Part of this is, yes, first/second/third-generation feminists often disagree. No one feminist can tell you what all feminists think.

But I think part of it, too, is in the application of ideas. Women can generally be different in some specific way without all women adhering to that stereotype. Think of Venn diagrams. Women may generally be more empathetic than men (I'm not sure this is so, but let's say it is for the sake of argument). Even if that's the case, expecting a particular individual to be empathetic because she's female is going to irritate people. So we can agree that women are generally X, but if we structure things so that women who aren't X are disadvantaged (even though, presumably, men who aren't X are not disadvantaged because there's no expectation for men in general to be X), that may be unfair.

Yeah I completely understand that feminism isn't a monolithic entity. As a tangent I think hardcore theoretical style thinking can have more clarity and collapse a lot of fuzziness by being precise about things, whereas a lot of what passes for intra-feminist debate in articles etc. is just mushy thinking and quips and silliness. i.e. a lot of people claim to be arguing a feminist point when they're just arguing a sentiment. I wish we had more like, codification of feminist thought (phrases, theories, references) so we could be clearer about things instead of people going "this is annoying me, so I'll write about it and claim my side in the name of feminism."

I wish we had more like, codification of feminist thought (phrases, theories, references)

There are scads of academic looks at feminism- that's probably where you should start. Blog posts and NYTimes articles are not.

The biggest dichotomy in modern pop feminism is: white feminists versus others. White lesbian feminists get split between both sides, often regardless of their actual views; much like a tennis match and that group is the ball. The current buzzwords are "othering" and "privilege".

As TPS indicates, pop feminism and academic feminism are altogether distinct entities.

that's probably where you should start. Blog posts and NYTimes articles are not.

Well that's true, I actually think of the essence of feminism as more of an theoretical thing (i.e. ideas come first.) I meant more about the popular discussion have a more common lingo. You're right though that maybe the answer is to not think too hard about blog post type things in this context. They get so shouty and judgmental sometimes that I just get confused.

On preview, Ardiril, yeah, isn't that where the third-gen split came from to some extent, black feminists saying hey it's not just about gender, it's also about class, about all these other things that would improve women's & men's lives.

Firas, I appreciate your frustration. I really do. As TPS has suggested, Feminism is an academic/philosophical pursuit. Talking to women about being women and talking about feminisim are differnt things.

"the popular discussion have a more common lingo" -- ... and they do not always agree on the definitions, often without realizing that their respective definitions are different.

(Well, first, I don't really know where your example 1 is coming from. I don't believe that women are innately more empathetic than men. If it appears that way, chances are that society genders empathy as a female trait - encourages it in women and discourages it in men.)

I don't see the two statements you're confused about as contradictory as all. The first addresses the sexist attitude that says "women's brains are just WIRED to be be good at housekeeping and childrearing, and they can't POSSIBLY be any good at math/science/business/whatever." That sounds very old-fashioned, but you'd be surprised at the prevalence of this attitude, even if it's unconscious - i.e., a woman wouldn't be able to "keep up" with the men, or some such.

The second statement addresses the institutional and social (as opposed to innate) ways in which women are not equal to men. There is all of the institutional crap that gets heaped on women as a matter of course. For example, society expects that the woman in a heterosexual relationship will be the primary caregiver. This can often mean that women will be discriminated against in hiring (e.g., what if you get pregnant?) or for promotions (e.g., you've had to leave early three times in the last month to pick up your sick child, so you're not as committed to your job). The flip side of this is that it is extremely difficult for a man in a heterosexual relationship to take time off from work, or to work shorter hours, because he's expected to leave the caretaking and housekeeping tasks to his partner. There are two basic ways to handle this. One is for women to just not do the "traditional woman's work" at all, leaving it to her partner or to hired help - essentially, "acting like a man." This path (not that there's anything wrong with it) is often the basis of the 'powerful, bitchy, ball-busting businesswoman' stereotype. The other way is to fundamentally change the way employers treat their employees, giving everyone the chance to balance work and a home life, making no assumptions about the structure of a family or the ability to afford outside help.

