Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
A female colleague of mine's take on modern feminism - what are your thoughts?
The topic of modern feminism came up last night when I was talking with an old female friend who has recently become a coworker of mine (she's a solid state physicist, recently applying herself to thin-film optics) - I thought our forum here might be interested in her thoughts, which are not atypical for the women I work with.
Many highly successful women regard modern feminism as unnecessary, and perhaps therefore condescending to women who are perfectly capable of succeeding on their own. My old friend took a bolder view, telling me that she actually found modern feminism to be a considerable hindrance to the success of the most able women in male-dominated fields today, including ours - not only insulting and unnecessary, but actually obstructive.
She gave me the analogy of Tiger Woods (prior to his whole scandal - that's actually what led to the discussion) - she said that he, at least prior to his image being tarnished, was the perfect example of how previously stereotyped groups should integrate into an egalitarian society - simply challenging a field where he "didn't belong," and proving himself a force to be reckoned with. He proved himself worthy, thereby conclusively shutting up any racist who wanted to say that blacks couldn't play golf. Broaden that concept beyond golf, and into every part of modern society, and you have a successful defeat of racism.
But then she said what if, instead of simply walking onto the course and kicking *ss, Woods came on under the guidance of a special political group for integrating blacks into golf, who made sure that he had larger holes to aim for, and argued that he should be able to retry certain strokes when they went badly - in essence, lowering the standard so that blacks would more easily succeed. She argued that this would actually encourage, not discourage, racism - because even when Woods demonstrated that he was the best (and still in fact was the best), no one would believe it was because of his skill. A victory won by the best player, but with an unfair advantage, is indistinguishable from a victory won from a player who wasn't the best, but won BECAUSE of an unfair advantage - and people will assume the latter.
This is what she basically argued that modern feminism in academics was: a network of head starts, lowered bars, and special girls' only rules that have a similar affect on the seriousness given to successful women as such a ridiculous effort would have had on Woods if that's the avenue that had been tried. She stated point blank that she believed that modern feminism promoted mediocre or sub-standard women who were wrestling with nothing more than their own lack of ability at the expense of women who would be perfectly capable of rising to the top and being paradigm-breaking examples on their own, if not for the suspicion cast on their achievements by the special shortcuts offered to them (even if they reject those shortcuts, as my friend has made a point to).
She basically said that modern feminism is not for all women, but only mediocre women, at the expense of more talented women - that the people who are truly competitive would prefer that they not be offered head starts or special allowances, because these only detract from their accolades.
Like I said, it's not the only time I've heard this idea, but it's coming up in a recent conversation with an old, recently reunited friend who happens to be one of the most intelligent and accomplished women I know, renews its relevance.
Do you agree with her? What do you think?
Rio - I routinely suspect that we disagree on little more than nomenclature on many of the issues covered here.
J D - You've got a strong point - the asterisk, whether in explaining the lack of women's contributions in distant history or the suspicion given to them today, never seems to work out in women's favor. I think the increasingly popular post-feminist attitudes of academics like my friend, though, do much to diffuse the power of the asterisk. (It may be that I'm just an eternal optimist, believing that it will all get better in the future, but I do think that I've got good substantiation for this attitude :) )
ProfessorC - I definitely get the impression that you disagree with me on many issues, and may have interesting points to contribute (in any issue, I'm far more interested in dissent than agreement, since the former has more potential to teach me something new), but I can't do anything if the only arguments you offer are snappish accusations of my friend and coworker being nonexistent and/or ungrateful - she is neither.
If you are only intending to broadcast paranoid misandry at whatever choir is cheering you on, then I suppose to each her own. But if you actually intend to attempt to convince anyone of anything, you're going to have to go deeper than telling me my old friends and colleagues are figments of my imagination, or insulting their character.
Green6yes - I can't for the life of me understand why your comment would be unpopular. For the record, I agree that any sex discrimination is wrong - I would be curious to know who disagrees, and why.
23 Answers
- KatieMedicLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
What do I think? I think you are not quoting anyone but your own little rationalizations.
By the logic above, your friend would have to be ignorant of how she got her own opportunities. THEN she would have to be ignorant of all the things going on in the real world. So, not much of a source.
Like, oh - when I was in college, I worked as a paramedic. (Got that first.) At that time, the Florida city where I worked had two standards for firefighters - men's and women's standards. The problem was, they weren't USEFUL standards, even beyond being unequal.
For instance, it's entirely true that using a 200lb dummy that is loosely stuffed, so that when it is lifted by the middle the weight drops to either end, can be used to keep women out of firehouses. Carried by a man on his shoulder, that difference makes almost no difference. Carried by a woman over her hip, it makes all the difference in the world.
What was needed was a standard that required regulation dummies, so that the women who could pass a "real world" simulation would get a fair chance. (People do not squish to either end when lifted.) INSTEAD, what was in place was a lower weight requirement for women.
How this was addressed? A group of feminist women who were training to be firefighters got together and made a pledge -- if they couldn't pass to the men's standards, they d*mn well wouldn't pass at all, and if they DIDN'T voluntarily remove themselves if they only passed the women's standards, they could expect to get it hard from the other women.
