I am a far better feminist than many of the women at the forefront of the “progressive” movement. Here are some of their progressives’ characteristics.
Progressives start with a belief that except for anatomy, females are the same as males. They see no inherent differences in our emotions, our aggressiveness, our protectiveness, our passions, or our risk-aversion. The differences we exhibit, they claim, are all a product of culture. Many of them believe male-dominated culture keeps these trends in check across the world. They fail to explain how cultures that are so different in every OTHER way are remarkably the same in their female-male differences.
Progressives believe that since society has constructed these differences, society can undo these differences.* Progressives typically believe that since society has unfairly constructed these differences, society should remedy these differences.
But some differences can’t be remedied. Here are some destructive examples in progressive attempts to remedy things on behalf of females.
Co-education, a progressive “must” that puts boys and girls in the same classes, at some point impedes the learning for both sexes. By ninth grade, boys are consumed with girls. They don’t learn as well when girls are in the classroom, especially if dressed provocatively. Girls meanwhile have to put up with boys’ ogling, musing, and sometimes overt rude commenting.
Move to college, where young where progressives have fought for Title IX equality for recruited athletes. Insisting that women take the same number of athletic slots as men, Title IX advocates have caused some colleges to shut down football squads. Other colleges “make up” the deficit by recruiting girls who are not especially athletic and sometimes not scholastically deserving. They fill slots on the field, but might be at a deficit in the classroom.
Now, progressives don’t yet demand girls’ football. They are content to stifle a male activity, and indeed a male route to careers in sports, nutrition, fitness and media, all the while artificially pushing women to sports they are not passionate about.
In the post-college workplace, progressives demand paid maternity and paternity leave. Though the latter sounds “nice” for caring men, it actually hurts women. A company can budget only so much in benefits. The more it pays men who don’t need a benefit (but will usually take it if offered) the LESS it has to pay women who to need to stay home with their newborns. Even the demand that women receive paid maternity leave can have bad consequences for women -- it means that rational employers who don’t want new recruits taking too much time away may avoid hiring women of child-bearing age. Progressives then want to legislate against that, but this is almost impossible. Once done, the remedy it engenders involves lawyers, scrutiny of HR records, and “thought-crimes” (looking into the intent behind a withheld hire). Meanwhile the litigating woman twists in the wind, jobless and potentially stigmatized from being hired elsewhere.
What does the TRUE feminist do to help women in the workplace? I for one say the woman who has been unfairly discriminated against because of her sex doesn’t need lawyers. She could use an advocate, and plenty of law students are available in legal clinics to remedy injustices. Savvy, experienced lay professionals can help, showing how there might be a sex-related difference in pay. Armed with data and not emotion the feminist doesn’t have to say “poor, weak woman, we’re going to have the government get you a remedy”. We, the true feminists, say “you’re getting yourself a remedy -- a different job and a cadre who will punish that company by boycotting their products. We the true feminists maintain databases on companies that are most friendly to women employees. And we publicly scorn male pigs in the workplace. (My latest “feminism consumer revenge” is against Uber, whose execs proved themselves unmoved by women’s harassment complaints; for the rest of the year, at least, I will use Lyft instead of Uber.)
How does the TRUE feminist apply child-care to the workplace? Here I say that nurturing a baby, fostering a child’s growth, and running a household all demonstrate skills I want back in my workplace. Women who choose to have a home career can probably help my company part time as productively, per hour, as men who are full time. Many jobs can be done well from home these days. For women wanting to return to work after a full severance to raise children, I accord the same status, and maybe even HIGHER status. The woman has been managing a home successfully and after 20 years has sent 3 kids off to college or a successful non-college life; that compares more favorably than a man in a stodgy go-along position for twenty years. There are very few roles where experience trumps talent. Women leading households successfully demonstrate their workplace talents every week.
These are just a few elements of feminism that if recognized, will be truly better for women. Modern feminists need not try to foist the falsity that male and female are inherently the same. Our differences are beautiful, and playing to differences is far from subordinating, but instead is uplifting.
Mark Stewart Greenstein
April 2016, Updated June 2017.
* The higher the level of education, the more a person typically believes this. PhDs are at the forefront of desiring to undo the differences. Meanwhile the least-educated know that generally girls are inherently different than boys, and women are inherently different than men. The PhD seems unwilling to deny the simple observation that with almost no societal influence the three year old boy presented with big rubber ball is likely to kick it or roll it while the three year old girl is likely to cradle it. If given a toy car, the five year old boy will want to race the toy car or smash it into another toy car; the five year old girl will want to decorate the toy car or even care for the toy car.
Most remarkable are differences in our willingness to care for children. Across all cultures, women have a higher willingness and a higher ability. If this were just a cultural construct, at least some male leaders would want to continue the species and take on the child-rearing roles. If “men work, women stay home” were a cultural construct, then matriarchal societies would turn that around; but they don’t.
Progressives usually deny the existence of God. Here’s why it fits so well. Without God, humans are solely the product of molecules replicating. The combination of molecules that created the first female (or first male) was an accident. Yet somehow no other accidents have created a third sex, not for any creature. The idea that a creative Creator might have planned this out ruins the progressive’s world view. Even though far more plausible, God-as-creator is not acceptable to most progressives. That may be because a good God also foists timeless values upon us, and many progressives don’t want to be bound by the values and demands of God.