But I don't understand the simultaneous minefield of "don't say women are different" and "let's change the environment to make it easier for women", if the environment itself doesn't have gendered assumptions. I mean, if the environment's behavioral nature is different, just because not enough women are represented, doesn't that implicitly say women add something different?

Or it means that there's something about the workplace or career path that's preventing women from participating fully. Predicating your question on the condition that the environment itself isn't gendered is making an awfully big assumption.

I hope that makes sense. I second what everyone else is saying about the difference between feminist disciplines (plural!) and simply talking to women about their opinions and lives. Not all women identify as feminists, and no two people's experiences are the same.

I must qualify my statements to indicate that I do not have any real interest in feminism as an issue. My interest is more in how special interest groups are using technology, and the feminists are among the leaders in that respect. Anything I relate is just what I have picked up along the way.

... and the anarchists ain't doin' half bad themselves.

There's that thing again right, where it's like "it's okay to *act like a man*". And also, "let's not *act like a man.*" Balancing work-life will make people less bitchy/ball-busty, which is a pejorative stereotype anyway? I don't follow. Are we reconciling it by saying, "it's okay to be driven and ball-busty, but if you don't want to do that, let's change the environment so you can participate in a more balanced way"? Then why is it a women's issue per se?

Predicating your question on the condition that the environment itself isn't gendered is making an awfully big assumption.

"it's geeky" or "it's hard work" or "it needs you to be on call" is gendered? how, without stereotyping men as having affinity for geeky things or high pressure drives or denying women's affinity for anything but the inverse?

P.S. I'm not sure where the women's experience vs. feminism thing is coming from or what you're saying there? For what it's worth most women I personally know don't talk about things like this with me much (and tend to get bored with semi political discussions like this) so I'm not complaining about any personal conversations.

unsurprising is making a whole lot of sense, and pointing out that the flip side bites men (daddy) in the ass when they also need and want to be the caregiver of their offspring who needs to get to the dentist or be picked up from school early. The family "trap" and how it affects careers is not just a problem for females, however, females are assumed to be breeding mommies from the second they get their first job no matter what their personal choices may be (not all women have babies!), whilst men run into the issues only after they've become fathers.

Over here in Sweden, we have a really long paid parental leave after a child is born, and men can take a really long leave as well. I'm not sure how much this has affected attitudes at work, I know several men who have been on daddy-leave when their children were young, but I've also heard from some that they fear they get passed up for promotions when doing that. (Deja vu!)

Twenty years ago, my mother was rocketing up the career-ladder, and gaining new responsibilities and titles almost monthly. But no raises. She's not the one to keep her mouth shut so when she asked about a raise and was told;
"Well, see our budget is small right now and we've decided that Mr X gets a raise because he just bought a new house and has kids, he has a family to support" my mother barked: "I have a family to support as well, children and a new home. Unlike Mr X I don't have a wife that also works at the same company. I'm a widow, so the kids only have one parental unit bringing home the bacon." (Oh yeah, she got that raise).

Another time, they suggested she not need a raise because "My wife works at X and she only makes Y" to which my mother responded "Well that's between her and her boss then isn't it? Should I talk to him for you?"

The idea that women are essentially different from men is sometimes called essentialism.

As I understand it, there is no feminist consensus on this. Some feminists are essentialist, some are not.

Complicating things further: a particular society will create differences between men and women. So even if you're not an essentialist, you can still believe that in our society there are differences between men and women, created by social pressures.

There's that thing again right, where it's like "it's okay to *act like a man*". And also, "let's not *act like a man.*" Balancing work-life will make people less bitchy/ball-busty, which is a pejorative stereotype anyway? I don't follow. Are we reconciling it by saying, "it's okay to be driven and ball-busty, but if you don't want to do that, let's change the environment so you can participate in a more balanced way"? Then why is it a women's issue per se?

