Feminism has simply outlived its useful life. While at one time, it was necessary (Dean's ancestors' experiences notwithstanding) young people now simply assume that equality is the order of the day and act accordingly. Sexism is dead, or dying, and that's good.

Where feminism has truly failed women is in its inabilty to understand men and women are different. Not one superior to the other, but different. I was raised to think modern women should be like men. Turns out, men can have lots of bad habits like overwork, promiscuity, and violence. Women need to act like women in order to balance those nasty tendencies.

Feminism should have elevated the status of all women, not just "liberated" ones. It should have honored the role of mother, not belittled it by making children literally disposable. It should have protected women and children from disease and abandonment by demanding men behave responsibly, not by fostering the illusion of "safe sex". Sex carries risk, which increases exponentially among those who are least able to handle the complications. It should have taught women to say, "If I'm going to bring home the bacon, YOU"RE going to fry it up in a pan," instead of being the superwoman and working the second shift at home.

I had to unlearn the lessons of the feminazis. Twelve years of higher education didn't teach me as much as three little rugrats and a lazy (but loveable) husband have.

As I've said, it all depends on what you mean by "feminist." I am a feminist by the strict dictionary definition. But then you've got these people in the "feminist movement" who infantilize and demean the women of the past, and demonize the men. And I, frankly, don't think there was ever a need for those people.

Dean - not that I don't appreciate the traffic, but are you SURE you meant to put a link to my site in that post?

I agree (and am pleased) that men and women are different; I've helped raise two kids, one of each gender, and I know this to be true.

By the same token, part of the feminist movement was devoted to achieving equal pay for equal work. So when Dani says this:

young people now simply assume that equality is the order of the day and act accordingly.

...I can't help but be bemused. First of all you know what happens when you "assume" anything.

More seriously I need to ask a question: just who are these enlightened young people Dani is talking about?

Last time I looked, women still made less money than men for doing the same work.

Last time I looked, women still made less money than men for doing the same work.

Last time you looked at what? Cumulative statistics lumping job titles, or payroll numbers for people working next to each other? Back when my wee wifey was a carpenter, she got paid union scale, even tho she was worth less than the guys except the time the draftsman left off the drawer stops and she was able to crawl inside the finished desks and put them in. Generally speaking, people are paid either a fixed rate based on job definition, or in proportion to their productivity.

Hey Ara? Ronald Reagan supported equal pay for equal work. So did Richard Nixon. So does Rush Limbaugh. So, presumably, you would admit that these are/were all feminists, right?

Any honest look at the statistics shows that, if you exclude women who are full-time homemakers, or who only work part-time to supplement the family income (like my wife), and you strictly look at full-time women vs. full-time men, the income disparity is pretty small. Back in the mid-1990s, feminist author Christina Hoff-Sommers calculated that such women made 93 cents for every dollar a man earned. Which still seems to indicate sexism of some sort, right? I mean, even if it's way less outrageous than the "feminist" organizations would have you believe, it still seems like an unfair disparity, right?

Yeah, well factor this in:

1) Men work more hours on the job than women do nationwide. Indeed, we seem to EXPECT men to work harder, and sacrifice more, so their families can do better.

2) Women are more likely to be the ones to call in sick and stay home if their kids get sick.

3) Men are more likely to put in 50, 60, 70 hours a week to get ahead, sacrificing time with their families in order to get ahead in the workplace.

So how much of that 7-cents-per-hour disparity is anti-female discrimination, and how much of it is due to the fact that we as a society simply demand more of men, and men (like you and me) accomodate it?

Christna Hoff Sommers also did an even more penetrating and interesting analysis. It's more subtle, so you have to look at it more carefully. She said that if you equalize for level of education (men with bachelor's degrees vs. women with the same bachelor's degree, men with Master's degrees vs. women with the same degree), and for the # of years in the work force (subtracting the time women typically take off when they have babies, and then come back into the workforce), it turns out that the pay difference is just about negligible, something like 99.5 cents per hour for the women vs. $1.00 for the men.

PLUS--and this really is the most interesting part for me---she found that in CERTAIN professions, if you calculate it that way, women make MORE per hour than men do. Lawyers, for example. Women tend to make very good lawyers, and as it turns out, on average, they make something like $1.03/hour for every $1.00/hour male lawyers make.

In other words, "feminist" groups have been barking up the wrong tree. Instead of looking at things and saying, "Okay, this is unfair, we need to fix it, but this other thing over here isn't broken, we need to leave it alone," they've bought into this whole "society is biased against women everywhere because of the misogynist patriarchy" riff.

