A week or so ago I was stuck at a Borders Book Store near my school for a few hours, and, being the enthusiastic teen feminist I am, I spent a good deal of time viewing the Gender Studies section. I of course thumbed through a copy of Backlash and several books on the social views of virginity (Going to a Catholic School and being a young woman, I have a particular interest in the anti-woman ideal that is the Virgin/Whore complex, and have talked about it a lot on my blog). But one book that caught my eye in particular was called “Hating Women : America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex ” By Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.
I skimmed through the summary and it seemed to be basically a commentary about the growing misogyny in Western Culture, particularly in pop culture. Now, I had recently read both of Jessica Valenti’s books and seen the third installment of the Killing Us Softly documentary series, so of course I was interested in reading more on the modern cultural view of women. Reading about it from the perspective of not only a man, but a prominent religious figure like Rabbi Boteach, seemed like an interesting opportunity. Now, I’m not going to claim I read the whole book, because I didn’t. I didn’t have the money on hand to buy it and I didn’t want to rip the store, publisher, or author off by reading it without paying for it. I did, however, pour over it for about an hour or so, reading large passages from the chapters and trying to get as clear a view of the book’s contents as I could. There was, of course, a lot of commentary in the book regarding the awful stereotypes presented of women in the popular media, how men are being groomed to view women, and the over-sexualization of young women in popular media and culture that I heartily agreed with, but there were passages of the book that annoyed me greatly, as a feminist and as a humanist in general. Not only was it his criticism of the feminist movement for concentrating too much on being like men and leaving behind their “natural feminine virtues” (I’m not taking this word for word), or his belief that women were respected more prior to the twentieth century (though that really got to me, but it’s a point to pick apart for another blog), but it was also his stressing of how men and women are not equal, but that women are superior beings.
Now, I am not entirely familiar with the Rabbi, but I do know a few things about him from both his book and the web. He’s a highly regarded Orthodox Jewish Preacher, writer, radio host, teacher and academic who has won a number of awards for his work, preaching, and social and humanitarian work over the years, as well as his contributions to the Jewish community in the US and the UK. He has eight children with his wife and won the London Times’ prestigious “Preacher of the Year Award” in 1999. Now, in the book, he states that he has five daughters and has a great concern for women and their social standing today. He also notes the danger the women’s movement is in and seems to be mostly pro-feminist. But it was his insistence that women are superior to men that sort of bothered me.
Of course, he stated the usual evidence of the so-called female superiority: more women do charitable work, more women attend religious services, women are more likely to be sympathetic to the troubles of others, more women excel academically… I know also that there is a belief in a number of Jewish denominations that women are the holier sex because we can bear children and are naturally more moral than men. Another idea is that man was God’s first try in creating a physical being in Its image, and that woman was God’s second, more successful, try. I can’t remember if those religious ideas were used in the book, but I think they were. Anyways, that whole frame of mind got me thinking about this so-called idea that “women are better.” I know that there are people believe that one of the sexes in inherently superior, and the ones who believe women are greater will usually use a lot of the arguments Schmuley used in his book. A lot of people like that might believe that they idea that men and women are truly equal beings is based more on abstract and generous thinking than practical grounds and that acknowledging women as “superior” is beneficial to the feminist movement, but I don’t believe so at all.
Really, I believe the whole idea of “women are better” is just as unrealistic (not to mention oppressive, unfair, and harmful) to not just men and women in general, but the women’s movement itself.
I’m not just talking about how that belief just perpetuates the “man-hating” stereotype, but I’m looking at this whole “women are better” issue from a historical and practical standpoint. It’s true, have women proved to be capable of incredible deeds? Yes? Has the feminist movement shown our great power and capabilities as human beings? Yes. Women are insanely talented, capable, powerful, and amazing. But the fact is, you can say the same for men. Men have accomplished incredible things as a group. Sure, the accomplishments of women in particular bear the distinction of overcoming lack of opportunities, oppression, and various other negative odds, but that does not make the efforts of men as a group any less impressive. Sure, a lot of the great achievements of male-dominated society had significant female influence (American Revolution, Abolition of slavery, Ministry of Jesus Christ [female funded and feminist! Check Luke 8:1-3], the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc), but men have still shown a lot great prowess and capabilities. Sure, they had better opportunities and better representation, not to mention more rights, resources, support, etc etc, etc, but still, a lot of incredible things came about at the hands of men.