I think perhaps I was unclear. That whole thing about the powerful woman stereotype was kind of irrelevant to my argument, but it's something that bothers me, so I included it. Let me try to explain. Being career-focused and assertive are often seen as masculine qualities, so men who display them are applauded, while women who do so are decried as "bitchy ball-busters." I'm not endorsing that stereotype, only pointing out that it exists and offering an explanation as to why; namely, that women sometimes make choices that would have once only been open to men (focusing on their career, leaving the housework and caregiving to others). This choice (again, a perfectly valid one) sometimes leads others to perceive said woman as that negative stereotype I just discussed.

However, not all women want to choose that path. Some would prefer to have a career and work in the home, without sacrificing career-advancement opportunities. Some men would also like this option. This becomes a feminist issue when the traditional workplace model is based on the traditional man's life, i.e. the man is the norm. If a woman wants to do well in her career, she must often "act like a man" in order to advance (no guarantees, though) - if she wants to both have a career and take care of her home and children, chances are she'll be passed over for promotions and raises. That is an unfair choice to ask women to make. Add to that the social pressure on women to be the perfect mother and homemaker, and no matter what she chooses, she's screwed.

Yes, again, men get shortchanged in this model as well. However, in their personal lives, women are still often expected and pressured to do the majority of the tasks at home, and so they are often disproportionately impacted by corporate policies that do not allow for such a balance to be struck. (Obviously, there are exceptions, etc.)

"it's geeky" or "it's hard work" or "it needs you to be on call" is gendered? how, without stereotyping men as having affinity for geeky things or high pressure drives or denying women's affinity for anything but the inverse?

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying here. Where are those last two phrases in quotations coming from? (I understand the first one is from the NYT, but I don't think that article is a particularly insightful analysis of the situation. Girls don't want to be "geeky"? Okay, if "geeky" is a shorthand for something else. I know plenty of geeky women.)

Holy jesus, this is long. Sorry.

Well, unsurprising pretty much wrapped this up :)

My brother worked his wife through grad school, and then as soon as their first son was born, he quit working to become the primary caregiver so his wife could use her degree to forge a career in public service. At work, she doesn't face discrimination, in part because her field (social work - public policy) and her office is full of women in all kinds of situations. She has chosen to be the breadwinner, and it's a sacrifice, but one she's happy with because it opens her career up for plenty of advancement opportunities. There are those who'd say that's a sacrifice men have made for ages, and give us countless examples of children estranged from their absentee fathers; I think, like everything, the issue's more complicated than that, but then I'm rarely interested in making complicated situations falsely black-and-white for ease of digestion.

This anecdote isn't meant to counter anything anyone's said upthread -- it's only one family, and they're an atypically smart, cooperative, and forward-thinking one -- but to propose the idea that this kind of discrimination, while usually based on typical sexist tropes and learned ignorance, isn't always: while my sister-in-law is rarely discriminated against for choosing a forty-hour work week (here please remember that her federal workplace is probably unusually accepting of different lifestyles and life decisions), my brother, as a male primary caregiver and homemaker, faces discrimination quite often.

Men often say they admire his decision and wish their fathers had decided to be so dedicated to their children, but out the side of they mouths they consider him a loser for not piling into the rat-ball of employment. Maybe jealousy inspires a lot of this. He gets the most disdain from women, though, frequently from "other" mothers, who act like he's poaching on their territory by accepting that raising a kid is secretly the best job in the world, against which no amount of career advancement holds a candle. Of course, the power structures that keep women down aren't there to give teeth to their discrimination, so it's mostly just words, but it's often profoundly alienating for him; men shun his society because he doesn't live in their working world and women shun his society because he's an interloper in theirs.

But who gives a shit about what other people think? He doesn't. He'll just continue to make sure that his kids are healthy, well-fed, well-rested, and reading. He considers those to be the core of his job, and everything else to be perks. He also considers himself to be a real feminist, who has put his money where his mouth is, and from his perspective it's funny that the right to work (in a fair environment) is frequently seen as so much more important than the right to raise a child.

