I don't intend for this to be directed at feminism as a lesson to be learned, but recent experiences in this matter have largely been within the realm of feminism. As such, it is through that lens that I will approach this topic.
To break it down from a general perspective- I find that there's something philosophically wrong with an ideological movement of any kind that does not adhere to its own teachings. It's inconsistent and suggests that the movement has ulterior motives- playing both sides of the fence. Unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices that their ideology demands.
Sometimes, this is for a pragmatic purpose, which is understandable (for obviously practical reasons), but still unacceptable from a strictly theoretical perspective.
To touch this issue down into reality, we'll start with the ideological disagreement between deontology and utilitarianism.
Deontology suggests that there are absolutes- things that one must always or never do.
Utilitarianism suggests that there are not absolutes- that there are gray areas between each extreme. Every act can be justified given the appropriate circumstances in which a greater good can come from a "bad" act.
My problem would be something like this-
If a utilitarian argued for moral gray areas except ones that were a detriment to them personally. For example, an asthmatic utilitarian "You're never allowed to smoke. It always does more harm than good." As a statement, it obviously cannot be proven, but it neglects a basic tenet of utilitarianism- that there's always a theoretical situation in which it is better to do the otherwise obviously "bad" thing.
It is intellectually dishonest to hold others to a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to. It lends a total lack of credibility to the message you're trying to send.
My philosophy example is not solid, and I'm actually not particularly satisfied with it, but I came up with it on the fly, so it'll have to do...
To get to the real meat of what I'm saying- tying this to feminism- I've had a lot of discussions lately with self-described feminists (of which I still consider myself one) who, push comes to shove, argue that sexism is acceptable against men if it serves the purpose of protecting women from harm. This results from a very real danger that women face, often every day, of active disrespect from strangers. People who treat them as property, only out for their pleasure. People who leer, threaten, gesture, and touch- inappropriately and without consent.
It is an... understandable, if unfortunate, conclusion one can reach being surrounded by this environment, that all men are dangerous assholes.
This generalizing conclusion, however, creates a very Us-Vs.-Them nature of the gender "binary." The result of that is increased sexism. To be sure, it is practical. If you treat every male as a threat, you're far less likely to be harmed by a male in your life. It has a use.
If I treat every flower as one with thorns, I will never be stabbed by them.
If I treat every potential as the worst outcome, I will be significantly more prepared against those worst outcomes. But this is also a particularly fearful approach to life- one that generalizes all things outside my knowledge as "bad."
It is absolutely my (and anyone else's) prerogative to live like this.
However, it is not my prerogative to live like this while espousing a philosophy in which generalizations are the heart of a societal problem which is above me, personally.
If sexism and the gender binary are the root cause of so many of society's problems- problems which are far more than me or you or anyone else- then I cannot in good conscience do anything the enforces sexism and the gender binary just because it furthers my agenda.
To clarify- this is active sexism. Active generalizations that we're talking about. Being simply cautious is not an active judgment of people. Refusing to put up with the active disrespect of individuals is not generalizing.
We do not have to choose between safety and consistency. But we do have to choose between consistency and taking the cognitive easy way out. Generalizations are our way of categorizing an entire group based on a limited data set such that we can (hopefully) more easily predict behaviors and outcomes without experiencing them first. While these may be practical, they're intellectually problematic and the antithesis to critical thinking and the perception that all people should be safe from preconceived judgments.
If you cannot hold yourself to the standards by which you wish to hold others, then you do not deserve to hold anyone to those standards.
Women don't treat every man as though he were dangerous. Not at all. If women did that - actively worked to keep men out of their lives because they were dangerous - it would be a different situation comparable to the way in which women are treated as different everywhere they go. But women don't do this. Once in a while a woman will speak out and share her opinion on the way she is treated poorly by the men around her, but this is the exception. Ordinarily women take it with a smile and spare the feelings of not only the men in their lives whose actions are offensive to them, but put up with this treatment from complete strangers because they are in a lower social position, they have no power, and because likely at some point in their lives they did speak up and this was met with violence, job-related/financial consequences, or even some degree of social shunning and isolation. All because they pointed out a situation that wasn't fair or told someone who was making them uncomfortable to shut up or stop touching them. This has happened to most women repeatedly over the course of their lives, with each consequence or threat of physical violence turning them away from speaking up until they have to treat every man outside of safe environments as though he were dangerous, because past experience teaches them this.
