminism is not a "moot point," but I think we rely too much on it. We may argue that there are fewer women in higher positions, but how many women actually apply for those positions? And it's clearly possible to both raise a family and have a high position, as Licia Ronzulli, Italian representative at the European Parliament, shows us. She takes her now two-year-old daughter to work with her daily, and has been doing so since she was a baby. It may be society and the media sending a message to young girls that they shouldn't hold positions of power, but is there actually anything stopping them from reaching high and attaining such goals? Not really. It may be more difficult than for a man, but it is possible. Determination and qualifications is all a woman really needs nowadays. 

I'll just finish by saying this: women, be proud of who you are. You are a woman, and not a man. You should take pride in this fact, but remember, you are not worth any less than a man. The only thing holding you back is yourself. 

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings

Oh would you just shut up, Ms. Cheris Kramarae. Don't be so melodramatic. Seriously.

The quote from Ms. Kramarae is exactly why I hate feminism. Well, technically I don't, but I suppose our culture's view of feminism is a bit distorted. The feminism I hate is probably more considered "radical feminism." These women seem to still think women are as suppressed as they were in times when it was okay to beat your wife.

Ms. Kramarae, a professor at the Center for the Study of Women in Society at the University of Oregon, is the main theorist of something called the "muted group theory." And while the facts behind it are genuine, the way those facts are used infuriate me. It is essentially stating that women (and minorities) have less voice in the world. Ms. Kramarae essentially says that since men created language, they have more control over language and thus women. I find this a very medieval ideal.

Sure, you may argue that women are still repressed in today's day. But are they really?

One argument is the pay difference between the average man and woman. A CNN article states that women on average make 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man. But let's think about this logically. Is this unjust treatment? Or should we actually look at the statistics behind the facts? Firstly, you can simply look at the careers women choose to go into. Not many women go into engineering nowadays, (though that is slowly changing,) and the jobs women tend to go toward are generally lower paying. Are they lower paying because females usually fill those positions? Um, no. Females kind of generally tend to do this thing called "having babies." And that generally requires taking time off. Sure, there's maternity leave, but women often want to spend longer with their children. So thus they take more days off. Women also tend to work less hours than men, as stated in the CNN article. Overall, that argument falls a little flat. 

Madonna has a quote that can help explain the next argument. She said, "I'm tough, I'm ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay.” With this mentality, the idea is professed that women are not allowed to voice their opinions without criticism. Okay, seriously. For every woman that's true for, there's another man in the exact same position. Men can be called "assholes," "dicks," or "douchebags" for stating their own opinions. This is a two way street, sweetheart.

Largely, what bugs me about the feminism we hear about these days is their extreme anti-men stance. They often portray men as evil, which as a whole, they are not. Their main goal in life is not to oppress women, believe it or not. Just as there are men who do horrible things, there are also women who do horrible things. The scale does not tip largely in favor of one gender in this case. One quote that demonstrates that brings us down to earth on that is from a male himself. Timothy Leary said, "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." And honestly, why should you even try to match up to a male if a female? We are very different creatures, despite being the same species. We have different limitations, strengths, and tendencies. We should not hold ourselves to the same standards.

So I get feminism. Women should be proud of who they are, and should embrace their womanly-ness, and should want equality with men. But aren't we already there? Generally, a woman just needs to be determined and have the drive to reach her goal and she can do it. As Roseanne Barr said, "The thing women have yet to learn is nobody gives you power. You have to take it."