Venker, my arch-nemesis.

Suzanne Venker is becoming my arch-nemesis; I’m so thankful she’s writing.

Her newest masterpiece: "To be happy, we must admit women and men aren't 'equal'"

It’s probably the only accurate statement in her entire article. It is true: women and men are not equal. To be equal means to be the same; women and men, by definition are different—but this has nothing to do with nature or necessity; this has to do much more with ideology and cultural meaning.

More on that later.

First, I’d like to dive into the depths of her written creation. The gist: like her last article, “The war on men” written this past November, she blames feminism and angry women for the “dearth of good men” and calls for women to “surrender to their nature” and forget everything feminism has taught them.

The only difference: In her first article she claimed, “The battle of the sexes is alive and well.” Now, three months later she claims, “The battle of the sexes is over.”

Did I blink?

I’m not exactly sure why she said that; especially because she’s still urging women to surrender to their nature. Perhaps she intended the statement to be performative; because we all know, if it’s on the internet, it must be true.

Nevertheless, we will continue.

Point one:

Venker claims: “Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles as equally valuable.” She argues, “It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.”

So let’s think about America in 1912.

1.       Women couldn’t vote.

2.       Women couldn’t have credit in their name.

3.       Women couldn’t join the military.

4.       A husband could legally rape his wife.

5.       The only Olympic events women could participate in: Tennis & Golf.

6.       Career restrictions; education restrictions.

7.       To name a few.

Yes, Venker, it’s hard to claim women were oppressed. Men did of course open doors for women; just like Cerberus waits patiently to open the gates of Hell. I’ll remember to bring him a treat.

Point Two:

Venker says: “Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades. Unless, of course, you’re beholden to feminism. In that case, you’ll believe the above is evidence of discrimination. You’ll believe what feminists taught you to believe: that gender is a social construct.”

Here I’d like to point out that the oppressions of women in 1912, like not being able to vote or the fact that women could be legally raped by their husbands, were not reflections of how women wanted the world to be. These horrific violations were not present because women condoned them; they were present because there were no social or legal protections against them. Women were fighting against these laws even while they stood in place. It was women’s opposition to them that created social change.

The fact that we still haven’t had a woman president is not because women do not desire to be; the fact that women still make less financially than their male counterpart is not because women are okay with that; the fact that there are not more female CEOs is not because women do not work hard at trying to obtain those jobs… there’s something else in the way; and that something has NOTHING to do with the fact that gender is a “social construct”. Most of these barriers are put up because society DENIES the fact that gender is a social construct. These blockages are based on the archaic notion that “women” by “nature” are more fit for different social positions than their male counterparts. Feminism has tried to show that there is nothing natural about those socially determined ideals—that those ideas are a fiction of how society thinks women “ought” to be, not how they actually are by nature. To say that something exists in a particular way does not prove that it ought to be that way.

Further, just because women have the right to do something does not mean they have the ability to accomplish it—and this ability is not based on physical or psychological constraint or desire. I’m sure we all have dreams that have yet to come into fruition; because we all realize there are other social and economic constraints to the things we desire.

Not only that, but also, it is important to note that oppression does not only manifest in the written word of the law; if only it were that simple. Oppression takes another form and its strength resides in the dominance of discriminatory cultural meaning.

Iris Marion Young argues that oppression also “occurs in mundane contexts of interaction—in the gestures, speech, tone of voice, movement, and reactions of others… Pulses of attraction and aversion modulate all interactions, with specific consequences for experience of the body. When the dominant culture defines some groups as different, as the Other, the members of those groups are imprisoned in their bodies. Dominant discourse defines them in terms of bodily characteristics, and constructs those bodies as ugly, dirty, defiled, impure, contaminated, or sick… Our society enacts the oppression of cultural imperialism to a large degree through feelings and reactions, and in that respect oppression is beyond the reach of law and policy to remedy” (Young 1990, 123- 124).

What this means, is that cultural ideologies or beliefs about individuals have a role in oppression. Just because a law is passed that allows a particular action to take place legally does not mean that individuals will have equal access to such opportunities. Some opportunities are more accessible to some than others—for reasons that stretch for beyond the realm of law.

To claim that there aren’t more female CEOs because women simply just don’t want those jobs is to take a naïve approach to the way power and discrimination function in this country. To dismiss the work feminism has done over the past hundred years in favor of women’s rights is to condone sexist behavior that still persists in contemporary culture today. To encourage women to surrender to a nature that does not exist is to push a political agenda in favor of complicity and subordination. It also insists on a universal “woman” that does not exist.

Women and Men do not have to be equal to be valued. They can be different and respected. Feminism does not insist that women are the same as men; in fact, feminism does not even insist that all women are the same; on the contrary, they demand equal opportunity in spite of their differences.

Till next time, Venker. 

Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. 

to the Republic, for which it stands

Disciplinary power is often subtle; like an echo in a sea shell, you must be quiet in order to hear it. Other times, it slaps you across the face.

