Hey guys, I just wanted to rephrase
and clarify my comments at the end of class. It was a poor choice of words to
say that it is hard for feminism (and similar movements) to gain ground because
it is difficult to “fix something that is not broken”. Obviously there is not
total gender equality in America and there are several significant issues
facing today’s women.
What I was trying to say rather is
that, in the modern fight for women’s rights, there is no clear, one-step,
solution for the greater population to work towards, and because of this
support for the movement is limited to those who care about it passionately. For
example, say there was a law enacted that stated that a woman could legally
only make 85% of what a man makes if they do the same job. This would provide
the feminist movement (and hopefully society in general) a clear target to aim
at, an obvious monster to slay. Legal action could be taken, and (depending on
the extent of the law) a vote could be taken to get rid of it. If a voter is at
the voting booth it is simple enough for them to press a button against it,
this takes minimum effort and is in favor of a cause that most people, of both
genders, would support. Approval is gained, the law is struck down, everybody
is happy.
Where the problem arises is when
the target is removed, when the pursuit of equality becomes individualistic,
when a visit to the voting booth becomes a boycott of a “sexist” company or a
march in a demonstration. Even the most forward-thinking male would pause when
asked to sacrifice his time, effort, and money for something that (as a male)
does not benefit him. As we discussed in class, he may even be unwilling to do
so because he feels it will hurt the stature of males as a whole. When passion
becomes a requirement for progress the vast majority of men (and likely a fair
amount of women) do not care enough to act.
This, I feel, is at least part of
the answer to the question of why girl-centric movements struggle with support.
Unless it requires a minimum amount of effort from the individual or that
individual feels very strongly about equality there simply isn't much incentive
to get involved.
(These are obviously just my
opinions based on my own experience, not fact. I would be curious to see any other views,
with or against my own)
You raise an interesting point John.
ReplyDeleteMovements struggle to gain momentum when they are in direct challenge to the dominant ideology. This begs the question, how do movements achieve their aims in general? How did the civil rights movement push forward? How did women achieve the right to vote? In any country or time period, what does it take to change the world?
Obviously this question is far outside the scope of this comment, but some thoughts have to occur regardless.
It seems as though a full frontal attack on the dominant mainstream can not necessarily achieve much. As you've stated John, there is no one target. There are too many players and teams involved to change the rules of the game in one fell swoop. Also, nobody really likes change, even when they will admit the change is probably necessary and ultimately beneficial to society. We are hard wired to stay in our comfort zones, even if our higher morality is consciously aware that our comfort zones are ineffective.
So ultimately, I feel that a brash attack on the male dominated culture in this case probably would do nothing but cause said culture to put up a barricade. There are some minds in this world who believe that his brand of feminism is the reason guys are seeking out bachelor lifestyles for much longer than ever. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but we can't ignore it even on a hypothetical level.
So what can be done to push forward a movement whose enemy encompasses the threads of our society? Gorilla warfare? How can women organize and gain traction without appearing as a direct threat?
Perhaps there is no answer. Perhaps we must just be patient in waiting for society to get its head on straight. Perhaps not.
The more I think about this whole issue, the more absurd I find the fact that women have always been treated this way in our country. Maybe the tradition of women being less valued in the workplace was born out of a workplace featuring labor intensive jobs which women were (right or wrong) assumably less fit to perform.
Nowadays, we like jobs that require brain power rather than elbow grease. Jobs which women are undoubtedly just as if not more qualified for than men.
So maybe it really is only a matter of time before society realizes that jobs have changed, times have changed, and our work output must be performed by all genders and races in order for us to compete in the global marketplace.
Or maybe I'm just making an idiotic argument. Either way, I'm at least aware of the issues at hand and can continue engaging with them in the future.