Post-equality

[Lyanna Stark]

An interesting debate has sparked in the UK lately with the starting point in this article by a certain Mr Dominic Raab: http://www.politicshome.com/dominic_raab_we_must_end_feminist_bigotry.html

Now, Mr Raab shares a lot of views with me, it seems. Balancing work life with family life is hard, sharing parental leave would be good, equality in the work place is a good thing, etc.

Where we differ is what we think are the underlying issue. Strangely, Mr Raab seems to indicate that the people behing the currently "male unfriendly" parental legislation in the UK are also the same group behind forcing men to work longer hours, commute more and in general be unhappier.

This group is, according to Raab, the Feminists.

This puzzles me exceedingly, as I think you will find when you read Raab's article (and think of yourself as vaguely feminist) that his views on practical issues like parental leave aren't odd or unpalatable at all: no, in fact, they align pretty well with my own, on general terms.

But, as a feminist am I not then Raab's nemesis?

I can't decide whether Mr Raab is

1. Just uneducated in what Feminism actually means

2. or whether he's got another agenda underneath it all, whereby he denies any sort of partiarchal structures and basically am happy with living in complete denial of any unequality: i.e. the post-equality society.

I'm inclined to go with 1 since he is referencing two very different feministic periods and problems they were trying to overcome (the bra burning being the end of the 60s linked to Germaine Greer and more the sexualisation of women, while Pankhurts was a suffragette).

[Guest Raids]

Raab thinks it's time to stop talking about feminism and start talking about egalitarianism.

I'm okay with that. At the very least, tt's time to start talking about the effects of child-rearing on a professional career and what society should do to mitigate those effects separately from any other conversation we might have about sexism and the workplace.

IMO, the real elephant in the room is that the place where women still need the most empowerment is in their own relationships.

[Renasko]

What's wrong with receiving empowerment through, hopefully loving, relationships? I feel I am personally empowered through my own relationship with my girlfriend.

[Galactus]

I'm kind of confused, start talking about?

Isn't that what feminist politis (as, the actual stuff that gets put into law not the musings of intellectuals) has been about for the last oh... At least several years?

Is the anglosphere just that far behind or what?

[Old Nan]

I don't see any particular difference between 1 and 2. Each tends to lead to the other.

As for the tag, "are feminists now the Bad Guys?", that's been true for ten or fifteen years now. Times change. And with the rather anti-feminist 'third-wave feminism' now the most popular brand, it will be that way for some time, likely.

[sologdin]

almost taboo for a man to question the assertion that the rapidly dwindling pay gap is the result of discrimination, rather than genuine choice.

i don't see how this proposition is not silly.

According to research for the Institute for Economic Affairs, women in their twenties earn 1% less than men, single women a shade more. Gay men earn more than straight men, lesbian women more than heterosexual women. Does that sound like a society riddled with discrimination?

this institute of economic affairs? the "UK's pre-eminent free-market think-tank"? the "most influential think tank in modern British history"? whose founder was a hayekite? which is funded by corporate moneys to roll back public benefits?

good source.

If you buy into the whole Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus theory of gender difference – with all its pseudo science - you can’t then complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions.

against whom is this argument addressed? are there feminists who actually have adopted gray's self-help book as a political programme?

tired of the equality bandwagon

should've been the title of the article. it has the virtue of honesty.

[Guest Raids]

There is tension between the female empowerment crew and liberal feminists - a place where I really ran across it is in negotiation theory where there a whole body of literature devoted to teaching women how to use their skills as women to be better negotiators.

I can't tell if Raab is asking whether this is how it should be, or if this is also sexist, and I don't think he really knows either.

For my part, my opinion is that it's fine descriptively to try and figure out how to use the existing prejudices to smooth your own path over, but it's all premised on sexism.

So I see where Raab is coming from. But I don't think he's gotten to the point of framing this question yet.

[Lyanna Stark]

Solo,

Yes, it amused me that he is lashing out in all sorts of directions, instead of focusing on what he seems most angry about: family legislation. Lack of parental leave, sexism in courts thinking kids must live with their mums, etc.

I guess he tried to fit that with his already set world-view: which means feminists get to pose as the scapegoat.

this institute of economic affairs? the "UK's pre-eminent free-market think-tank"? the "most influential think tank in modern British history"? whose founder was a hayekite? which is funded by corporate moneys to roll back public benefits?

Dude is a Thatcherite. :P

I can't find any reference to it now, but wasn't Mr Raab also involved in the hoo-haa before the election with regards to the NHS? As in, certain younger and more "ambitious" Tories were embracing the American health care system with insurance tied to employment. My google-fu is failing me at the moment, but maybe someone else knows?

