Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <01e801c5e332$b3476e00$54f1d58d &AElig 0022430339>
References: <572acfa2564.436e36f3 &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu> <20051106113840.7lw22esvdw4gs40c &AElig web.mail.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:32:12 -0500
To: <mjste &AElig umich.edu>, <lreeves &AElig hilltop.bradley.edu>
Cc: "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>
From: "James Mickens" <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: are you a feminist?
Status: O

What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is it
trying to prove that women are capable of doing anything a man can do
and vice versa? Or is it to prove that women have a somewhat
different (yet equally valuable) set of skills that should be
cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the feminist goal
some combination of the two? In general terms, are feminists trying
to champion "strict equality" or "equivalent value"? For example,
Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a subtly
gendered method of intellectual self-deprecation. This implies that
the "better" way to make a point is to use the stereotypically male
voice, i.e., one that is bolder and eschews qualifiers. However, one
could argue that the use of qualifiers indicates humbleness and an
openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal of feminism to get
women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate the
inherent value in both modes of speech? The answer is unclear to me.
In fact, it's often hard for me to divine the extent to which
"feminism" in the abstract accepts or denies the malleability of
human behavior and intellect, and the extent to which gendered
differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good or bad. For
example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of professionalism
in society and the values it fosters--individualism, excessive
consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1 form of
intelligence is prioritized--creates a system in which women must fit
into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize."
Presumably, the word "consumption" was modified with "excessive" in a
pejorative sense. So, is pejorative consumption a distinctly male
trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait? In positing the
existence of one form of intelligence that is overvalued, we
implicitly posit the existence of a second, "female" intelligence
that is undervalued. But is this female intelligence *intrinsically*
linked with the biological condition of being female, or is an
artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this time? By
saying that women are "forced to fit" into patriarchical roles, we
seem to imply that there are essential, inviolable female
characteristics that are being shoehorned into essential, inviolable
male roles. But such an analysis assumes that men and women are in
fact essentially different at their cores. If this is true, then
should feminists be pushing for strict equality, or separate but
equivalent?

Personally, I like Laurie's attitude towards feminism because she
directly relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any mysogyny
left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as I can
live my life as I choose, the same way in which any man can." I
agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people comfortable with
themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological
adjective. From the biological anthropologist perspective, it's
unrealistic to think that gendered aesthetics will ever completely go
away. It's true that notions of beauty are socially constructed, but
just because they're imaginary doesn't mean that people will stop
daydreaming. Every society has ideals of attractiveness---this is
just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to destroy ideals of
attractiveness, we can strive to make them more inclusive and less
self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with the term
"radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social engineering
goal which is unattainable, i.e., the abolishment of gendered
aesthetics. Once again, I think that the feminism should be
formulated in terms of making people comfortable with themselves, not
in terms of eradicating all notions of masculinity and femininity.
The former is acheivable, the latter is not.

I never use the term "feminist" to describe myself, even though (from
my perspective at least) I believe in empowering women. Instead of
describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as "reasonable."
This seems trite, but I believe that it's a useful way to frame the
debate. When we as "feminists" try to explain our goals to the wider
public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing phrases
such as "radical feminism" or "subversion of the dominant gender
paradigm." We will win more converts if we talk in plain terms of
fairness and reasonableness. For example, when we discuss gendered
differences in the salary received for equivalent jobs, there's no
reason to bring up the military-industrial-sexist complex, ossified
patterns of systematic discrimation, etc. Here's the deal---simply
put, it's not fair for women to recieve less money than a man for the
same job. This isn't an issue that belongs to feminist ideology, it's
an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with the name
"feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could be our allies.
Language is powerful, and the conservatives have been better at
semantic framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book "Moral
Politics." Think about what used to be called tax "cuts"---the
popular term now is tax "relief." Republicans stopped using the word
"cut" and starting using "relief" because it's much more difficult to
say that one is against "tax relief." But note that in introducing
this language of "relief," they've implictly proposed that taxes are
a burden, when one could argue that they are really the
responsibility of all citizens living in a caring civil society. In
terms of moving public opinion, the language that we use to support
our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the quality of
the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like "radical feminist" (or
even just "feminist") are unnecessary and somewhat couterproductive,
particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as generic
fairness issues.

I realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out of
hand since, as a scientist, I appreciate theories that explain why
things are the way they are. I also realize that as intellectuals, we
have distaste for the Straussian simplification that is often
necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed masses. Nevertheless,
by removing the "radical" from "radical feminist," i.e., by accepting
that there will always be notions of gendered aesthetics, I think we
get a more realistic framework for improving the lives of women (and
men too!). Then, by framing "feminist" issues as "fairness" issues
that speak to everyone's sense of decency, I think that we have a
better chance of actually improving the world, as opposed to
alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies.

~j