The fact is that what the feminist movement really proved besides the capabilities and importance of women, but also the amazing power of humankind in general. We can ALL accomplish great things. Another important thing to take into account is that it’s not just men who do horrible things. Women are just as capable of epic asshattery as men. The Spanish Inquisition could not have happened without Isabella of Spain. Phyllis Schaffly and Anne Coulter somehow have vaginas. Bloody Mary slayed millions of people in a horrible act of religious genocide. And let’s not forget the proof that a woman candidate is not necessarily a woman’s candidate: Governor Sarah Palin. So no, you can’t really say women are all that much better than men if you really look at it. It depends on the person, not the gender. That’s really the basis of feminism in the first place. But also, let’s not forget that mindset is damaging to men and women anyways. There are countless examples. One of them can in fact be found in some Jewish-themed beliefs that I mentioned earlier. The whole idea of “women being more holy” was used to oppose the scholastic education of women and girls, the reasons being that since they were already so good and close to God, they didn’t need to learn the Scripture, they knew it already. Exposing them to records of sin might spoil their pure souls (sound familiar?). Now, this is no attack on Judaism. I have the highest respect for the Jewish faith. I am referring to social customs that went out of practice centuries ago. Today, most sects of Judaism are among the most socially progressive and feminist-friendly of religious orders. I was just using that particular example as to how that idea can be damaging to the progress and rights of women.
Another example would be The Da Vinci Code. Now, a lot of people saw this book as pretty feminist, but I didn’t in the least. Though it was nice of the book to say Mary Magdalene was not a whore and to point out the whole absurdity of the Virgin/Whore complex and examine the horrible injustices women had to face, the whole portrayal of Mary Magdalene was hardly feminist. For all it’s preaching about the sacred feminine, what the book basically did to Mary Magdalene was take her from her current status in the modern Catholic Church as “Apostle to the Apostles” and instead cast her as barefoot and pregnant. Literally. Once again, all this obsession over how much greater girls are comes down to our ability to make teh babies.
There’s no question that women have a significantly greater amount of shit to deal with in our lives, and that we’re pretty amazing and deserve respect, but the important thing to remember is that women are people too. Just as human and important and capable as men. Trying to say we’re something so much better just in the end, dehumanizes us.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: So-Called Female Supremacy: Another Enemy of Feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10509
I saw this book in Borders, too! I only had a quick flip through it, but I was surprised to find how strongly the author believed in gender essentialism (I guess I shouldn't have been, given the title).
Even though it seems pro-woman, believing women are superior, holier or whatever than men isn't helping the problem of men dehumanising women.
'Biological superiority is the most dangerous idea in the world' - Andrea Dworkin
yeah, aside from all the instances you mentioned where women's "superiority" was used to justify denying women the same rights as men, that whole "women are superior because they have more inherent virtue" shit, although it may sound better, doesn't solve the problem of treating women as somehow abnormal or not just...people. it sounds like this rabbi may have his heart in the right place, and it's nice when the menfolk are decent and perceptive enough to recognize we aren't all stupid, manipulative, shallow whores tainted by eve or whatever, but acting as though women don't have the same emotions, flaws and struggles that men do that define us all as fundamentally human is just as limiting. after all, if we're expected to be morally superior, aren't our smallest failings then greater cause for alarm?
putting us on a pedestal isn't really any less damaging than kicking us around. both are excuses to view men and women as mars and venus and consequently, to not fully accept a range of human temperament and corresponding behavior from both sexes.
Also, the idea of women being superior is always based on damaging stereotypes: We're better because we're more empethetic, nurturing, etc. The whole thing is just there to keep the sexes different, and that never seems to turn out well.
It also serves to give guys excuses to e assholes, like, "Oh, well, I'm a guy and all guys are dogs so don't be too surprised/upset that I cheated on you, etc"
Great post. It is nice to see someone as young as you with such a broad perspective. Sometimes the comments on this site make me despair, but people like you give me hope. Thanks.
I like this post. I've seen this notion perpetuated by non-feminists and feminists alike but for different reasons. It's weird how that works.
This is kind of a reminder that feminism shouldn't be about women in particular, but about equality in general. I think this is fairly evidenced by the broad variety of issues of social equality taken up on this site, and the community in general.
Ultimately, there will be differences between men and women, and maybe inherent generalities. i.e. men are stronger than women. But the point of feminism isn't to suggest that all people are the same, but that all people deserve to be judged according to who they are and what they do.
Yes, that's true (though the "strength" thing is up for debate haha), of course when I use the word "equal" I don't mean to say that a dead beat dad should be considered equally good to, say, Oprah just because men and women are equal creatures. And yes, there are some things that men are generally more prone to than women in general, not to mention overall physical differences and the various lifestyle characteristics that come with that!
It's not just about women, obviously, though women have more disadvantages in general and feminism was mostly sparked by these. Because it hurts everybody. That's also partly what this post was about. I mean, you go and say something like "women are better than men" and obviously that's insulting and unfair to guys, but it also hurts women too. Sexism, in any direction, hurts both sides.