They trained like hell. They all passed to the men's standards but one. She removed herself. And when that group of women had earned that, had made it impossible for anyone to squeal "they're just trying to make it easier for women/equal outcome bias/wahhh" when they challenged how things were done -- they were listened to. One of them to this day works at designing training scenarios that strive to mimic real world conditions.
This is good for two reasons: It means that tests that are meaningless (you can lift and carry a heavy slinky) are weeded out, and tests that matter, (you can lift and carry something that mimics the human body) replace them. That's good for anyone who values equality of opportunity.
It also means all of the firefighters get more training in closer-to-life scenarios, which makes them more affective. And that helps everybody.
So, yeah. I think you made every word of that up. And if not, I think your friend was trying to make herself feel exceptional and special by pretending the women who come after her couldn't have done it if they'd been held to the same standards she was. B.S. either way.
- tangyterp83Lv 61 decade ago
eh...I don't think that anyone should be able to take the easy way out or have the bar lowered to give them special advantages, but I do believe that feminism and other movements can still help. In some instances people must be forced to do the right thing. I do not condone head starts or special allowances because hard work makes you better at what you do, but I do think that a lot of ppl are extremely naive in thinking that ppl will do the right thing all the time. In instances where a woman is the best and is discriminated against because of her sex is is comforting to know that there is a way to right the wrong.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I wholeheartedly agree with those analogies. A similar light-bulb clicked in my head a few months ago. I've become a black conservative because of it. Dr. Martin Luther King wanted a world with equal access and not equal outcomes. The idea that minorities and woman can't achieve great heights without A.A. is very condescending. Reagan/H.W.Bush the best Presidents of modern history promoted Alan Keyes, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas because of their abilities. I never question women's intelligence. How can I when I only hold a g.e.d. and Certified mechanic certificate. No doubt women with high i.q.'s have equal access without any special leg ups. I still don't see many women mechanics because of biological, physical limitations. That's something affirmative action could never totally fix anyway. In specialized fields cream should always rise to the top so that the most able are performing there. My eyes have been opened that we can't do that with socialist policies.
A little off topic but what about all those sub-prime loans that Bill Clinton let go through? Wasn't that also an example of affirmative action? People who couldn't get loans by their own merit having the bar lowered so they get something nobody is entitled too. 9 years after Clinton we all paying for bailouts. A good example of how pushing for equal outcomes harms everybody.
- SoulminerLv 51 decade ago
I agree with her 100%
In fact this is my main argument against modern feminism and non-feminists like me repeat this line over and over again.
When standards are changed to smooth the path for women it is an example of patronage.
The hand that extends the patronage is the hand that retains the real power and that is a male hand.
Why can't feminists recognize this?!!!
I think the answer must be that feminists are not interested in REAL achievement. Instead all they care about is the political appearance of achievement. In the left wing mind the "truth" is a political matter not an objective one. They see no difference between reality and political perceptions of reality i.e. no difference between truth and political correctness.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No one should be given special treatment because of their gender, religion, race, or color. If a person has earned the right for a job they should be given a chance at it.
From a management standpoint, you have to treat everyone equally, and show them that you have a genuine interest in their achievements, and want to assure that they are doing well and are happy. If you don't you've lost them and they do not do their best, and you lose.
If someone is passed over in a promotion because of ones sex or color, you have lost them as well, and they, likewise do not do their best, and you hurt as well.
- Anonymous5 years ago
Feminism is supremacy under the guise of equality. We already know by their actions that equality is the last thing on their "to do" list. They want whatever benefits women when it suits them. That isn't equality.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Oh yes. That sounds like the 'playing the victim' thing. That doesn't really work well... What people don't understand about feminism is that all feminists don't believe the same thing. There are all sorts of brands of feminism. Some of it is giving it all a bad name.
I find some feminism really annoying.. like the whiny attacking men for everything without taking responsibility for our own actions-feminism is crap and makes it all look real bad.
The stuff I believe is acknowledging our differences and not hating on men. Believe it or not, there are feminists out there that make a lot of sense. They just piss off the other whiny feminists.
I love men and I love women. I am a feminist. I don't like seeing a woman treated badly for what she is just like I don't like seeing a guy get disrespected for being a man. It's about equality. And we do have differences!
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
The stigma of lowered expectations hurts minorities as well as women, as many men of color in academia will attest.
It used to be said that a woman who made it had to be twice as good to make it half as far. I'm sure that's no longer true, though the claim is still made sometimes.
But the reverse, that a woman who makes it did so either on affirmative action or on her back, is still heard.
Maybe we'll never have meritocracy. It's a shame that women's achievements seem to always have an asterisk next to them, one way or the other.
- JoeLv 44 years ago
I think she has a valid point. It is one of the parallels of third wave feminism and Marxism. All people are the same. When confronted with the reality that they're not, lift the less talented individuals up on the backs of the most talented individuals. This creates the incentive for the most talented individuals to be somewhere else. A society that is full of mediocre individuals doing fack all of any worth does not survive.
- fslcaptain737Lv 41 decade ago
Agree!
As an aside, Tiger Woods isn't black...I hate when people think he is, or that the black community has tried to 'claim' him. His mother's freakin' Thai! Tiger's half Thai, part Indian, and a bit black and white.
