I decided on a bluntly obvious title for this one – and on
this sentence - in order to allow those of you who are understandably weary of
political diatribes and gender warfare to opt out of reading it before you come
across anything that aggravates you. That said, should you desire to stop
reading here, I send you off with my best wishes and hopes that you’ll join me
again in future.
I want to thank friend Angela for bringing this topic to the
front of my mind and Daughter One for understanding that my lens is not hers
and to grant me the respect for my unique and undeniably parallax view. This is
neither the beginning nor the end of my consideration of this topic or, I’m
sure, our discussion of it but perhaps a good time to offer some thoughts.
There have been numerous posts on my social networking feed
of late that seek to define feminism and more than that, the proper role that males
can and should assume in promoting gender parity. I have to admit to being
biased regarding this entire subject and unevenly so. I react as an outraged
individual when I feel unfairly lumped in with the Neanderthals among us, as
the father of brilliant and self-directed, lovely daughters when confronted
with an example of gender bias and (I hope and believe) as a thoughtful citizen
when considering how society should deal with this or other issues of equality.
I used the word ‘lovely’ as an adjective in mentioning my
daughters above. I did so intentionally so I could ask you to self-reflect for
a moment. Kindly consider:
1.
Is my use of ‘lovely’ above in any way
pejorative? Demeaning or dismissive? And if so, why?
2.
If ‘yes’ to any of the preceding questions, then
please tell me if you’d have been equally alarmed had I referred to “brilliant
and self-directed, handsome sons.”
I believe I know how many if not most feminists would answer
those questions but I could be wrong. I would love to be proven wrong. The
thing is, of late - and by ‘of late,’ I mean in the last decade or so – the
message of feminism has morphed from “we demand our rightful place as humans
and citizens” to one of disdain for all things ‘masculine,’ as in “men are evil
and women are victims.”
The legislators who voted to grant women the
vote were 100% men. While some of them probably did so grudgingly as a
political expedient, it is also probable that some were just decent,
fair-minded individuals and some (viewing with distaste the regressive
tendencies of some or even many of their male peers) were most likely crusaders
for full participation. Some may even have grown weary of the burden of
decision and welcomed more hands on the plow. Yes, it is true that then as now,
many women were passive or even subjugated, but it is also true that women’s
suffrage would never have become a reality absent the determined efforts of
strong, wise, committed women. Women who might be horrified to find themselves considered
passive victims.
If I am to be branded and browbeaten as a representative of
the past, I can’t complain too loudly. I recognize that suffering written
slings and arrows is less damaging to body and soul than being considered a
second-class citizen, being denied a voice in governance of my community or country.
I’ve no call to consider myself a victim and I acknowledge the advantages I
enjoy as a male, white, educated, caringly raised and nurtured citizen of this country
in this century. We could fill volumes, and wiser minds than mine have,
enumerating the wrongs inflicted on various demographics by the folks then in power
with whom I share certain social or gender attributes.
So, why this missive and at this moment?
You never know which straw is going to break the camel’s
back and the one for me in this case caught me by surprise. It came as I viewed
– at the invitation of one of my daughters through a shared social media site –
the recent invocation by a young actress speaking in her role as “Women’s
Goodwill Ambassador” for the United Nations. This young woman spoke out in
support of feminism. That is, feminism as she defined it: “ the belief that men
and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” Hmmm, okay. Seems to me
that this definition more rightly applies to terms like humanism or gender
equity. Because the feminism she promotes involves men being invited by women
to become their better selves, as displayed in their views and actions concerning
gender equity. I found myself wanting to answer: why should belief in fair play
be seen as particularly a feminine trait? And isn’t this point of view sexist
in itself?
This actress, who I won’t name here so as to avoid providing
a metadata hook for the crazies, gets points for her courage, as well as a nod
to her youthful exuberance. But let’s be honest here - she is not where she is
because of the depth and breadth of her life experience, or for her revealed wisdom
or for any deserved recognition as a great thinker. She may well prove to be a
profound thinker, but that is not what brought her to the world’s attention. She
was placed on that bully pulpit based solely on her fame as a person who is
accomplished at playing make-believe before cameras. She is an ‘ambassador’
because of a calculation of the social currency of her celebrity. I get that.
