Female Self-Loathing Awards – Charlotte Allen and Susan Pinker
Today, I have had read about two women, one American and one Canadian, who are still saying that women are inferior to men, and we should simply accept it. Well, I am not going to sit there, and let these pathetic women tell my two little nieces that they are inferior to anyone else simply because of their genders. I have to believe, that these two women are arguing this way because they have some sort of self-esteem issue. They have heard the negative messages about women, and they have believed them and now they choose to spread the word, and somehow, they got people to publish their self-loathing. I am not going to offer counter-points, since they are all over the web already – but I will give you links.
1st Place – Female Self-Loathing – Charlotte Allen
Article: We Scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?
Published by: The Washington Post
Quotes:
"Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true."
"I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of
female mental deficiencies. I can’t add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then
what?). I don’t even know how many pairs of shoes I own."
Counterpoint:
Pandagon – Shorter Charlotte Allen
"She might as well have typed, over and over, “Women suck, oh my god,
women suck, I hate women so much, doesn’t everyone hate women, how can
women not just commit suicide they are so intolerable?” I’m sort of
stunned. She can’t actually think this about women so thoroughly—the
cognitive dissonance between hating women so much and being one would
probably send her babbling to the corner, shaking and rocking, unable
to form complete sentences."
2nd Place – Female Self-Loathing – Susan Pinker 
Book: The Sexual Paradox
Published by: Scribner
Book Premise:
"The hormones predominant in men lead to action, focus and, often, to
competitive and rigidly hierarchical professions such as law. Women’s
hormones lead them to focus on empathy and social interaction, and
careers as teachers or social workers. Thus, despite their early
advantages—girls have better language skills and discipline, while boys
are more prone to dyslexia, autism and Asperger syndrome and other
difficulties—women tend not to seek out the highest status or the most
lucrative careers."
Counterpoint
The Vancouver Sun
"She is quick to dismiss gender discrimination as a cause of these
disparities, instead giving examples of attempts that non-traditional
industries have been making to attract women. However, study after
study shows that discrimination is still an important factor in women’s
lack of advancement in non-traditional sectors. In fact, a 2007 report
by the UN’s International Labor Organization found that around the
world, women are hampered by labour discrimination that keeps them from
top positions in their fields."
Conclusion:
“The puzzle is why the idea of sex differences continues to be so controversial,” the New York Times quotes Pinker. To me, it is not saying that men and women that are different that is annoying. It is the idea that women are different than men, and should therefore accept lower pay and lower status. It is especially annoying, since this is coming from women themselves! God – we are still in a revolution here – we can’t give up now when we have come this far! So – you can go ahead and hate yourselves Charlotte and Susan. Me and my nieces are going to love ourselves, keep being ambitious, acknowledge and fight discrimination when we see it and keep shooting for more lucrative careers.
I don’t know which one is worse – the first one is ridiculously direct. The second one is more sneaky – here is the reason why you will not succeed – it is okay to be weak since you are a woman.
I don’t endorse the conclusions of Charlotte Allen or Susan Pinker. And I can’t agree more when Stefanie says there is a need to fight damaging discrimination. But I am nonetheless uncomfortable with a model of success for women that merely adopts what has traditionally been the model of success used by men.
I’m all for ambition and a lucrative career, but why do those need to lead to the male-dominated careers? I’m a man. I have spent many many years practising law (which I agree is a “competitive and rigidly hierarchical profession” that has been dominated by men). More recently I’ve switched to teaching (which I agree is a job with a “focus on empathy and social interaction” that has been dominated by women). But why need I conclude from my change of career that I am now less ambitious or in a less lucrative career? For example, I do make less money as a teacher, but I’d argue the job is *not* less lucrative. I see profit in more than its mere financial sense.
In short, I don’t accept the traditional assumptions of ambition and profit – assumptions long advocated by men in power and, seemingly, by some modern feminists as well. I believe that feminism will reach hitherto unseen levels of accomplishment when it is able to successfully challenge male-dominated myths of ambition and profit – not when it merely adopts them as its own.
Feminism is supposed to be about choices, the women’s movement about giving women the ability to lead their lives as they choose.
I can understand how frustrating it must be to see women who are apostates, embracing a point of view that seems backwards.
But we’re fighting for their rights too. Why dismiss their views as self-loathing? To each her own. That’s what equality is all about.
Mac – agreed, I don’t think women need to copy men. But, I also don’t think that we should have to accept that the females are “wired” to have roles of little power and money, and men are “wired” to have those roles. Everyone makes their own choices in life – both women and men – and I don’t think that that should be constrained by old-fashioned gender norms. It really irritates me to see these norms published and trumpeted in recently published books and magazines.
Pinky – I do think that feminism is about choices – but it annoys me to see people publishing views based on bad research. For example, the driving example in Allen’s article has been discredited, and some of the research in Pinker’s book has never been replicated – as pointed out by the New York Times.
Why would these women do this? Why would they seek reasons for women to be stupider, make less money and be less powerful? Why would they quote research that has been discredited or never replicated? The only reason I can think of is that they hate women, meaning they hate themselves.
We are still in a revolution here. It is so exciting to see more female CEOs and world leaders. It is views like these that slow down the progress. Of course they can go ahead and continue their self-loathing, but they should recognize it as such.
It’s sad. Everything that could be said has been said here I think..including the comments.
The NOW revoked my membership long ago [J/K] when I decided to have the original thought that “Yes! We *are* different!”
I know you are not advocating we’re the same but with acknowledging these differences, can we *then* still demand equality in pay and equality for the same work and equality in every other thing and right? Of course!
My beloved still opens the door for me because it’s chivalrous and I take it as a form of respect and admiration. However, there was a time I thought I would be hypocrite to enjoy such a small gesture.
Not anymore.
And that’s what true womanhood is about to me.
Coming into our own, realizing we *are* different, as a gender, but more than that, we are individuals deserving of the same rights as any other individual.
When Charlotte Allen spoke of screaming, swooning and being dumb, she was certainly not talking about me. And the fact she tried to turn the gender of female into a stereotype reminiscent of the 1870’s irked me.
She looks [and sounds] like life has been unkind to her so perhaps her mental state does reside in past centuries…not being able to add and all.
Well said, Samsara!
Power and money don’t always equal wealth, regardless of gender.
I personally enjoy it when my husband opens a door for me, along with other little entitlements (for lack of a better word) that come with being a woman, which would in all likelihood be scorned by the more hard-lined feminist. However, I have also been told by my husband that I am the strongest person he knows; which could be taken literally- there was a point in time where I could pick him up and carry him.
It all truly boils down to the individual. If a woman finds fulfillment in being in a role of little power and money (but is rich in other things), then let her! If she finds fulfillment in a position of power (a la Margaret Thatcher), then let her! It’s about what a person does well and loves to do, not what society, the feminists, and the patriarchies believes they *should* do.
There’s enough “should” in people’s lives as it is.
Agreed – as an equity-feminist I think that everyone should be able to make their own choices regardless of gender. So – this writing that enforces stereotypes makes it harder for people to go against traditional roles to do so. I happen to want my business to be successful and wealth – allowing me to make a comfortable life for my clients, my partners and myself is part of that. Pinker may claim that as a female, my brain is wired against that program – but that is who I am.