Feminism 2008 Tracy Pace and Sue McPherson 2008

The following email discussion took place in January and February, 2008. Sue McPherson is a researcher/writer with a background in Sociology and Women’s Studies, born in Bristol, England, and now living in Oshawa, Ontario. Tracy Pace was born in Staffordshire, England, and now lives in Houston, Texas, where she writes and works as a musician.

Tracy: We can write something together, sure, bring together two apparently divergent viewpoints?

Sue: I am disillusioned with feminism. I wonder what young women of today think about their place in the world, and whether they are taking a lot for granted.

Tracy: My place in the world is down to me and my perceptions whatever my circumstances.

Sue: That’s easy to say if you have the privilege of being middle class, and can choose what career you want and where you want to live, and even whether or not you want to be married. It is still marriage that keeps women from living in poverty and enables some to achieve the career they wouldn’t have a chance of otherwise.

Tracy: People traditionally marry for idealistic reasons, for romantic love or perfect progeny or family honour; the equal education of girls releases them to make their own intellectual or economic choices but the idealistic reasons for marriage and the institution of marriage will persist. If so it is the view of marriage needs to change, that people need not replicate the dependency of previous generations of women once they have a husband. There is no point educating the girls if they simply revert to a cultural norm once they marry, and if we want women to bear children in the generation who loses that helplessness they must be supported to be equal during and after this labour and men must be supported to retain their sense of purpose and self-image in a changed role.

Sue: Marriage is a social construct, an institution of society that grants its members certain advantages. Not only women, but men, too, stand to benefit from being part of a couple. Being married grants them a status that single people do not have. A married man with children is seen as a ‘family man,’ implying integrity and dependability, and a married woman is seen as being more ‘settled’ and perhaps more caring than a single woman. These are just stereotypes, but they carry some weight in society. As you say, one problem with marriage is that women can lose their sense of independence, and I call it that on purpose, as the idea within society that having a career and financial independence is the answer is one factor in the increasing divide between those with financial resources and those living in poverty. Most women are no longer happy with having a part-time ‘career’ or with staying home to raise the children. Feminism has ensured that most women who do so will be seen as not contributing towards the family, nor will they be considered tax-paying members of society. The ideal of ‘individualism’, which feminists have loudly proclaimed as their right and their goals, has misled women and influenced the way they are treated, by government institutions and society in general, as well as by individual men and women who place such expectations upon them. Surely the choice to stay at home or work part-time is one that should also be respected, as much as the choice to work full-time.

Tracy: it is true marriage is socially constructed and varies in different societies but it is also what Durkheim called a ‘social fact’ and found in all societies. The ‘coercive power’ within the institution lies with the individual as much as with the society however. People do and have always done their individual relationships outside of social norms, even in the face of social constraints. By lost independence I refer as much to the state of mind of someone who feels they have to comply to a model of behaviour or social structure as to real or perceived economic or emotional lassitude. Where feminism ‘betrays’ the individual is in switching one dogma for another, polarising issues of inequality or injustice and never fully embracing as a goal men and women together devising loving creative solutions for the problems arising from the organic differences between people- saying that without feminism I doubt many of the perceptions of childrens’ rights, disability, mental illness, sexuality or ageing ( for example ) which we take for granted would have been recognised even this far. It is not that feminism as a movement failed but that the individuals supporting and opposing it made it another political battleground, with predictable results. Violence, even of words ( maybe especially so ) always leads to confusion, bad values and an exploitation of the status quo by profiteers. It is no coincidence that in many of the countries where feminism affected the political climate there was an increase in pornography, prostitution, firearms ownership, gambling, alcoholism, drug dealing, unnecessary wars: and a corresponding tiptoe back to the kitchen, part-time at least, for the women whose apparent neglect and willfulness might have caused the corresponding social problems. It is insecurity of the individual which leads to the abandonment of ‘how can we?’ in favour of ‘he/she/we must....’ Margaret Mead said ‘Every time we liberate a woman, we liberate a man.’ But we forgot what we meant by liberate: create a free equal society for all. It is our thoughts yet in bondage, fearing compassionate understanding as a vehicle for change, which cause disillusionment.

