Anyway, this post, such as it is, is dedicated to forestofglory, kaberett and atreic.
When I posted about taking a more active interest in feminism, forestofglory offered to lend me a collection of feminist essays by Ursula K Le Guin, Dancing at the edge of the world (copyright 1989, ISBN 0-8021-3529-3), and did so via cartesiandaemon. Well, books of feminist essays are not my number one favouring thing, but I definitely need more education in feminist issues, and I thought Le Guin's marvellous writing would go a long way to sweeten the pill.
I enjoyed many of the essays, and was infuriated by a few of them, but the combination of Le Guin's very persuasive prose and my determination to overturn the anti-feminist biases I'd acquired encouraged me to keep turning the ideas over in mind instead of throwing the book away in disgust. On reflection, I don't think the message is that success, leadership and rational investigation are inherently male qualities, more that a just and balanced society ought to value things like community, compromise, and kindness as well.
I was particularly impressed by the last essay in the book, The fisherwoman's daughter, from 1988. It's riffing on Virginia Woolf's room of one's own idea. She conveys the idea that most women historically have had to run households and fit creative endeavours around that; in recent decades, some women have been grudgingly allowed to pursue careers or artistic visions, but almost none of them get the kind of practical support that a man would have had in the pre-feminist era. A woman who wants to be the best in her field is expected to give up any sort of family or personal life, and essentially gets male disadvantages without most of the advantages. Le Guin argues that giving women the option to choose between motherhood and fame is an improvement on forcing everybody into the domestic sphere, but really we should be more ambitious than that, we should organize society so that mothers can also pursue their dreams. It's all concepts I've come across before but that essay draws them together very well indeed.
(That said, I'm still pretty incensed at the 1978 essay on abortion, Moral and ethical implications of family planning, which is not only gender-essentialist but argues that women are naturally predisposed to put immediate practical concerns over abstract moral principles. The most hair-raising parts seem to be quoted from one Irene Claremont de Castillejo, but Le Guin quotes her approvingly, describing as
natural, unperverted feminine moralitythe view that
the thalidomide tragedies...of course [should] be aborted! It is criminal to make a woman carry a deformed child!But then, in The Princess, Le Guin writes extremely movingly about her own experience of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, and I don't think she really means to imply that the feminist thing to do is to kill the weak to ensure group survival.)
Anyway, the very strong impression that I took away from the collection is that in Le Guin's eyes, I'm basically a man. I've always been encouraged to do whatever I want to do, and have picked an academic and technical path. I'm far more rational than intuitive, I expect to be taken seriously, I'm a capitalist at home with hierarchical systems, and I've always had as much freedom to follow my own desires (whether in life decisions or expressions of my sexuality) as economically feasible. I'm nobody's wife or mother and I don't intend to be. Now, Le Guin is aware that she herself is in a pretty masculine position; she describes herself as a princess precisely because she had a lot of opportunities in life that aren't available to most women, and she has plenty of recognition in the male world as a successful writer. But the point is that I had to be convinced by intellectual argument that there was a point to feminism, in the same way that most men have to be convinced rather than knowing all about sexism from their own personal experience.
It is by no means an insignificant achievement of the feminist movement that people like me have been able to live more or less as men, and encounter only a few dinosaurs who look at my breasts and conclude that I can't possibly be a man. It seems that feminism still has some ground to cover, and in two ways: firstly the obvious one, of making sure that all women have the freedom that I do, to live as men if they want to. But the second goal was not very clear to me before I read Le Guin's book: feminism needs to bring about a world where women who choose to live in a more feminine context are just as valued as those who are competitive and ambitious. I would add that if caring for others and doing practical but mundane work and so on were adequately valued, men who were temperamentally inclined to such roles would be able to take them up without losing status or being despised.
I find myself in an LJ discussion (mostly friends locked) where I am trying to explain why feminism is a matter of justice. atreic comes from a similar place to me and feels alienated by feminism telling her that she's a victim even when her life is in fact perfectly satisfactory. kaberett has a strong sense of the need to make the world a fairer and more welcoming place for women. And all three of us find ourselves in conversation with men who don't see why they should bother with feminism, because at least this part of the world is basically equal already, and there are feminists making sloppy, man-hating arguments all over the internet.
I am working on the basis that the men who don't see the point in this discussion and a whole lot of other similar are mostly coming from a position of good faith. (Not absolutely all of them; there are clearly some people who just like to disrupt feminist discussions because they feel threatened or just like the attention they get from literal trolling.) But it's perfectly possible to genuinely and sincerely care about women, and still not get it; I didn't for a long time, after all. At some level, I want to convince such well-meaning people, but at the same time I feel really, really uncomfortable with any kind of proselytizing.
I'm also all dewy-eyed and naive and actually taking an explicitly feminist position in a highly charged internet argument is a novelty to me. I can really see both sides of the argument so well it's almost dizzying. I can see the weary frustration of seasoned feminists who have to deal with a huge wall of denial every time they mention a sexist incident. I can see why many might not want to argue at all, or might not want to be polite and patient, with men who might possibly deign to care about injustices against women if they can be convinced that feminists have a cast-iron rational case that would stand up in the strictest court. Everybody who complains about sexism has to answer for every feminist who might ever have said something negative about men, or something more emotional or hyperbolic than rigorous. At the same time, I can completely see why feminism can look really alienating; it alienated me for a long time, and for exactly the same reasons being raised in this kind of conversation.
I am going to propose a theory about why it's extremely difficult to report sexism and systematic discrimination. This is probably obvious to experienced feminists, but it might be helpful to people who don't see the point. Anyway, it's a conclusion I've come to recently. If you talk about individual incidents, people can (and seem particularly inclined to) always propose reasons why that particular incident might not be sexist. Even if someone believes that the most likely reason why a woman was disadvantaged is sexism, she's still rather in a double bind: if the incident was minor, she's making a fuss about nothing, but if it was major, then it wasn't mere sexism, it was viciousness by someone so far beyond the pale of normal human behaviour that there's no hope for them.
To avoid this problem, you have to go to systematic analysis to look for overall trends. The problem with that is that it becomes very abstract, people don't relate emotionally. And it's a lot of work, so it ends up being its own academic discipline, with its own jargon and community that is not very accessible to outsiders and a sort of self-perpetuating orthodoxy. Like most complex subjects, feminist studies and positions get misquoted and over-simplified by ignorant internet people. At the same time, if someone posts to a blog complaining about an annoying sexist remark, they don't want to and quite likely can't justify their complaint by giving an overview of all the feminist studies and theory ever to have been performed on the topic.
So it's easy to get to a point where someone who has done a fair amount of reading and thinking about feminist issues is going to dismiss a well-meaning but relatively ignorant man out of hand, if he starts demanding detailed arguments why he should believe her complaint. This can end up looking a lot like telling him that his opinion is worthless just because he's male, which is not at all likely to encourage men to be sympathetic to feminism.
Obviously, the fact that something is hard to demonstrate doesn't make it true! But what I would like to see is a little less readiness to look for reasons why sexism might not be sexism. I want people to at least consider the possibility that something might be true, and realize that some of the apparent causes for scepticism would still apply even if it were true. Also, the fact that some people who consider themselves feminists say ridiculous things fairly obviously doesn't make every claim that might be interpreted as feminist prima facie ridiculous!