So in short summary: Your daughter's gonna be fine, Ara. She's in a country where she is respected, where her choices will be respected, and where she can do damn near anything she wants to do.

And when I have a daughter--and I do hope to have one someday, and since Rose and I want at least two more kids, our odds on that are pretty good--I plan to let her know that. She is NOT limited by her sex, she is NOT living in a world where people will reduce her simply because of her sex. Yes, she is DIFFERENT, and her DIFFERENCE will give her some unfair disadvantages, and also some unfair ADVANTAGES, and, well, really, when you get right down to it, isn't that all a great thing?

I love women. I always have. I just go nuts when people pretend that my penis makes me all-powerful because "society" has "no respect for women." What a load of balderdash!

triticale:

Back when my wee wifey was a carpenter, she got paid union scale...

...proving that unions promote fairness? Point well-taken.

...even tho she was worth less than the guys

{shrug} Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that your wife got hired to do a job for which she was not qualified?

Is this how your wife remembers it?

Generally speaking, people are paid either a fixed rate based on job definition, or in proportion to their productivity.

With all due respect, my friend, you are laboring under the misapprehension that things work a certain way, "in general." They do not.

For example, perhaps you've written job descriptions, as I have. Perhaps you've hired employees, as I have. And perhaps you would agree, upon reflection, that there are no guarantees unless you provide them yourself.

Dean:

Ronald Reagan supported equal pay for equal work. So did Richard Nixon. So does Rush Limbaugh. So, presumably, you would admit that these are/were all feminists, right?

If true, I guess I would agree. But unfortunately, you are answering a question I didn't ask. Your point has nothing to do with anything I said.

And, having read all the way down to the bottom of your post, I'm still trying to figure out why you feel compelled to talk about your penis.

:^)

That said, allow me to respond:

Back in the mid-1990s, feminist author Christina Hoff-Sommers calculated that such women made 93 cents for every dollar a man earned. Which still seems to indicate sexism of some sort, right?

I think that by the 1990's the positive effects of 20 years of feminism and the equal-pay movement were apparently self-evident.

Men work more hours on the job than women do nationwide. Indeed, we seem to EXPECT men to work harder, and sacrifice more, so their families can do better.

Fine. Then let's put the shoe on the other foot. Are you suggesting that if a single mom has a family to support and a childless unmarried man does not, you would support paying the single mom more money to do the same job as the man?

Women are more likely to be the ones to call in sick and stay home if their kids get sick.

Hmm. Here's a thought problem for you: Let's say you have two salaried lawyers, associates bucking for a partnership, who are married to each other. Let's say they have a couple of kids between them. Kid gets sick. You're saying that Lawyer/Mom is more likely to take time off? I know lots and lots of couples who fit this scenario and, you know what? I think you are generalizing to make a point.

No matter. Suppose you are right. What does that prove? That the senior partner in the firm somehow expects less of the woman? That the senior partner would pay the female associate less because of that expectation?

What you are suggesting seems to disprove (not prove) your thesis. In other words, you are suggesting that women are somehow institutionally viewed as...expendable, right? If so, then of course they would be paid less.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Men are more likely to put in 50, 60, 70 hours a week to get ahead, sacrificing time with their families in order to get ahead in the workplace.

{shrug} Some men do, some men don't. Same with women. But that isn't even the issue here.

The issue is whether a woman who does the same thing gets just as far ahead as the man, or not. And given what you believe and accept about institutional bias against working mothers (see above), you would have to admit that the woman would not get as far ahead as the man because her boss would view her as less reliable, etc.

PLUS--and this really is the most interesting part for me---she found that in CERTAIN professions, if you calculate it that way, women make MORE per hour than men do. Lawyers, for example. Women tend to make very good lawyers, and as it turns out, on average, they make something like $1.03/hour for every $1.00/hour male lawyers make.

Oh boy. I have got to see that study. I have lived in a family full of lawyers -- lawyers on the way up the ladder, lawyers at the top of the ladder, men who are lawyers, women who are lawyers and what you are saying does not sound real at all.

Can you supply me with a link to her study?

Dean, you and I agree mostly on this issue. But my perspective is different than yours because I've experienced approximately 13 more years of history than you have; furthermore it was the 13 years when things were pretty crappy for women. What you are describing is a situation that is much better now because of feminism, not in spite of it.

And there is still some more work to do, my friend.

