4 ms·

Because it's possible that the way our society behaves and judges success is modelled more after men's natural inclinations and needs than women's, and that the

Because it's possible that the way our society behaves and judges success is modelled more after men's natural inclinations and needs than women's, and that the liberation of women was seen as women pursuing the same goals as men do, when perhaps it should have been women pursuing slightly different goals. It's possible that feminism as a movement overshot, a mistake that's easy to forgive. Women needed to be made free, badly, and in that feminism drove incredibly important changes. However, many have come to believe that applying equal success standards for woman actually doesn't pay enough respect to women's distinct needs. It's possible that men and women, on average, just don't experience well being and meaningful lives from the exact same things. In a way, the historical ideals of feminism may be another act of chauvinism - applying the standards of men to women (instead of say, applying the standards of women to men). Perhaps "real" feminism should acknowledge that men and women have distinct enough needs to not be judged according to the same standards of "success". Perhaps, it should be acknowledged that equality means equal rights, not equal needs or equal desirable outcomes.

tixocloud 13y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head in the way our society behaves and judges success. Even for men, goals are different. My definition of success may not necessarily be the same as yours. Yet in society, in the media, a successful person is someone who has made it career-wise. If I started a small business and manage it well that I can support a family, should that not be considered success as well? The same can be said about happiness. Everyone talks about how we need to save people in less developed nations and bring in new technology to do things the "better" way. I believe that developing nations have far greater things to teach us developed nations about what life and happiness is about.
wonderzombie 13y ago
(Edited to change "first-wave" to "second-wave.") A quote springs to mind: “Can’t you see this game is crooked?” Devol asked. “Sure I know it, George,” sighed Bill with resignation, “but it’s the only game in town.” Prior to the rise of feminism, a male dominated workplace was arguably the only game in town. From talking to my wife, the notion that you're obligated by feminism and by your sex/gender to pursue success seems distinctly second-wave feminism, whereas I suspect the likes of third-wave folks' opinions are a lot less uniform. (As an aside, I find these differences kind of fascinating. Supposedly the word "ladies" carries different connotations depending on your generation; older generations are likely to see it as patronizing, whereas younger ones are likely to see it less negatively.) Anyway, the bottom line is that as far as modern feminism is concerned, it's more important that you are empowered to choose whether you want to climb the ladder; be a stay-at-home parent; have a child without being married, etc. It's more about empowerment of choice, for women in particular but for individuals in general (e.g. more time at home for parents, better childcare options, and so on, would all improve quality of life for men and women).
- davidkatz 13y ago
  That's exactly as it should be, but not everyone has jumped on that wagon yet. I've heard a "a woman mostly taking care of her kids at home could not be truly happy" sentiment expressed often enough.
  - wonderzombie 13y ago
    This is true. There's a ton of debate about it in third-wave feminist circles from what I can tell. There's a Catch-22 goes something like: as more women join the workplace, they act as role models and (for lack of a better term) envoys. If/when little girls see women doing things, it'll seem that much more realistic a choice. But if feminism is about choice, doesn't that limit your choices by declaring that staying at home to raise kids is in somehow immoral or degrading? It's also difficult because how do you distinguish your example woman, who made a choice, with a woman who did not have the choice, for (e.g.) socioeconomic reasons? How do you distinguish between someone who felt empowered to make a choice and someone who was socialized to accede to others' needs first? In general I'd probably be skeptical of someone who said that raising children was more fulfilling than any other pursuit, but what's more important than that is that there should be a choice in the first place. Quite frequently there isn't.

tixocloud 13y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head in the way our society behaves and judges success. Even for men, goals are different. My definition of success may not necessarily be the same as yours. Yet in society, in the media, a successful person is someone who has made it career-wise. If I started a small business and manage it well that I can support a family, should that not be considered success as well? The same can be said about happiness. Everyone talks about how we need to save people in less developed nations and bring in new technology to do things the "better" way. I believe that developing nations have far greater things to teach us developed nations about what life and happiness is about.

wonderzombie 13y ago

(Edited to change "first-wave" to "second-wave.") A quote springs to mind: “Can’t you see this game is crooked?” Devol asked. “Sure I know it, George,” sighed Bill with resignation, “but it’s the only game in town.” Prior to the rise of feminism, a male dominated workplace was arguably the only game in town. From talking to my wife, the notion that you're obligated by feminism and by your sex/gender to pursue success seems distinctly second-wave feminism, whereas I suspect the likes of third-wave folks' opinions are a lot less uniform. (As an aside, I find these differences kind of fascinating. Supposedly the word "ladies" carries different connotations depending on your generation; older generations are likely to see it as patronizing, whereas younger ones are likely to see it less negatively.) Anyway, the bottom line is that as far as modern feminism is concerned, it's more important that you are empowered to choose whether you want to climb the ladder; be a stay-at-home parent; have a child without being married, etc. It's more about empowerment of choice, for women in particular but for individuals in general (e.g. more time at home for parents, better childcare options, and so on, would all improve quality of life for men and women).

davidkatz 13y ago
That's exactly as it should be, but not everyone has jumped on that wagon yet. I've heard a "a woman mostly taking care of her kids at home could not be truly happy" sentiment expressed often enough.
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  This is true. There's a ton of debate about it in third-wave feminist circles from what I can tell. There's a Catch-22 goes something like: as more women join the workplace, they act as role models and (for lack of a better term) envoys. If/when little girls see women doing things, it'll seem that much more realistic a choice. But if feminism is about choice, doesn't that limit your choices by declaring that staying at home to raise kids is in somehow immoral or degrading? It's also difficult because how do you distinguish your example woman, who made a choice, with a woman who did not have the choice, for (e.g.) socioeconomic reasons? How do you distinguish between someone who felt empowered to make a choice and someone who was socialized to accede to others' needs first? In general I'd probably be skeptical of someone who said that raising children was more fulfilling than any other pursuit, but what's more important than that is that there should be a choice in the first place. Quite frequently there isn't.