A Veneer of Certainty

After reading several of Amanda Marcotte's posts online , I’m left wondering if her outlook on of feminist theory is less about equality and more about a way of life, and whether she and those like her are doing feminism more harm than good.

NOTE: If you, gentle reader, are of the mindset that feels men should have no opinions on or critique of feminism, then stop reading now.

From its beginnings, “feminism” has never been an omnibus term. The women’s movement has seen differences in methods and goals on issues such as rights, sexuality, pornography, free speech and aspects of institutional reform. One central, common tenet has been to free women from the subordination of men in the social, political and interpersonal arenas without regard to class, age or religion.

From the posts that I’ve read, I can’t help but believe that Marcotte depicts feminism as only a constant state of victimhood. Her perceptions are as through a lens of the chronically oppressed, and the entirety of experience can be expressed in terms of a female/male struggle for dominance.

When a state of oppression becomes an article of faith then things go horribly wrong:

- It opens up the assumption that the victim is always right, so the focus of dialogue – if any – is on only one side of the dynamic. Plus, it removes any requirement for self-analysis on the part of the oppressed.

- It demeans the accomplishments of women who have achieved a measure of success on their own terms. Whatever progress a woman makes is automatically placed within a context of the male, ignoring the merits of her talent and effort.

- It paints men with an overly broad brush. Men have no real incentive to change because they’ll always be in the wrong.

There was, no doubt, a time when a strong, all-encompassing indictment of social structures was close to the truth. However, social structures and mores are always in a state of flux, and if feminism wants to achieve its core goals it needs to shrug off narrow and self-restricting ideologies like Marcotte’s and adapt to the ever-changing dynamic between women and men.

(As with each of my opinions or commentaries, I invite discussion. If you think I'm wrong then tell me why. Open dialogue and rational debate are hoped-for in this joint.)

The recent local flap about our governor's executive order requiring the vaccination of all girls entering 6th grade has really raised a ruckus with parents, health advocacy groups and even health care providers.

Doctors are having a hard time with the vaccine. The cost for the vaccine, Gardasil, is about $120 a dose, with a requirement of three doses. That total cost exceeds the typical reimbursement from HMO, and with the additional administrative costs of storage and filing then offering the vaccine has a very low financial return for doctors.

Parents object to the mandate nature of the vaccine and see it as a decision for parents, not government. Some have objected on concerns that the vaccine will encourage sexual activity in their daughters since it removes a disincentive in the form of an STD. And more than a few parents are balking at the vaccine's uncovered cost.

I'm not a parent, nor do I play one on TV, but I can understand the parent's concerns about their child's healthcare decisions being taken over by government edict. The slow encroachment of government oversight on the lives of individuals is something we've all seen over the past 10-20 years. Nobody wants the inept hand of bureaucracy intervening in their health care. And I think the parent's worries about the vaccine somehow turning their daughters into raging, randy beasts is overblown and a canard that ignores whatever values they might have already installed in their girls.

On the other hand, if this executive order is intended to stop a communicable disease and prevent avoidable burdens/costs on the healthcare system, then that's worth thinking about, too. In Texas, children are already receiving a range of required immunizations for the protection of themselves and society, and parents seem just peachy about that. Why not add the HPV vaccine to the list? And since the vaccine is a mandated by the state then the state should bear the burden of cost.

And: Does the vaccine also suppress HPV in males? If so, then boys should also receive this.

By fiat, our governor really botched the handling of something that could do a lot of good.

The average male gets a lot of messages about sexism and its causes and effects, but very little proactive guidance on the topic. Any number of news items and web sites remind us that sexism is, of course, still a factor; some of our guy friends dismiss any notion that we exhibit boorish behavior; and our fathers might not exactly be founts of benevolent wisdom on the topic, still scarred by bra-burning of the late 1960’s. The point is all these messages put the focus on reactions to sexism – real or perceived – but not what we should be doing to become better denizens of the planet. Our basic marching orders for equality are not as simple as lifting the toilet seat or occasionally doing the dishes, so I'll take a crack at it.

Guys, it’s really pretty simple:
- Treat women with the same level of fairness, equality and expectation that you would give to another man. This goes for home, workplace and social situations.
- Remember what your mom told you countless times: Don’t be a dick. Or maybe it was the Golden Rule. Either way, show women and men equal doses of respect and courtesy.
- When you see other men acting like jerks to/about women, speak up about it. To let that kind of thing go on just hurts us all down the road.
- Some women put themselves out there for objectification (i.e., Pam Anderson, Jenna Jameson, Judi Dench) but most women don’t and really resent it when we do that. When you find your eyes lingering on that cute co-worker’s cleavage, ask yourself if you’d want some fellow mouth-breather ogling your daughter like that.
- Life is all about change. Major social structures morph every 20 – 30 years or so and the rules from Then may not apply Now. There was a time when Tiger could only wear a golf bag at Augusta, now he wears the green jacket. The same goes for male/female interaction so expect changes to what is expected of us.

And a request for women: When you feel that sexist behavior is in play, open a dialogue about it. Help us become better men.

I think men have two big fears related to being perceived as sexist. One is that there is not a single, all-encompassing definition of sexism to which that we can compare ourselves for progress. The second is that with social structures in a constant state of flux, we feel we'll never catch up to "doing the right thing." The best we can do is try to follow some basic rules and take the heat for where we fail to live up to individual expectations.

