Feminists everywhere, rejoice! Your day has finally come! The groundwork laid by the Suffragettes, sown by the bra-burning flower womyn of the 60s, fertilized by the sexual liberation of the 70s, and watered by Roe v. Wade has finally borne fruit! The glass ceiling is shattered! Women are finally in a position to … sexually harass other women? Women are finally in a position to … find their husbands (or fathers … or brothers) without jobs?
In two honest-to-goodness, not-making-this-stuff-up stories this week, the USA Today and the legal blog Above the Law have covered two stories that should make feminists cringe, not rejoice. But rejoice is exactly what they’re doing.
In a story that makes normal people blush, but has made some bloggers a little *ahem* hot-and-bothered, a Delaware law firm has been hit with a sexual harassment suit after they failed to deal with creatively titled “girl-on-girl sexual harassment.” In this case, a female partner allegedly sexually harassed a female associate in the firm, telling her sexually explicit things that I don’t really feel comfortable repeating here. Some commentators admitted that this illustrates that “women can be just as creepy as men” and “just as capable of creating a threatening work environment” at the same time. Others have used the story to show that career women are finally in a position to “break from the stereotypical harassment situation of a female victim going up against an old boys’ network.” Depicting this story as a boon for the women’s movement disgusts me.
The other story is less perverse, but no less disheartening. In a banner week for feminists, the USA Today also reports that the recession has hit men the hardest, where of the 6.4 million jobs lost this year, 26% of those jobs were lost by women and a whopping 74% of those jobs were lost by men. The story cites to the fact that a lot of the jobs “typically” performed by men, such as construction and manufacturing, are part of industries hardest hit by the recession, whereas “women’s jobs,” like health care, education and local government, are being laid off less (some even seeing growth) and are receiving the most stimulus money.
Instead of raising the concern that perhaps these women are now going to have to work two jobs to support their family or considering the psychological effects this may have on men (and the negative impact these statistics may have on women because of their husbands’ unemployed status), feminists see this as a good thing. The President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (as a side note – is there an Institute for Men’s Policy Research?) actually stated, “It was a long historical slog to get to this point.” Another woman, who wrote a book often used in feminist study classes entitled Creating Rosie the Riveter, was cited as saying that “the image that the man has to be the breadwinner has changed.”
So congratulations, feminists, you now have equality. But equality at what expense?
This is really another example of people who are trying to “help” or trying to “represent the voiceless” completely losing touch with reality. Is having the equal opportunity to harass another human being really a boon for the feminist movement? Is having males lose more jobs than females really the equal opportunity that the Suffragettes imagined? Neither of these stories are good situations for anyone. These are things you wouldn’t wish on humanity in general, let alone on an entire gender. They shouldn’t be seen as a boon to the women’s equality movement, they should be seen for exactly what they are: tragic events that affect and damage everyone together. That’s equality.







October 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I confess, I don’t exactly understand the argument you’re making. You ask two questions: “Is having the equal opportunity to harass another human being really a boon for the feminist movement? Is having males lose more jobs than females really the equal opportunity that the Suffragettes imagined? Neither of these stories are good situations for anyone.”
Taking the first question, what do you really mean? By acquiring more jobs for women, apparently feminists have created situations where a woman is in a position to harass a female employee…why is this the fault of feminists? If women weren’t in management positions, men would have those jobs…surely some of them would harass others, no? Are you really arguing that more women in management will _increase_ sexual harassment in the workplace? On what grounds? Or are you arguing that feminists shouldn’t have pushed for more women in management to protect women from themselves…that way, women who would harass others if given the opportunity would be protected from doing so? Is that really your argument?
The second question you raise I find even more baffling. In an economic downturn, some sectors will lose more jobs than others. If only men were employed, we would not see any gender gap. If men and women were equally employed in every occupation (as it would be if we had some kind of awful, forced-quota system of 50-50 men-women in every occupation), presumably we would not see any gender gap. As it is, as you correctly note, men are more likely to serve in certain sectors, and women in others. Depending on the nature of the depression, some sectors will lose more jobs. If those jobs happen to be sectors that employ more men, more men will end up unemployed than women. Are you alleging that women have engineered a massive economic depression and targeted it at those sectors that employ more men? If so, what evidence can you present? And if not, why would you blame women, suggesting that they’ve “wished” widespread unemployment on men? I think it’s pretty obvious that men and women all over this country are impacted by the depression, and would not wish its ill effects on anyone. Why, then, are women being blamed for something? Is it because a few feminists have noted that it’s nice that we are no longer living in a society where women would have been likelier laid off because their bosses would assume their husbands would provide for them? I wouldn’t say any of the quotations you presented show unnatural insensitivity towards men–simply women who are glad that there truly is equality. Would it be better, in your estimation, for them to encourage women across America to instruct their employers to lay them off, so that more men are allowed to keep their jobs? On what grounds?
I’m sorry, I can agree that there are occasions where especially militant feminism goes too far. But nothing in this piece suggests that you have any justifiable criticisms to levy against feminists, based on the points you’ve raised and the evidence you’ve presented.
[Reply to this Comment]