What is feminism? On Nov. 12, we discussed feminism as we understand it: the idea that women should be treated equally to men and deserve the same rights and opportunities as are afforded to men.
We began our discussion by arguing the tenets of equal opportunity incentives in order to leverage against the injustices of male-dominated society. Early on we realized it necessary to distinguish between sex and gender (i.e. women and men versus the feminine and masculine.) There was some dispute regarding whether or not gender associations are inherently sexist, or merely a result of biological ancestry.
The biological argument for gender goes as follows: we were born biologically different, with physical differences that made women better suited to stay in the cave to rear children and men better suited to be the hunter-gatherers. It was generally agreed that by virtue of industry, the associations of such gender classifications with a specific sex were rendered irrelevant—that is to say, advancements such as birth control and the expansion of “white collar” jobs wherein physical strength was no longer a primary determining factor lessened the impact of biological differences on a person’s ability to produce.
We were able to agree at least that whether or not gender roles have vanished totally, we are at least at a point where they are not strictly controlled by biological factors. A man can be a “stay-at-home dad” (historically considered to be a female role) just the same as a woman can, and a woman can enter the workforce and thrive equally to men (especially if given the same opportunities for advancement and equal pay to men in similar positions.) While someone should be at home, or homemaking responsibilities should be shared, it is not necessary for women specifically to be the ones to assume all or even any homemaking responsibilities.
It is important to separate notions of feminism with fringe elements that, more than demanding equality, determine to place the role of homemaking on a tier beneath contribution to the workplace. We discussed the origin of this thinking in capitalism and also its legacy so far as the vilification of child rearing and homemaking. It is through such a disjunction that the current generation of youth, having been raised in the era of post-feminism, has been left to fend for itself, leaving children with a severely reduced understanding of family and its attachments (e.g. values systems, knowledge of right and wrong, discipline, etc.) We ultimately agreed that the issue at hand is not homemaking itself, but the consideration that one sex should be restricted from doing anything but.
Overall, we agreed that the feminist movement has done good by undoing antiquated views of professional work and homemaking as sex-linked, but there were some unresolved issues regarding equal opportunity as a means to enact equality: should we relax standards for women to “level the field” after centuries of male-dominated policy and perspectives or expect them to be as capable as their male counterparts according to the needs of their professional mission? The example brought up was that of the firefighter – if a man, with his typically superior upper body strength, is expected to carry a 180 pound man down a flight of stairs, should the same be required of a woman in the same field? Perhaps, it was suggested, we should utilize workers based on their individual strengths instead of predicating potential for success on historically masculine and feminine considerations.
—
Karim