Sue: It is not that people have opposed feminism and made it a political battleground but that the beliefs of feminism, and the practice of it, have interfered with people’s lives. It is not an ideological battle but a real one, to do with economics, family life, and sexuality, among other things. Feminists fail to acknowledge the harm that feminism and the women’s movement have done to society - to the lives of some women and men whose lives have been irrevocably altered, unfavourably, by the changes it introduced. Coercive power lies with individual feminists as well as the larger women’s movement, and not all of them act in the best interests of the movement, and not all them have the knowledge to be able to do so, even if that were their intention. I don’t think you will find the feminists who have managed to influence society, even though negatively, ‘tiptoeing’ back to the kitchen. The ones with power, no matter what damage they inflict, often seem intent on maintaining that power, and I can only assume that it is because they lack any ability to make a real contribution to society. Mediocrity, and simplicity, are the bedfellows that attract the attention of anyone seeking easy answers and a safe haven. And feminism certainly has that to offer. Rather than a lack of compassion only, it is also a need for economic security and the attempt to gain autonomy through financial independence, among feminists themselves, that has led to the letdown of feminism. From what I see, the new generation of women/ feminists, many of whom have had greater opportunities than women in the past, have a different attitude towards other women, and men, and their parents, than what we would have expected from them. Increased freedom, opportunity, and autonomy don’t necessarily bring with it a more compassionate understanding of the world.

Tracy: Where feminism ( or any ideology ) has impacted society positively is through concern and compassion influencing groups of individuals; and where it fails as an ideology is when each individual forgets that there are no easy answers, no surety in this risky world except where we each care for the other...if that malaise spreads and becomes a general apathy or even cruelty, there is no way forward for a movement, it may be extant but it’s a stagnant backwater now. It may survive a few generations, even a few centuries sometimes, but without impacting people individually and collectively for good, people will always seek the solutions which benefit them, ultimately. Tradition and habit may last, but they are not enough. Where we have intellect and compassion on this we can recognise progress does not necessarily mean unlimited wealth for myself, but a spreading of opportunity to all. If we can ever lose the primeval dualistic view of the world as competitive survival our societies will become more functional and forward-looking. Not reminiscing, not ‘jam tomorrow’ but ‘what can I- even from a position of weakness- do to make a better world today?’ That was the original ideal for feminism which was lost in practice - ‘impact society’ is not the same concept as ‘bring progress’.

Sue: Even when feminists see their own weaknesses and the flaws of feminism they are reluctant to do anything about it that will hinder or damage their own chances in life. It is still beneficial to them to provide support to those men who allow them to pursue their dreams, even if that means some women will lose theirs in the process. As long as women/feminists deny the importance of sexuality and sexual relations with men, emphasizing instead the notion of a ‘culture of rape,’ nothing will change. As long as traditional standards of ‘masculine’ male behaviour persist, and feminists/women take advantage of that, nothing will change.

Tracy: Traditional standards of masculine behaviour are competitiveness, insecurity, greed and impotence in the face of apparent failure becoming expressed rage. I agree that these are blocks to social change- but not individual change; and if enough individuals change society does. Sexuality is much more than political or organic: it is one of the highest spiritual expressions when practised with love and equality. A ‘culture of rape’ would be our unwillingness to recognise our higher nature and to live values which uphold it; however I see more people practising abstinence than anything, and again feminism can enlighten that as waiting for appropriate individual self-expression and not some kind of failure. Eventually we all laugh at our media portrayals of the sexes but only when it is outside current fashions enough to make the values seem ‘other’ and obvious. What we need is to stop force-feeding ourselves propaganda in the machinery of commercialism, to step into simplicity and work out what we really see and what of it we really need.