But please, can we agree that movie celebrity is not a qualification for
leadership?
I know there are countries, cultures and religions (DON’T
get me started on the evils of organized religion!) whose denigration of women
goes much wider and deeper that what you find in most of America. But in this
epistle, my intent has been to stick to what I know and at least partially,
understand. So as indicated above, I can’t help but speak through the lens of a
middle-aged male, mostly white, generally conservative but with alarming leans
to the left, well-but-not-superbly educated American in the early twenty-first
century who spends loads of time reading, observing, considering and who is
frequently full of beans. But I am not anti-women or dismissive of women’s
voices and I do not welcome re-education by a speaker who is clearly
well-intended but sadly ill-assigned.
A congressional candidate in (the U.S. State of) Georgia was
recently quoted as saying a woman is welcome to run for office granted that she
is “within the authority of her husband.”
Certainly, I can understand women being disgusted with this statement by
a man who has the support of a significant constituency for national public
office. What I can’t understand is why it should be solely a women’s issue to
ensure this dunderhead is kept a country mile away from the reins of power.
Why would folks oppose this guy (and PLE-E-E-ASE do tell me
you would oppose him!) solely under the mantle of feminism? Why not humanism?
Why not simple fair play or courtesy or – dare I say it – reason?
For me, this is not a women’s issue any more than the lynching
of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner was a Negro issue. It is an issue for all of
us, an issue that speaks to our collective need as a democracy to benefit from
the wisdom of all voices. Any man who does not understand his own vested
interest in inclusion of women’s voices is a fool and any woman who doesn’t
understand that many men stand with her is simply not paying attention.
Men who are worthy of the description are disgusted at the
thought that this idiot in Georgia would be seen by anyone as in any way
representing our collective interests or points of view. But beyond any pique
that men might feel at being lumped together with the worst examples of our
gender, there lies the supremely important fact that gender bias is bad for
society, not just for women and that it injures all of us.
Discounting the views and rights of women would negate the
contributions of vital voices in our polity. Eleanor Roosevelt and Shirley
Chisholm. Harriet Tubman, Sylvia Earle, Mary Fulton, Jane Anger and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg. Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone,
Margaret Sanger, Catherine the Great (I didn’t say they were all nice people), Jane Austen, Indira
Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, Amy Tan, Malala Yousafzai, Tsering
Doltma Gyaltong (I apologize if misspelled – you see differing spellings in
various writings by and about her), Margaret Behan, each of the Ee Girls, and
yes, my Daughters One and also Two – all had or have experiences and knowledge
and wisdom and a point of view to share. And we (WE!) should be listening. You don’t have to be Betty Friesen to be an
important woman. And you don’t have to be a famous actor – male or female - to
deserve to be heard. The messages are as diverse and as equally important as
the many voices, most of which will never be heard through social media.
Emma, thanks for your intent but I really don’t need you to
invite me to the party. And I say this not because social equity isn’t an
important issue for me but rather, because it is. It’s not your issue to invite me
to take up. Rather, it is our issue, everyone’s issue and the twenty-something
actor who deigns to ‘invite’ me is on a par with the young bicycle-riding ‘missionaries’
who offer to tell me how to order my life. It’s not that you’re wrong; you’re not
wrong. But putting this message in your mouth and doing so on behalf of an
international deliberative body inappropriately narrows the scope of the
discussion and tragically misdirects the debate. It trivializes one of the three or four key
social issues of our time.
This is everyone’s fight, not just women’s. Not just well-known actors'. Everyone’s. I hope you continue to contribute. But as one of us, not as the
most famous of us.
(Side note: I hope and imagine Emma’s parents are just
bursting with pride! Even though she is vastly experienced in appearing and
speaking in front of audiences, she was clearly (or so I thought) nervous about
this one. And she did a great job. She showed great courage. At an age when
many of her peers famously go off track, she is engaging one of the great
issues of her time. Goodonher!)