Raids:

So I see where Raab is coming from. But I don't think he's gotten to the point of framing this question yet.

Kinda difficult to go through a feminist awakening while also blaming everything on the feminists. :P

I think he's suffering from name-phobia, i.e. "feminist" is almost a dirty word to some due to media coverage.

[MinDonner]

His cherry-picking of the data from only men and women in their twenties is pretty telling in itself - even the IEA is happy to admit to a pay gap of approximately 12-22% overall. Of course people in their twenties have mostly not yet had the knock-on effect of pregnancy and childcare responsibilities (not to mention the cumulative effect of all those slightly better pay rises for men), which is probably the main cause of the disparity.

The one point I can make in the article's favour is that the solutions he suggests are practical, ie. helping to equalize the amount of maternity & paternity leave. But, you know, feminists are arguing for that too. :dunno:

[Lyanna Stark]

The one point I can make in the article's favour is that the solutions he suggests are practical, ie. helping to equalize the amount of maternity & paternity leave. But, you know, feminists are arguing for that too. :dunno:

Yes, hence why it baffles me somewhat that he is instead blaming femininists for his issues.

I, too, spotted the very...selective use of statistics. :P

[Lummel]

Mr Raab seems to indicate that the people behing the currently "male unfriendly" parental legislation in the UK are also the same group behind forcing men to work longer hours, commute more and in general be unhappier.

This group is, according to Raab, the Feminists.

It's all true. Everyday I am forced to commute further and further by feminists who block the train doors and poke at me with sticks. Then when I want to leave work feminists hide my coat and sometimes my shoelaces forcing me to work later and later. Then, when I say 'you can't do this to me - I'm part of the patriarchy' they laugh at me.

That was a a weird article of two halves. The first half was a case of being buttonholed by a drunk in a pub who speaks in with odd confused sentances and unsupported statements when you just want to enjoy a quick pint . The second half was the mellow suggestion that (presumably professional) couples would benefit from some cunning tax allowances.

Maybe my reading comprehension is up the spout but look at this: "It is almost taboo for a man to question the assertion that the rapidly dwindling pay gap is the result of discrimination, rather than genuine choice." So there is an assertion that the pay gap is rapidly dwindling because of discrimination but there is almost a taboo (?!? an almost taboo? is that like an almost law or an almost contract?) about questioning that genuine choice is, in fact, causing the the pay gap to dwindle rapidly. If I was a generous man I might assume the quoted sentence was the result of poor editing, I might also assume that he might have meant to say something along the lines of 'it is a taboo to question that the pay gap, which is rapidly dwindling, is not the result of discrimination but the result of genuine choices made by women'.

Maybe I should be relaxed afterall, according to him my mother and my sister are only likely to be earning ten percent less than an equivalent man when it could so easily be more. We should all count our blessings and just compare our situation with that in famous and highly representative european countries such as sir lanka (sic) and swaziland. Here's a handy tip for Mr Raab MP, comparing our country on almost any indicator with 'sir lanka' and swaziland will make us look good, its just a pity that the UK isn't a post colonial developing/third world country anymore making it a totally irrelevant comparision. Stop press, hold the front page: life expectancy and average wages in the UK higher than Sir Lanka or Swazlinand! Deaths from AIDS lower and levels of car ownership higher! Nation celebrates at suprisingly strong comparative performance!

I'll go for option three, Lyanna, Mr Raab is gunning for a column in the Daily Mail.

[mormont]

I can't decide whether Mr Raab is

1. Just uneducated in what Feminism actually means

2. or whether he's got another agenda underneath it all, whereby he denies any sort of partiarchal structures and basically am happy with living in complete denial of any unequality: i.e. the post-equality society.

I'm inclined to go with 1 since he is referencing two very different feministic periods and problems they were trying to overcome (the bra burning being the end of the 60s linked to Germaine Greer and more the sexualisation of women, while Pankhurts was a suffragette).

I'm more inclined to think he has another agenda.

The most contentious passage is the giveaway:

One FT commentator recently complained that: ‘High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.’ Can you imagine the outrage if such trite generalisations were made about women, or other minorities? Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots.

Mr Raab seems almost comically unaware of the fact that the statement he quotes does make a trite generalisation about women (as well as men) - that 'high-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men'. The statement is certainly fatuous and possibly offensive: but it's a remark about the preferences of both sexes. Mr Raab seems to be blind to the part about women, or he discounts it. That to me suggests that his perceptions are somewhat skewed.

He goes on to talk about how

Young British couples are tired of the equality bandwagon, dreamt up in the 1960s, pitting men and women against each other.