Sue: Traditional standards of masculine behaviour are also what many women aspire to - decision-making, determination, courageous acts, objectivity, emotional control, and so on - all these male stereotypes. Rather than a culture of rape, which is what feminists like to claim exists in our society, what we have is a culture of sexual coercion and reward. But like your own point of view, it too results in an unwillingness for women to recognize their ‘higher nature,’ if that’s what it could be called. I see nothing admirable in women/feminists’ ability to treat sex the same way men do, especially since women’s bodies are different from men’s. Getting past the notion of motherhood being women’s ‘higher nature,’ are there any kinds of sexual practices, or approaches to their sexuality, that could be considered more authentic for women than simply copying men’s? Or does the need for money to survive, jobs and careers for self-fulfilment, and relationships with men take priority over an authentic sexuality for women.

Tracy: I’m not sure that women’s higher nature even if it is named ‘maternal’ necessarily translates to ‘motherhood’. Women in my society and my generation can choose their sexuality, their relationships and to be pregnant or not. Women’s ‘maternal instinct’ if we want to call it that, though I suspect it is more acquired than inherited, is far more useful to society than simple reproduction. What is an authentic sexuality for women is the same as what is an authentic sexuality for men: mutuality, intimacy, creativity, fulfillment. It stretches far beyond the bedroom to every aspect of our existence; it diffuses anger and hatred, allows for open-mindedness and nurturing, and for the highest development of the individual without detracting from others. These skills have become useful and utilised in 20 th century commerce and economics- and women are now often in the workplace with no impetus to behave in a gender-defined role or to have intimate personal relationships with men at all.

Sue: I would suggest that women in the work force do have gender-defined roles, except that they may be different than the ones women used to have. There is always an impetus for women to maintain personal relationships with men, with or without intimacy. And depending on a woman’s individual circumstances and the country in which she lives, her sexuality might be hers to control, or might not be. An authentic sexuality for men cannot be the same as it is for women. Men are different physically and biologically, and their hormones are different. Your generalizations on sexuality for men and women cannot do. I feel that this conversation is coming to an end.

Tracy: There is an impetus for all people to maintain personal relationships regardless of sex or intimacy. We are interdependent. Like a conversation- relationships end when someone chose to end them. Life is imperfect, relationships can survive that imperfection only by force of will sometimes. Some women are exploited or abused, yes, but that does not follow that all are and it certainly does not follow that all must be or that men do not have similar experiences. Nor is economic status any indicator of who is assaulted or who feels disempowered, except where basic survival needs are not being met. It is the elimination of poverty which makes the privilege of our birthplace inconsequential- too many people in our world do not have the means to live even as we knew it several generations ago. That is down to the rest of us to organise and provide. But unless people recognise, develop and share opportunity and somehow feel their own agency then all the resources in the world do not facilitate careers or choices: male or female, married or unmarried, educated or not, rich or poor.

Sue: Sex and sexuality are the foundation of this world, although yes, I will grant you that money is too, on another level. But if women, feminists, and feminism refuse to deal with the immensely important subject of sex and sexuality, it will be catastrophic to our society. If poverty of the masses ever stands a chance of ending, if the kind of relationships you speak of are able to contribute positively to the people involved and to society, it will be because the complexities of sex and sexuality of men and women are given careful consideration.

Tracy: Sex and sexuality are fundamental in most groups, as is money; they have all been unhealthily interrelated in most societies. Feminism can continue to define and redefine boundaries between social economics and personal relationships. We need not be disillusioned by apparent faltering or flaws of the ideology because it is still useful to observe and learn from- whenever people are ready individually and collectively.

Tracy Pace’s email: mail @ tracypace.com .

Contact email for Sue McPherson: s.a.mcpherson @ sympatico.ca

Comments and responses are welcome. Please contact the writers

USE BACK BROWSER BUTTON TO RETURN TO PREVIOUS PAGE

This dialogue is being made available on the website http://www.SAMcPherson.net/homepage.html

Posted 17 Feb 2006