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.