I think men should be encouraged to face the same tough (or easy, depending how you look at it) choice my brother and his wife faced, and that families should feel free to choose as they did, if the situation merits. Of course, all situations eventually change, and my brother may face the same challenges many women do on returning to the workforce. But the fact that he probably will be looked over because of his long absence from the grind makes me think that, though this burden is usually and traditionally one shouldered by women, it may at its root be a problem with cultural attitudes surrounding work, and those attitudes can hurt men as well as women. Of course, not in equal measures in every case, but like I said, this is just an anecdote presented for the sake of perspective.

I gotta say, though: for my brother's family, it's been working out admirably. My sister-in-law is keen on her job and a prime candidate for frequent advancement and training opportunities; my brother keeps house admirably, is a hell of a cook, and really loves his job; and my nephews are voracious readers (okay, the two-year old isn't as much reading as being read to), uncomplaining sleepers, and generally happy kids.

I bring this up because I wish this was an option open to all families, but I recognize that it really isn't. I think many of the goals of our society won't be reached until this option stops being such an outlier. So the goal of gender equality probably won't be reached, people being people and life being what it is. Maybe with the economy tanking and more people at home, rethinking their priorities, we have a chance here. But there are so many factors, so many individual situations, and so many different and perfectly reasonable ways to set priorities, that we'll probably continue for a long time muddling along in the shitty morass we've inherited.

That's life; ain't it grand? I truly think so.

Interesting post, Hugh Janus, but I'd like to point out that it's not always feasible for one parent to be exclusively Stay-at-Home and for the other parent to be exclusively devoted to bread-winning and career advancement. It sounds like your brother and sister have developed a system that works for them (and a system that will increasingly become an option as people get over their prejudices about men choosing to stay-at-home with the kids).

But single parents of either gender will never have this option. Neither will families that require two incomes. Neither will families where both adults feel fulfilled both from career advancement AND a family at home. In situations such as these, a more flexible and understanding workplace (which is, 95% of the time, what people are talking about when they say "a workplace more friendly to women", as unsurprising discussed at length above) benefits fathers, mothers, and people who don't have children (as they can pursue interests outside their career path).

This really gets to the heart of Firas's supposed dichotomies. It is true that women are pretty much the same as men biologically, save for the fact of reproduction. It's also true that women differ from men when it comes to the social implications that surround child care and the work/home balance. But at the heart of it, a workplace more friendly to women just means a workplace more friendly to people who happen to have lives and interests outside of work.

but I'd like to point out that it's not always feasible for one parent to be exclusively Stay-at-Home and for the other parent to be exclusively devoted to bread-winning and career advancement.

I don't think there's a "but" there -- I'm trying to move away from the "always"-es of the original post -- and I really just wanted to describe how one family makes it work. I tried to make it clear, as well, that I don't think this is universal or universally applicable. Of course it's different for everyone, especially single parents, and I was clear on that note. I'm not trying to bicker, but this is a thread about false dichotomies, after all.

your brother and sister

Yikes!

I kind of think most or maybe all dichotomies are false. But the human mind seems to seek them out, or to try to overlay a sense of black-and-white rules when presented with chaos. I think there's an analogy in the way the mind seeks music in random sound. We tend to overlay structure on things that are inherently unstructured, and though I think there might be in some cases conscious reasons for this, I think most of those attempts are unintentional or even instinctual. It's like the human mind tries to make sense of the world around it, and one way to make sense is to build oppositions and create dichotomies, which rarely exist.

One of many, not one of two. As often as not, one of millions, or an infinity of angles. Two-faced Janus is an enduring myth, in some cases valuable, though more often not.

Well, she's the "flesh of his flesh" anyway. Cleaving together and what-not (truthfully I was too lazy to scroll up and see which one was "in-law"...)

I thought it was pretty funny.

*big grin*

I just want to say that this has been an amazing thread so far and it is so nice and informative to see people discuss these issues with mutual respect.