Case and Point:

Last month, Governor Pat McCrory announced that his staff was “working on legislation to revamp [North Carolina’s] higher education system and prioritize vocational education.” Part of that legislation includes a proposal to eliminate funding for programs such as Women’s Studies. McCrory stated, “If you want to take gender studies, that’s fine, go to a private school and take it… But I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.” Apparently, on that list of priorities, Women’s Studies slipped through the cracks.

McCrory’s reasoning behind this decision was that programs like Women’s & Gender Studies do not produce jobs; therefore, they should not be funded. The affirmative suggests that tax payers should not support programs that have minute economic value. If the demand for graduates with these degrees is low, government should not support or encourage these programs. Instead, government should only support courses that prepare students for a career. Taxpayers should not be responsible for courses that do not benefit the economy. Why should they?

At first glance, perhaps the argument almost seems reasonable. Who really wants to pay for something that’s not profitable? Who wants to waste money?

But since we’re asking these questions; why don’t we ask a few others:

Why of all the humanities curriculum was “Gender Studies” listed first and by name? Why is this program so easily dismissed? Why wasn’t I shocked? Why did I actually laugh when I heard this?

Why are the critical thinking and social skills provided by humanities programs considered irrelevant for job placement? Why does McCrory believe that skills learned in such programs are not beneficial to job placement?

I think about my previous jobs as a bartender and I realize that there is more to that job than knowing how to make drinks; I also have to have interpersonal skills; time management skills; critical thinking skills. When one becomes a lawyer, to be successful, they need to do more than just pass the BAR. When one wants to open their own bakery; they need to have more than business or culinary skills. To be successful knowledge must be interdisciplinary. That’s what humanities programs such as Women’s and Gender Studies provides; it goes beyond a narrow view of knowledge production. It goes beyond one skill for one person. It’s about teaching individuals to see the world from many different angles, providing analytical tools that will benefit any career or social position. AND gender studies clearly talks about gender and the social and political implications of gender relations in contemporary society. How many people do you know that do NOT have gender? I’m sure these skills can be applied in every single social situation you find yourself in… ever.

Given this, a better question, is why aren’t there more job positions available for humanities and Women’s and Gender Studies graduates in the first place? What kinds of skills do we value as a nation? What knowledge do we value? Instead of eliminating the program, why aren’t we doing more to encourage employers to respect these graduates instead of simply dismissing them? When McCrory dismissed the program so haphazardly; I wonder, does he even know what “gender studies” is?

That aside, I want to talk about something else: Class Privilege. McCrory’s statement highlights the fundamental classism, sexism, racism, and genderism built into the patriarchal system. When he casually stated, ““If you want to take gender studies, that’s fine, go to a private school and take it,” how many of you thought “Well, damn. Why didn’t I think of that?” How many of you ran out and signed up for those courses? How many of you had the privilege to do such a thing? As if it was that simple.

McCrory’s discussion of public/private is very interesting. He suggests that humanities programs such as “Gender Studies” should be taught at Private schools and not funded at Public schools. This division of knowledge reinforces the idea that those that already have privilege (in this case, money) will have access to particular realms of education while those without privilege will be excluded. If this division was upheld, only one particular class would have access to higher forms of knowledge; while the lower classes would be directed towards a more specific training-for-work application and only allowed access to education that produced a very particular type of social subject.

There was once a time in Western history when knowledge was divided along class lines: Gender. Men were allowed access to academia and higher forms of knowledge; women were excluded. Women weren’t even allowed to go to college. This concept was based on the idea that men were rational beings and women were not. It was more economical for men with privilege to access academia and women without privilege to be excluded. If women did go on to further education, they were typically only admitted in programs designed to provide training for very specific occupations: teacher, nurse, secretary. And I’m sure we all can remember the reason given for the knowledge division when Race was used as a social division…

McCrory’s statement suggests this division should now take place along class lines. His statement highlights the fundamental axiom of patriarchal power; it reinforces hegemonic privilege and normative ideals. This conversation is not just about money. It’s a political move that condones sexist, racist and classist behavior.

The fact that Gender Studies was used as a political speaking point is invaluable. How interesting that humanities programs such as Women’s Studies, Anthropology, Sociology and Philosophy are often the very courses offered that question hegemonic privilege to begin with. And McCrory suggests they should be excluded to everyone except those already in positions of privilege. How very interesting.

I read Plato’s Republic as a philosophy undergrad at UNCC; something McCrory would do well to read. In this book Plato describes a utopian city, where there exist only three classes of people (upper, middle, and lower); everyone is born into a particular class and assigned a specific role in society. Each individual person is trained in one specific job and one job only. No one is allowed to have more than one skill. This is done because the goal in this society is to maximize efficiency. Only the upper class is allowed access to knowledge; the lower class’s role in this society is only to work and they are only given access to job related training. EVERYTHING is about EFFICIENCY.

Does this sound familiar?

We are not drones, folks.

Fuck the Machine. Fuck the Republic.

The reason philosophy and gender studies is so important is because it allows everyone to have access to knowledge and skills that allow individuals to think critically. It gives people a foundation to speak from and against systems of power that work to normalize and reinforce discriminatory practices still functioning in contemporary society. Of course those with privilege want to take that away from the lower classes… why on earth would they want us to have that kind of power?