[UPDATE: I highly recommend that the guys read this post about Feminism 101, especially if they have a negative view of the feminist blogs and their content. Read it and get a better understanding.]

When they leave home for the first time, most young adults are pretty giddy about it. Out from under the iron boot of Mom & Dad, free to stay out as late as you like, drink until your eyeballs bleed, sleep late, etc. The freedom gained by “cutting the cord” was sweet, indeed, but there comes a point where we realize that the Old Folks may have been right about some things, and what a sobering moment that can be.

A similar situation is developing with the new media, I think, with respect to citizen journalism. The old mainstream media is perceived as last-century fuddy-duddies, shackled to advertisers and editorial biases that skew the quality of their product and impose tedious strictures on their journalistic resources. Now, technology is enabling huge numbers of people to publish whatever content in text, audio or video format, providing new outlets for creativity and opinion. Who needs a public access channel when for almost no cost you can produce, edit and upload to YouTube your own show? But even this limitless potential doesn’t necessarily weed out the ills for which old media is excoriated.

In my previous post on the topic, I lamented about a perceived lack of accountability in the blogosphere, wondering where were the voices that called for caution with this new medium. Turns out that this is not a new question. Other, more-experienced heads than I have commented upon the same issue. Calls for self-policing, fraternalization and transparency are all getting serious consideration. GriftDrift has pointed out that for all MSM’s failings and death throes, the new media might still have some things to learn about gaining legitimacy with the unpodcasted masses. And Rebecca Blood's six principles are so wonderfully even-handed and attainable that I’m prepared to have her baby right now.

From what I can tell there has been some concern that establishing standards of conduct for the new media might lead to MSM-like restrictions like credentialing, a loss of journalistic freedom and a sense of elitism. This would be a valid point if those standards in any way influenced how new media could express itself or somehow controlled the quality of content. However, ethics have almost nothing to do with credentials or what organization you belong to. Affiliation does not bestow automatic trust.

Having standards and ethics in how we attempt to inform and educate is simply about establishing a framework of honesty in how we interact with others. It’s not an attempt to handcuff or influence anyone’s creative product. New media can hate on the MSM all it wants but when you consider information sources as a market, new media is going to have to offer people something better if it wants to really make a difference. Social media should also adhere to a social contract of fairness, transparency and accuracy.

For most of us who bolted from mom & dad’s nest with visions of unfettered adult pleasures in our heads, that moment of clarity about the attempted lessons from our parents was a big one; maybe got a few things very, very right for our own good. The new media would be well advised to learn from and take with it some of the hard-won lessons of the old media. Not all of the parent's methodology is necessarily a bad thing. Learn and grow.

Update: Polimom makes a few points about the immediacy of new media and the Edwards' announcement of the return of Elizabeth's cancer. The old media desire for the scoop remains, but is now coupled with the speed of the web and the trust relationships built by web sources. Perhaps getting very wrong a few times will be good for new media, since readers might develop a jaundiced eye and come expect better information.

As a newbie blogger, I’m always trying to learn and understand more about new/social media and occasionally question & comment upon it. Two of the perceptions I’ve had since the beginning is that some in new media crave the attention and acceptance of the same MSM they vilify, while at the same time clinging to a defensive stance about what might be expected of new media.

A post at griftdrift made note of a dustup about a recent Creative Loafing (Atlanta) article on the local blogging scene, one that raised hackles on some of that demographic.

I may be starting to “get it”, with respect to social media. At least, I think so. Social media is the large scale democratization of informational sources and consumers. At the same time, it is many things to many people so there is hardly one definition that fits.

Car thief Turd Bobby Davis is out of detention, released to the supposedly airtight supervision of his family and "30 relatives and neighbors who live within 20 miles of the teen's home". Sporting a jaunty eyepatch and wife-beater, he left juvie in the company of his mother, grandfather and usual coterie of "Bobby ain't dun no wrong" supporters. Convention wisdom says Turd Bobby boosted a car for the trip back to the Baytown trailer park, maybe even tried to "catch some air."

I wonder how long these thirty people so concerned for Turd Bobby Davis will stick around after the Davis' family lawsuit against the railroad gets dismissed. As a smart woman told me yesterday, "When you hit the lottery you rediscover how many friends and relatives you have."

(A repost from a comment I entered on the Chronicle's article comment section)

If we want illegal labor to go away then don't count on remedies from government, we have to make it happen ourselves. And since the problem stems from economic incentives it makes sense to respond in kind.

- Don't hire illegal labor (lawn care, maids, concrete for that new patio, etc.)
- Don't do business with any company that uses illegal workers.
- Be ready & willing to pay more for goods and services from companies that employ only "legals".

The point is to remove the underpinnings that attract and keep illegal labor in the US. If we're not ready to accept that costs and responsibilities that come with the effort then we may as well get used to the status quo and quit whining about it.

Every once in awhile, serendipity strikes. The combination of a Friday with beautiful weather is augmented by this: Turd Bobby Davis has been taken back into custody for some unknown reason. This is a welcome development in light of Elizabeth Shelton recently getting off easy on her intoxication manslaughter charge.

$10 says that right about now Turd Bobby is wishing he had been drinking that night.

Update: He was hauled in because he violated some of the terms of release.