Plus ça change: feminism wasn’t bad for women, but it was brilliant for men
Feminists aren’t happy. In France, philosopher Elisabeth Badinter has provoked the sort of reaction reserved for Englishmen who say Camembert tastes like feet by arguing in a new book, Le Conflit: La Femme et la Mère (Flammarion), that women are being enslaved by the ideal of a mother doing everything for their children. In Britain, Natasha Walter, who heralded the egalitarianism of The New Feminism in 1998, laments in her new book, Living Dolls (Virago) that she “once believed that we only had to put in place the conditions for equality for the remnants of old-fashioned sexism in our culture to wither away. I am ready to admit that I was wrong.”
What is going on? Part of it is generational. Suggesting to today’s pre-teens that men and women are not absolutely equal provokes incredulity. For them, in the 21st century, it is—shrug—obvious. But I think something else is going on too. Feminism has massively enhanced the range of life experiences open to one half of the population—but unfortunately, it’s the wrong half.
When I was a student in the 1980s, feminism was the “ism” du jour. The women’s groups sliced up injustice, while the men’s groups pondered the ethics of masturbation in low, guilty voices. Feminism did change the way we related to each other—the personal became political—and we assumed the world would follow. It hasn’t.
But it has done wonders for men. It’s not only that sex is more open and—since no modern woman wants to be labelled “unliberated”—more frequent and varied. More important is the economics. Going Dutch means single men carry home a fuller wallet from a date, while those in couples are no longer sole breadwinners.
True, feminism has given a tiny minority of highly-educated women better jobs. But what else? Huge divorce settlements? Only in the handful of cases that make the tabloids. In 2009 the Institute for Social and Economic Research found that while a divorced man’s income increases by about a third, a divorced woman’s falls by at least 20 per cent—and remains low for years, even if she doesn’t have children. Worse, fewer than one mother in three receives anything from the father of her kids.
Does such injustice prove Walter et al correct? Curiously, Walter’s book doesn’t mention divorce. Instead, she wastes time picking fights with evolutionary biologists. You can show how girls are socialised—rather than hardwired—to like pink until you’re blue, or pink, in the face, but it’s easier arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness than an evolutionary biologist.
Yes, women today have equality of opportunity. Girls do better at school and make up 55 per cent of university entrants. Young women are more likely to find good jobs. Yet if you look at many outcomes—be it divorce, earnings, savings or the number of female company directors—huge divergences remain. Walter’s book cites with understandable sadness a survey suggesting that 60 per cent of Mancunian teens would consider glamour modelling as a career. But if mainstream prospects are so poor, is it surprising?
Karl Marx inadvertently tipped the wink to capitalism; his criticisms enabled it to reform its greatest injustices to its own advantage. It seems that feminism may have helped the patriarchy in a similar way. Relationships between men and women may have loosened up, but the underlying economics have remained much the same. Isn’t that what feminists should be talking about?
Read Laurie Penny’s response to Jim Pollard: Men: feminism needs you
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
Comments (18):
I knew my fellow women would regret absolving men of chilvary, good behaviour and responsibility which is effectively what some of the misguided feminist proponents were pushng for.
I don’t know why it never occurred to them (as it always did to me) that it was stupid to object to having the door being opened for one or having a guy give up a seat for one or rightly cover the entire bill if they ask you out for dinner. In fact, it more than suited me to be thought of as the weaker sex.
I think both sexes have come off badly. Men are now largely effeminate, irresponsible and lack that certain sense of quality and principle that marks the gentleman while women have not just lost the priviledge of being treated with consideration and respect, they haven’t gained the sort of respect and deference given to men either. Wprse, the brashness that was and still is being tolerated in men is so offputting in women that it further undermines the respect accorded to them whatever their achievements.
This is just the beginning. Hopefully, next time people want to protest old norms and dish it for new thinking, they learn to separate the baby from the bath water and be clear which one is being ditched!
it hasnt worked for either. equal rights of course is a great thing and this move from the repression of thger 1950’s should be appaluded however…..
Many women now complain that many of today’s men have become “wimps”, too weak and ambiguous to really trust.
Sensitive and affectionate men are complaining that many of today’s women
have become “ballbusters”, too hardened and emotionally guarded to fully embrace.
Is this the ultimate expression of human sexual wisdom and evolution?
Au contraire. Feminism has shown up the insecure men for what they are. Men who are secure in themselves don’t need to keep women in an insecure, subservient position. What is needed is for a mens movement to liberate men, not from women but from their own insecurities.
what about a ‘human’ movement?! Gender free..gender causes the divide not sex..
The problem is not with evolutionary biologists (they demand reproducible scientific evidence)but with evolutionary sociologists (they don’t – necessarily).
It’s much more complicated and complex than this article.
The problem we have at the moment lies with the dialogue that exists now between women. It’s become a club of ‘we want it all’.
Whether you have old, very old women having children at 70 odd to marrying men who are 19 or having 15 kids you don’t want, it’s all become very murky and selfish in behaviour.