I didn't say sexism was completely gone, but there's not enough of it left to bother me. I happen to have worked in a highly competetive male-dominated field and taken a boatload of sexist crap when I was in training, because I had to. Try being the only female in the surgeon's lounge for a few years. Sticking up for myself and HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOR became essential! Now I don't have to take any BS, and if someone wants to treat me like the little woman, they're not going to get away with it. My special favorite is handing my business card to the idiot salesman who wants to know if I've asked my husband about whatever major purchase I'm about to make. Then I give him my card, request a call from one of his less atavistic colleagues, and leave. Car salesmen are really a lot of fun this way. So are older guys whose business depends on referrals from people like me. I actually had one call me "babe" one time. He lost tens of thousands of dollars over that error. What a dinosaur.

I worked fewer hours than my male colleagues beacause I chose to. I pulled my weight, paid my overhead and did a good job. And I certainly didn't whine if I made less. I also spent more time with my clients, and people came to me because of that. As it happens, being female turned out to be a huge advantage in my line of work. Yet, I made less because I realized that life is more than work, and that was a trade-off I was willing to make.

The point being, we have reached a critical mass where it is no longer okay to be a racist, sexist jerk. My career allowed me to meet a large number of amazing young women who truly feel they can be whatever they want to be. There isn't anything standing in their way. They just need to be realistic and do what is right for them- not what someone thinks they should do.

I agree with Dean in that feminism has been given a bad name, which is why Limbaugh's phrase "feminazi" is an apt alternative.

Oh, and as for that difficult environment while I was in school, half of all new med students are women, and in my field, more than half of residents and professors are female now. We do have feminism to thank for that, but as I said before, it's time to move on and address the problems that it created and/or failed to alleviate.

Years ago, I called myself a feminist because I admired strong, powerful, intelligent, independent women. I still admire strong, powerful, intelligent, independent women -- most of whom do _not_ call themselves feminists.

One of my daughters is a physicist at JPL, and I will take on any fool who questions her worth. Meet me behind the Peppermill casino in Reno, NV.

You can name the time.

I work with plenty of professional (technical) women as well as men, most of whom are parents. I do not know one woman with children who would not chuck her job if she could to be home with the kids. These are women with bachelors and masters degrees in computer science. The higher they climb the more they loathe it.

I bought into the full feminist agenda back in the late 60s. Never wanted kids, never had kids. Am I sorry? Never, except when I worry about old age, and that's not a good enough reason to have them (IMO). Do I feel betrayed by the feminist movement? You bet I do. They presented themselves and their philosophy as one thing, but became something else entirely, and it's an ugly, repulsive thing. Did we need feminism to eradicate the worst of discrimination and workplace abuses? Yes we did. But are we better off? In many ways, we are not.

Because a woman can do anything she wants doesn't mean she should or should feel compelled to. Feminism has led to much opportunity, and much obligation. Women are overwhelmed with guilt and anger. When you can do anything, you are expected to do everything, or you expect everything of yourself. You no longer have the right of refusal, to a certain extent. Imagine if a man proposed to a woman who then said, "Oh, by the way, when we have the first kid I'm going to quit work and stay home"? It has taken me many years and a de-brainwashing to understand that raising good, successful children is the best thing a mother and most women can do. Unless you're Madame Curie, Margaret Thatcher or another of only a handful of history-making women, no one will remember you for the work you did.

I used to hate Phyllis Schlafly. I know now what a brilliant woman she is. Women have talents and powers we are insane not to use, but feminists for decades have tried to convince us it's all a sham. And the straw that broke the camel's back for me was feminists, en masse, taking Bill Clinton's side and colluding in his campaign of destroying the reputations of women who spoke up about his abuses. Of course by then I expected nothing more of him, but I was completely shocked and appalled by women, feminists, betraying and attacking their own -- after decades of hollering about sexual harassment on the job and off, and rewriting all the sexual harassment and rape laws. The hypocrisy was breathtaking! I knew then that they stood for nothing. They had no principles. At that point, I seriously re-evaluated everything I believed in and got my head screwed on straight.

So, feminism had a point and a purpose and got results, once upon a time. Like the civil rights movement, however, it has long since been co-opted by a bunch of fascists in full, putrid rot. They no longer speak for me and I am no longer one of them. I was, for 30 years.

Peg C.: You seem to have moved from one orthodoxy to another. There's no question that the feminist movement long ago moved beyond equal rights and remedying inequalities into foolish fantasy. The notion that anyone should be able to "do everything" puts an enormous burden on them. However, the notion that raising good, successful children is the best thing a woman can do is just as limiting. I'm not suggesting parenting isn't incredibly important -- if you happen to be a parent -- but to define your own success solely in terms of someone else's development puts unfair pressure on them. Being the daughter of a woman who did that, I know all too well.