ReplyDeleteWomen give men chances. Men who approach them in safe, public environments - school, at a mutual workplace, a mutual activity - are greeted either with rejection or welcomed into a woman's circle of friends, a dangerous risk that women take for the sake of friendship and of being good people who give men a fair chance.
But when a man approaches a woman somewhere she isn't safe - on the street, any time she's alone, when she's inebriated - or start doing inappropriate things - asking about where she lives, personal things, her work schedule, or touching her - that's when it becomes inappropriate. Men are typically larger and could overpower many women if they chose, and people of that gender have been violent to these women before, and usually have been since puberty. If a group of large, rude monkeys had been terrorizing you since you hit puberty, you would have a good deal of caution towards them. That's what it's like being a woman, there is always someone larger and stronger than you just waiting for you to have a moment of weakness so they can strike and do something terrible to you. It's someone you know, or it's a stranger on the street, you don't know and you have to constantly be prepared for it. There is no moment in your entire life when you can relax because some man somewhere is waiting to get to you, waiting to steal from you, rape you, hurt you, kill you.
So when the men who you thought were nice tirade on about how women shouldn't assume all men are jerks, women should let their guard down and open themselves up to the idea that the guy approaching you on the street might not be a rapist/murderer, that's against all the things you've trained yourself to do to survive, that's a viewpoint which shows that the man tirading will never understand women and what they go through on a daily basis, and the faith that you've placed in that man might be better invested elsewhere.
I appreciate that your experiences have not seen what I'm talking about. However, I should clarify if it was not readily understood-
ReplyDeleteI am not referring to every woman. I am not referring to every feminist. Really- I'm not even referring to a majority of any group. I am only referring to people who actively make generalizations as though it's an acceptable cognitive practice in conjunction with feminist ideology.
These people may be few and far between- they may not be. It is not my place to make a claim like that. However, they do exist. I talk to them regularly whether via Facebook, Reddit, real life interactions, or other venues. They definitely exist.
I am not interested in discussing the problems that women face on a daily basis. I am aware of these problems- I am aware of the inequality- I am familiar with the feelings of many friends who go through these experiences. I have endeavored to understand and empathize in order to remain informed and objective.
I am only concerned with the apparent contradiction between feminist ideology- that all people are equal and deserving of respect without pre-rendered judgment- and the generalization that "all ____ are ____," in this case all men are stupid/problematic/assholes, etc.
I am not interested in any woman "letting her guard down." You have misunderstood me if that is the message you took away.
You can be cautious without inherently generalizing all men (or people in general).
"open themselves up to the idea that the guy approaching you on the street might not be a rapist/murderer..."
Of what intellectual worth is feminism's goal of equality if you're willing to label every person you meet before having any experience of that person?
The instant you see any sign of evidence that they are a certain way, that's one thing- but before you know anything about them at all?
That is not feminism.
If you can prove to me that that behavior is in line with feminist ideology, then I will concede the point. I am interested in remaining grounded in logic. And I am interested in trying to remain objective. I am interested in keeping myself and my philosophies consistent- it is for that reason I try to have these discussions with others.
To this point, I have not heard arguments as to why this generalization is acceptable within feminism. I've only heard arguments as to how these generalizations are individualistically pragmatic (and I don't disagree with that position). This is philosophy. It is an attempt to understand.
As a friend to others, I have felt that my most important position has been as someone who listens and engages. The difficult friend who tells people what he believes they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear. When I have been proven to misunderstand or be wrong, I am quick to change- I am quick to learn. But it seems that for most people, if I am not immediately willing to accept the premise that all men are faulty and deserving of pre-rendered judgment, then I am an enemy. Despite the fact that I feel women too are undeserving of pre-rendered judgment. Despite the countless hours I spend arguing with rape apologists and MRAs.
Is it not possible that people on -both- sides have misconceptions and cognitive inconsistencies? Is it not possible that both sides have much more to learn?
If we imagine this discussion as a pendulum, I am pushing against the momentum of both sides in order to decrease their extremes. I believe that this is a necessary job in order to encourage progression towards actual gender equality.