The one thing I really like about feminism is that the roles of both genders have changed so much. In my family my husband and I have both worked alternate shifts part-time since the birth of our second child. Not working full-time in our culture is greeted with either distain (what is wrong with you that you can't get a full-time job) or envy (I wish I could afford to slack off and only work part-time but I've got bills to pay). After the birth of the last child he took the majority of paid parental leave and the children love it. A few weeks ago I was with with the children on a long drive through the woods to their grandparents. My nine year old daughter was talking about what career she will choose as an adult and was saying she wanted to be both a marine biologist and prime minister but she would always make time to be an artist as well. My five year old son was cuddled up to his baby sister and piped up: "When I grow up I just want to be a daddy." It is awesome they feel the freedom to be ambitious without roles imposed on them.

I remember a lightbulb went off in my head when I read about the theory that "men bring MORE than a person to work and women bring LESS than a person to work". Meaning, men have social support systems wives/mothers/society in general that encourage them to focus on their jobs while women are usually simultaneously doing their jobs/thinking about their children/planning dinner for husband/facing systemic sexism at work and society. I know for a fact that I have been denied jobs and promotions because it was perceived that I was on the "mommy track" because I had four children in eight years but men that married/became fathers at the same time were not held back. And I work in a very feminist, female-friendly workplace.

Your original statement seems to confuse biology with socialisation. I thought that feminists had fought that battle back in the seventies. Biology is not destiny.

What the hell? I didn't say biology is destiny. A lot of this "grow up without roles in place" and "equal opportunity at work" is liberal (1st gen) feminism stuff from like the 60s. I'm not talking about that. Jeez.

I'm just saying it's weird to claim both sides of the argument depending on the context of your thesis.

But I don't see how that's what anyone is doing. Some people claim the first part of your "dichotomy". Others claim the second part. Still others reject both parts. The rest of us think that they are framed incorrectly to present a paradox that doesn't exist.

"2.By the way, women are different in these important ways."

I read that as saying women are different because of biology. Like the "women are more empathic" claim that many people used to assume was because women had more estrogen, or manly, ball-busting women had more testosterone than "normal" women. If you are saying women are different because they have been socialised different to men then your first premise falls apart as you CAN'T generalise about either gender without taking class/race/sexual orientation/regional socialisation differences into account. If it isn't biology that makes all women empathic then what is?

I just don't see what dichotomy you are talking about. With your third example there is no dichotomy in saying women are fully capable of excelling in high-stress careers that were traditionally male but some women chose instead to balance it with interests outside work (maybe because they have been socialised to see their worth and identity in family).

"doesn't that implicitly say women add something different?"
But do women add something different because they are walking around with female hormones or do they add something different because they have been socialised differently? So, in the case of a computer company, many video games have been created from a male point of view with male main characters (why does lego star wars only have one female character??), if more women worked in developing games would games become more representative of the spectrum of players instead of just the current target market of white hetrosexual males in their early twenties (mirroring the creators)?

Judging from the many askmes about working insane [unpaid] hours at computer companies maybe the question shouldn't be why aren't women going into that field, but instead, why are so many young men wasting their potential for a full life on such a narrow job that sucks up all their free time for relatively little money.

Maybe you need to provide more examples because many of us here just don't see the dichotomy that is so obvious to you. Are your empathy statements coming from the same person? Maybe they are just crazy instead of representing a whole new feminist theory.

It's true that I've mixed a lot of different voices into what I've filtered down into the question here. Actually my main takeaway is to worry less about arguments made in less reflective sorts of writing. Like this thread for example I think displays how people being generous towards each other can be honest about discussing these things without getting all vicious, except for my little resentful turn a couple posts ago. Sorry about that.

I don't think there is a conflict.

Women as a group: There are trends, tendencies. *Not* shared by every individual female. Doesn't matter if tendencies are nature, nurture, both, neither. But the tendencies are important when considering institutional cultures and whether the institutions are functioning to exclude women. A few obvious examples: communication styles; caretaking obligations.

Women individually: Individual females do not necessarily follow the trend or tendency. So it's rude and annoying to make assumptions.