A woman can be satisfied with life (my favorite definition of "successful") without parenting and also without being at the top of her field.

Oh, and having done computer engineering myself for two decades, I assert there are many reasons why women are unhappy in computing. One of them is subtle discrimination, which I never suffered much but many women have. I doubt it's all about wanting to be stay-at-home moms.

Dean, I'm all for unbridled Christina Hoff Sommers worship, but I believe that most of that chapter was synthesizing work already done by other women economists, especially June O'Neill. I don't know that she did any of her own data collection, or even much "analysis" of her own.

And Ara, I'm not sure how "self-evident" these things were outside college life, but there were still plenty of people arguing in 1995 that the average woman was paid 69 cents to a man's dollar for the same work.

I think that by the 1990's the positive effects of 20 years of feminism and the equal-pay movement were apparently self-evident.

Yes and no. Yes, I grant some positive effects that the movement deserves credit for. Then again, there were also fiercely negative and stupid effects from that same movement, which were also readily becoming apparent by the 1990s, too, and some of which has still not been addressed.

We also have to be careful not to let feminists claim ALL credit for EVERY advance, because that's not fair either. Women were entering the workforce in greater and greater numbers and demanding equal pay for equal work before there was an identifiable feminist movement, and many of those who demanded equal pay for equal work were never feminists.

But my perspective is different than yours because I've experienced approximately 13 more years of history than you have; furthermore it was the 13 years when things were pretty crappy for women.

That would be easier for me to swallow if I hadn't talked to women who are older than you who don't see it your way, and read things that support what I'm saying that were written by women who were around while you were in diapers, gramps. ;-)

There's also the power of suggestion, by the way. The feminist movement was at its height in the 1970s, and many of their assumptions were far less questioned then than they are today. Or they were only questioned by stupid conservatives with arguments that often lacked any sophistication or detail.

What I like about today is that it's becoming possible to have a more sophisticated, fair-minded discussion of these things.

Are you suggesting that if a single mom has a family to support and a childless unmarried man does not, you would support paying the single mom more money to do the same job as the man?

Of course not.

But neither would I suggest that employers have a special obligation to pay some people more money for less work, just because they're moms. That wouldn't be fair at all, would it?

"Men are more likely to put in 50, 60, 70 hours a week to get ahead, sacrificing time with their families in order to get ahead in the workplace."

{shrug} Some men do, some men don't. Same with women. But that isn't even the issue here.

HOLD ON A MINUTE!!! It does too matter.

The claim that women make less than men is a valid statistic. But if it's fair to use statistics to determine that, then it's fair to use statistics to try to figure out why it's so. And statistically men put in substantially more hours into work than women. They work the majority of the nation's overtime hours, and put in the most overall hours in salaried positions. Indeed, if we are worried about discrimination, we ought to be asking ourselves why we, as men, so readily accept this, and are so conveniently expected to sacrifice more of our personal time to work rather than spending it with our families.

Regardless of that unfairness, however, working those extra hours is going to explain a lot of the disparity (a disparity which is, as we've seen, not as big as we've always been led to believe).

People who work harder at the office generally get paid better and go up for promotions faster. Yes, some women put in those kinds of hours. Some women also make more money than most men.

given what you believe and accept about institutional bias against working mothers (see above), you would have to admit that the woman would not get as far ahead as the man because her boss would view her as less reliable, etc.

Heh. Try again. I don't believe in any "institutional bias against working mothers," or at least I believe it is so small as to be insignificant. In fact, due to numerous laws and social mores, if anything the bias is slightly in favor of working mothers. They have all kinds of special protections built into the law now that are often, I believe, quite unfair to single people and to people without kids at home.

Mind you, working moms, especially single ones, have their own special challenges. I didn't say that life was easy for them. What I do say, however, is that your income is, over your entire working lifetime, going to be determined in part by how much time you concentrate on work vs. home.

The ancient "women only make 56 cents for every hour men work" was still in common currency in the 1980s, and it was always a dishonest statistic. In the 1990s, thanks to pioneers like Christina Hoff Sommers (and others), that canard finally got questioned, because it was comparing apples to oranges, housewives with part time jobs vs. full-time power lawyers, and it was always ridiculous. The income disparitiy was never -- NEVER -- as bad as we were led to believe by the radical feminist groups, and has only improved over time. And there are arguably several forces that made that disparity start to close up, of which the feminist groups would be only one cause, not the sole cause.

Oh boy. I have got to see that study....Can you supply me with a link to her study?

You can find this in Christina Hoff Sommers' classic book Who Stole Feminism. But she is far from the only one to have run these numbers and reached these conclusions. More and more, even groups like NOW are (grudgingly, sullenly) admitting the basic truth of it.

