Letters to the editor: Nov. 4

Owned on Nov. 4, 2009

May it rest in peace

Begging the question.

For the sake of this world, I hope your knowledge and equanimity find a home in pedagogy.

You are a few centuries off in your assessment of civil rights as they relate to women. If you are curious enough, I would encourage you to look at the development of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in the 1970s- this addressed a problem tantamount to "legalized discrimination against women" and is not a relic of centuries past. Same thing with inclusion of women in clinical trials (mandated as late as 1993) and admission to professional schools (medicine, law, divinity), among others.

I think the point of this letter, however, was not to illuminate the persistence of institutional discrimination against women- because strides for women have been most measurable and encouraging in this arena (really, we should all be happy about this as a community of equals!) I can't speak for the writer, but it sounds like he was referring to the way denigration of women is woven into our society, such that things ascribed to women become less valuable than the "norm" of maleness. You actually demonstrate this well in what you wrote: how math and science are "dumbed down" for women while "arts and crafts" are added to pad the female GPA. A debate on women's innate ability in math and science notwithstanding (the sociological and scientific studies are interesting, I encourage you to read primary literature on the subject!), the fact that you would devalue an area in which you perceive women to possess ability (arts) speaks to the larger,more insidious problem of the way our society views women at its most basic and unguarded. Our default is to define women by the standard of maleness, which is of course a losing battle because only males can be male. Reversing the argument might sound preposterous: imagine marking men as inferior for an inability to "compete" in areas of female ability. Who would even want this ability, given that the work we associate with women is so often devalued or ridiculed: Ms. Offutt took issue with women in the kitchen because the "real" work is what men are doing, and you reduced the depth of artistic expression to a frivolity of "arts and crafts." Herein lies the problem, which runs so much deeper than reactionary codification of equality that often misses the point. The persistent issue remains more about attitudes than laws, and in this sense the way you speak about women and equality is remarkably similar to Ms. Offutt's. Sexism is something we all inherit in a culture defined by maleness, and remains with us until we are able to find a redeeming humanity in each individual that transcends gender.

Bethany Offutt’s “Sexism in the Workplace” columns feign advocacy for gender equality while investing in sexist ideology to degrade the women she seeks to “help”. We must do better.

Dredging up the hackneyed stereotypes of the “Raging Feminist” and describing the “Feminist Route” as indiscriminate spitting on men, the author evokes the sexist fallacy of feminism as an incompetent monolith of juvenile, man-hating wackos; blinded by anger and worthy of contempt. In truth, the continuum of feminism is rich with a diversity of theoretical viewpoints, goals and strategies. Poignantly, without their bumbling lot, Offutt wouldn’t have the opportunity to write columns that now shoot gender equality in the foot.

Mystifyingly, she then recommends that contemporary women emulate of pioneers like Maya Angelou, Eleanor Roosevelt, Sandra Day O’Connor & Oprah Winfrey, each of whose pioneering work (and often public campaigns) is animated by an essential feminism.

Offutt callously disparages the vital work that women do in the home and slanders homemakers as passive—both sexist trademarks. She also completely ignores the power and possibility of conscious choice. How dare we insult any parent as morally inferior for staying home to raise a child? Is parenthood suddenly less important than career advancement? For millennia, women have been confined with deprivation of choice, in deference to male dominance. Forcing women into the workplace to serve a false morality is no better than keeping them at home to serve male ambition. Equal valuation of, and choice in, the labor of men, women and families—regardless of venue—is a key component of gender equality.

Bethany, you, I, and other feminists (Yes you are. Embrace it.) are rightly angered by the injustice thrust upon you by sexism. But misplacing the responsibility for defeating sexism on women (while absolving men) echoes the victim blame leveled at women for everything from the wage gap to rape. Your article evinces a stark contradiction: unwittingly adopting the mythology of sexism and consciously combating its hurtful consequences. It’s heartbreaking to read the undercurrent of shame with which you regard womanhood. Exhorting your sisters that, “its time [they] showed the world” their worth, gushes the very “self-defeat” you decry. Scolding women to improve behaviors and “become” equal, denies that they have always been equal. Systemic discrimination is the failure of society to recognize the fundamental equality of people, not the failure of people to properly manifest or display their equality. It cannot be defeated with individual virtues; it demands societal solutions.

The black, lesbian, feminist author Audre Lord once said, “You cannot dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools”. Bethany, you cannot defeat sexism by using sexism against women, to motivate them against sexism. It’s time for a new house and new tools. But you must realize your own equality before you can demand it from anyone else.