But alas, I don’t see this dialogue happening within women very soon.
Thank you for an interresting article. It works very well as a setpoint for reflexions of what life have become to me as a independent woman in no need of a man for economical or social reasons.
When I reflect on my life conditions compared to the lives of my mother and grandmother and other women of there generations and lifeconditions i feel extremely priveliged and greatfull to the women who took the fight fore women rights.
I do not have to stay in a relationship because of economical or legal matters as they did. I am free to express my views and organize my life in a way that was impossible to them. I can live by social rules who are not defined by the men I have lived with.
My greatest worries relates to the men who did not fight to alter there view of the relationship between the sexes and therefore are at enormous risk of beeing left behind in society.
Mariann(52)
Sweden
The one thing women could do is to ensure that they do not have babies except with men willing to share care equally. If she spends more time with the new baby, he should spend an equal amount of time supermarket shopping etc. Yet so many women still think that because they give birth, looking after the baby is their job. Feminism has given rise to an explosion of women producing endless children by different fathers, with the state benefits system rather than the husband now the proverbial meal-ticket for life.
Born free and everywhere wheeling pushchairs.
Tony Afanasiew:
“The problem resides with men: what are they for when not making war and building empires? How should they re-define themselves in a shrinking, post-colonial state? Perhaps wimps cope better with decline and fall?”
Audrey Furlong”
“agree with you Gwen – gender “roles” divide us – think of how men suffer when “making war” and equally how women suffer “when confined to home”
I agree wholeheartedly with the contention that in the econmic world, Marx was again spot on. However, we also live in the social world, and women’s lives are considerably better than their mothers, not just in terms of control of fertility, but also in the social recognition of the war against women. That is, rape and domestic violence are no longer private matters. There is more to be done, of course, particularly in overcoming neo-patriarchy, which has erupted in this period of turbo capitalism. The women’s movement continues…
Thanks Honey!
Equality was the wrong concept; why would women want to be equalto men ? Our common humanity should have been stressed more from the start; and this should be done now to counter the dreadful and demeaning ’sexualisation-cum- commercialisation of men-women (and inbetween) relationships. Even demanding equal pay may have been a mistake since the male wage, was and surely remains in some places, the wage to keep a family, not one person. By paying each the same, inflation was surely encouraged, and society as a whole was persuaded, or at least not discouraged, from turning shopping into a sport and entertainment, and then throwing away too much. Worst of all, feminism seems to have led to children, and the future, being ignored for the sake of ‘having’ it all now. Not much has improved; give me back a bit more modesty and gentleness, and more caring for children and the old without demanding payment from the taxpayer. And of course, equal worth and esteem, and equal opportunities to fly to the moon.
ummm, “rape and domestic violence are no longer private matters,” is a step in the right direction?!? OMG.
Feminists of the last 100 years have laid the groundwork for change. It will take at least another 100 years until we begin to approach equality.
We will never give up. Not because feminism is good for women, but because it’s good for women, men and children.
Oh, BTW, feminism has nothing to do with having a door opened for you or not…
I actually found this opinion rather funny and with a valid point. However, please have a look at http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15174418
which I think is rather interesting.
Kind regards,
early morning bird
Well, Jim, this may be life but not as we know it…
Stereotypical ideas about men and women abound in contemporary society and place huge burdens on both. Violence against women is endemic in UK society. Many men still feel divorced from their families.
Women are doing better at work and in education, but the real problems emerge when couples have children. Who stays at home? Who works? Who sees their kids? Who doesn’t, except at weekends? Who has the financial power and public status? Who is admired for their ‘caring nature’ but not listened to?
Some things have got better, particularly for middle class public sector workers, of both sexes. But for many, old issues persist, despite some amelioration. Feminism still helps us to understand those issues and identify what must be done to make things better.
Feminine and masculine are genders of individuals only if (or as) they aren’t sexes anymore. And if they are genders, then obviously there isn’t the need for them to be just two. Also, even if there were just two genders, they wouldn’t have to be complimentary, or opposite, or having any -real- difference between them. Any absolute difference would (will) reintroduce sexes (and sexism) and undo gender centred thinking, and if you dislike the latter, you probably dislike the former even more. So things are complicated, and when things are complicated the crowds get angry, they crave for simplicity. Men and women who are willing to bear the burden of complexity may do well in these new times, at least until the arrival of the next empire.
Most causes and quests become high jacked one way or another, women’s lib as you say enabled us blokes to get more as it would be considered passe by any ‘liberated’ woman to refuse sex.
But fundamentally we are different, not inequals but just different. A 9st woman cant be as tough a soldier as a 15st man, but will have skills in her own right that could be used far more effectively. Why should girls be brought up to feel they need to compete with us lot and not just be good at the stuff they are good at.
Call me an old dinosaur if you like…OK loads already have but I think we al can undertake roles more suited to us and be “Equal but different”