Once again, you have to look at the whole picture. When you equalize for number of years of experience, and subtract time off for childrearing, female lawyers are paid slighly more than male lawyers with the same qualifications and years of experience. Very slightly.

Let me illustrate for clarity:

Chuck and Diana both graduate U of M law school in 1990, phi beta kappa, with a 3.9 GPA. Both go to work for the same law firm. Both put in 60-70 hours a week, which is common for young lawyers.

In 1996, Diana becomes pregnant. She takes a six month leave of absense, then when she comes back, she asks for a reduced caseload for the next so she doesn't have to spend more than 40 hours a week at the office. When her child turns 5 and goes back to school, she agrees to take on more work at the office.

Chuck never cuts his hours back. When he becomes a dad, he takes a couple of weeks off, but never really slows down much at the office. His wife stays home full time, and gets a part-time job to supplement the family income.

It's now 2003. Who do you think is making more money, Chuck or Diane?

Do you think it would be fair to pay Diane as much as Chuck?

And there is still some more work to do, my friend.

I completely agree. The advantages that women in this society have over men are scandalously unfair. We have a lot of work to do on that! ;-)

Oh, and having done computer engineering myself for two decades, I assert there are many reasons why women are unhappy in computing. One of them is subtle discrimination, which I never suffered much but many women have.

Karen, I am always disturbed by accusations of "subtle discrimination." Becuase it's much too subject to speculation, and immune to proof in most cases. It's also a good way to demonize innocent people--which you'll see full-force the first time someone falsly accuses you of being a closet racist, a closet homophobe, or a closet anti-semite, which has happened to me, and which I've seen happen to others.

Furthermore, I think one of the most deliterious effects of feminism has been to keep telling women that sexism is everywhere. It starts to turn into both a ready-made excuse for any failure, and becomes something you can see even when it's not there. If I tell you enough times that crime in the United States is skyrocketing, your fear level of encountering it goes up. The fact that it's not skyrocketing, is in fact plummeting, doesn't enter into your head because almost no one's bothering to tell you the truth.

Besides, there have been many times in my life I've felt discriminated against as a man. Indeed, there are countless injustices today in our legal system and in the workplace where men are routinely discriminated against. Most of us don't even complain about it. Partly because we are just used to it, partly because it's things that are just expected of us because we're men, and partly because we've had decades of being told how awful life is for women and almost nothing about unfairnesses men always have faced, and still do face today.

Karen, I am always disturbed by accusations of "subtle discrimination." Becuase it's much too subject to speculation, and immune to proof in most cases. It's also a good way to demonize innocent people--which you'll see full-force the first time someone falsly accuses you of being a closet racist, a closet homophobe, or a closet anti-semite, which has happened to me, and which I've seen happen to others.

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound deliberately vague. I've heard many stories, mostly from women in IT, of being deliberately and chronically sidelined, ignored, or otherwise treated in a less-than-professional way simply for being female. Is it possible that they have been blown out of proportion by women who've bought the feminist line that sexism is everywhere? Maybe, but having heard the details I do think there are problems, and they can affect careers. I don't mean to imply that most male techies are sexist, just that there's enough sexism in the business to be discouraging to many women.

Your point that life is full of minor injustices for everyone is certainly true. It is also true that life is easier and happier for folks who've learned to just roll with that stuff and get over it.

My original point was that there are other factors driving women's dissatisfaction with tech jobs besides a longing to stay at home with their kids, and that Peg was over-generalizing. I could also add other possible factors, such as the expectation of long hours. People with lives outside work (especially if those lives include children) don't cope well with months of 60-hour workweeks.

Of course, there are always some women who would be perfectly fulfilled being full-time moms, and I wish for them that they be able to do that. There's nothing wrong with it!

Bill Dooley wrote:
"One of my daughters is a physicist at JPL, and I will take on any fool who questions her worth. Meet me behind the Peppermill casino in Reno, NV.

You can name the time."

Mr. Dooley: I'd like to meet you behind the Pepermill casino in Reno, NV -- and shake your hand. You sound like my kind of man.
The chivalry of man to woman. The chivalry of woman to man. Both of which I so admire and which I'd love to see more of. They are so sorely needed. And, I have to say it again, Dean is the one blogger I know who has been doing the most to bring this about.

I recommend you read Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" AND Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power", side by side. Both are true. It's a false alternative: "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" or else contemporary misandrist feminism (NOW, "Ms." magazine, etc.). I'm independent of both, and, as I said, the women I admire are independent of both.