A fine sentiment, but made somewhat absurd by the fact that he seems to think it fits perfectly in an article railing against 'feminist bigotry', accusing those who are concerned with the gender pay gap of being 'sexist', and complaining about how men aren't allowed to say this or do that. Decrying division is fine, but it looks odd when you're clearly taking up arms on one side of that division.

Then there's a telling comparison between two issues: the aforementioned pay gap, which he is at pains to minimise, and the unequal retirement age, which he is at pains to emphasise. The former isn't a problem, we're told, because it's got better since the '70s. The latter is painted as a big problem even though it will certainly disappear in seven years. (I could be accused of cherry-picking, I realise, but since that's exactly what Mr Raab is doing, I think it's fair play.) Then, also, he dismisses concern about the remaining gender pay gap by saying it is because of 'choices', ignoring the fact that many of the inequalities he mentions men suffering could equally be described in that way (for example, working longer hours or commuting longer distances). Almost none can really be described as the result of systemic prejudice: and those that are, largely result from patriarchal bias rather than feminist bias (e.g. custody issues).

About the best case he's got is educational underattainment - but it's hard to see how it's come about a result of 'feminist bigotry'. He could be arguing that it receives little attention because of that alleged bias, but the facts don't bear that out - it's become a high political priority in education pretty quickly.

So I'm of the opinion that the article is a mixture of special pleading plus an attempt to co-opt the equality argument as a tool against feminism. You see that a lot nowadays. It raises some valid issues, don't get me wrong - but it's hard to take it seriously as a heartfelt advocacy of true egalitarianism. Nothing wrong with arguing for men's rights, of course: I do it myself. But this appears to be taking a zero-sum approach to the matter, as if we can only be concerned about these things if the feminists quiet down. I refute that absolutely.

[Lyanna Stark]

:lol: @ Lummel

I'll go for option three, Lyanna, Mr Raab is gunning for a column in the Daily Mail.

You know, strangely coincidental, when I googled Raab and feminist, I ended up with a Daily Mail article.

mormont:

So I'm of the opinion that the article is a mixture of special pleading plus an attempt to co-opt the equality argument as a tool against feminism. You see that a lot nowadays. It raises some valid issues, don't get me wrong - but it's hard to take it seriously as a heartfelt advocacy of true egalitarianism.

Yes, I have noticed this as well, hence my comment about suddenly "feminism" is a dirty word and something people feel they need to distance themselves from most passionately. And I think it's strange. As if they do not know what feminism is, nor that it stands for, but are still willing to speak out against it, despite actually agreeing with many of its points.

What is it they are so scared of?

[Hereward]

I'll go for option three, Lyanna, Mr Raab is gunning for a column in the Daily Mail.

I'm not sure that one will fly. His father was an immigrant, after all. :unsure:

[Lummel]

Luckly Mormont despite our lower educational attainment we still get to earn more money. So wayhey! Lets take it easy in the classroom and let the cash roll in at work because life is good (so long as you don't divorce Katrin Radmacher).

I also like the way Mr Raab just dumps in the sentence "Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots" at the end of that paragraph without any supporting evidence, examples or quotations in any part of the article. Nice way to build up a convincing argument there Mr Raab.

[Colder Hands]

i'm i the only one that finds the humor in this being discussed and the thread 2 slots under it is sideboob?

[Masonity]

Ultimately I think he has the right vague idea, but the wrong enemy.

The enemy isn't feminists. The enemy is the employment and family law itself, which currently has sexism built in to it. Feminists should want to get rid of that, I want to get rid of that, surely that makes us allies?

I guess it may be fair to say that it IS a problem when feminists are the only people who are given a platform to complain about gender based discrimination, as they have less of an incentive to fight against anti-male sexism. That doesn't make the feminists the enemy though, merely an occasional ally who tend to hog the spotlight and compete for attention.

I think we can all agree that it's time that custody, time off for child rearing, pay, promotions and opportunities no longer take external genitalia into consideration.

edit: That said, even though I think positive discrimination is a vile idea, I will be hypocritically taking full advantage of it soon. I'm looking into studying to become a primary school teacher, and as a man I'll be given various (non financial) leg ups!

[Kalbear]

whose founder was a hayekite

So the founder supports Salma Hayek?

I'm not sure this is a knock against the site. Unless there are no pics.

[Stalker]

An interesting debate has sparked in the UK lately with the starting point in this article by a certain Mr Dominic Raab: http://www.politicshome.com/dominic_raab_we_must_end_feminist_bigotry.html

I don't think any of the deeper issues are the motivation here. This is clrealy motivated by the Clegg's change to paternal leave.

A might just be a Tory MP tryin to frame a femenist move by the LibDems as a Tory attack on femenists in order to appeal to conservative voters.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Raab thinks it's time to stop talking about feminism and start talking about egalitarianism.

BUT that *is* feminism.