There are so many ways that sexism hurts everyone, I just wanted to point out this particular sexist sentiment, especially since some might view this as PC or feminist when in fact, it's really not.
I agree with almost everything you have written, and that is pretty astonishing, given my unfortunate attraction to contrariansim.
I don't know what you're planning on doing with your life. You may be a champion chef-in-training or an apprentice electrician. But I think you will positively bloom in a liberal arts/social sciences university course of study.
Good luck to you.
I was thinking something like that which Okra just wrote. You sound like you might have a great future in social sciences or literature. I love seeing someone so young being so insightful and engaged.
(If that was condescending of me, I apologise; please know it wasn't intended.)
No, not at all. I don't think that just because someone is particularly good at something for their age means that they have a generally poor opinion of that age group or anything. Stuff that effects your state of mind like age are things that are worth being acknowledged.
My dad doesn't find it condescending when I tell him he's a surprisingly hard-core feminist for a Republican (and he totally is, he's a big Roosevelt-type and carries a huge female-empowerment stick, pro-gay rights,pro-choice, constantly working with women and giving them job opportunities that earn them six-figure salaries, etc), considering a lot of the platforms his party has taken politically.
This book has your name written all over it! This is my favorite feminist book, btw.
Mismeasure of Women: Why Women Are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex (Paperback)
by Carol Tavris
http://www.amazon.com/Mismeasure-Women-Better-Inferior-Opposite/dp/0671797492/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227028851&sr=8-1
Great post.
My first and most simplistic problem with the female supremacy issue is that it has spawned so much women's equality=earth dominated by women from people who are looking for an argument against feminism.
To become more complex, we can begin to look back at views of feminism during the Victorian era when women were actually referred to as "the fairer sex". The argument from opponents at the time was that because women are treated so delicately and because they are such pure and adoring beings, women are better than men in many ways and can simply live above the world that demands certain things from men. The atmosphere of this argument had the tone that parents have when they are spelling unspoken subjects around their youngsters. D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
Then we look at unspoken arguments from women living in the world today. While we could never gather statistics on the secret thoughts of women, I would go so far as to assume that most women believe that "the fairer sex" has it worse than men on a day-to-day basis. And just look at the context! American women live in an environment where everyone must work to make a living, but a woman has to be careful what kind of job she takes and how aggressive she is towards achieving her career goals. She must look at how she balances personal relationships against her work. She has to make time for the kids and looking beautiful and keeping with the times and washing the dishes and cleaning the bathroom and watching after her stupid, neglecting family (as portrayed by popular culture). As a southern girl, I have been told by more than one of my southern aunts that women are better than men. I have heard that in a household, it is the man who is the head, but a woman is the neck by which the head turns. I have been told that the man makes the paycheck and the woman holds the checkbook. It seems that the modern woman holds herself up as the secretly better half of her relationship and society. We have Victorianism amongst the dotcom generation. Except, now, we've got all the responsibility with none of the privileges.
It kind of seems that now the argument about the "fairer sex" aims at taking away many of these new responsibilities that we've come to enjoy with our meager independence. Some would say that it is the only way the fair sex will ever be treated fairly.
Ikkin, it sounds like the Steel Magnolias you know use the "women are stronger" trope as a coping mechanism (and I don't blame them, really, considering the strictures society still places on women's social and sexual agency).
Many women--both Southern and immigrant--I know who've used this rallying cry have been constrained in many other ways: they've been in certain types of Christian homes in which St. Paul's words have been construed literally to mean the husband was the active "public" agent and the woman the domestic manager only; they've grown up with the grimly inevitable reality that ALL domestic responsibility will be conferred on them even when they also have full-time jobs; they've seen men get away with things, reputations unscathed, while milder behavior from women is excoriated.
In that context, telling themselves "women are stronger" and "hubby knows who wears the pants in the family!" is a small and, to outsiders, perhaps feeble attempt to stake out some advantage for themselves in a social structure tipped towards their disadvantage.
:criticism of the feminist movement for concentrating too much on being like men and leaving behind their “natural feminine virtues”:
Nietzsche had a blurb similar to this in the one book of his I've read. Basically, that by trying to attain 'masculine' power, women lessened 'feminine' power they already had. If memory serves, he basically meant controlling powerful men through wiles and conversation.
I didn't bother seeking out other things by Nietzsche after that.
:he stated the usual evidence of the so-called female superiority: more women do charitable work, more women attend religious services, women are more likely to be sympathetic to the troubles of others, more women excel academically…:
This doesn't indicate a moral superiority on the part of women. All of these things could just as easily indicate their oppression. ie: Men are assholes because they don't need to be nice for survival.
Nice post, btw.
Interesting post - thanks for putting it up. I just want to point out that the belief that women are the fairer-sex was used by some men (and women) against the suffrage movement. Something about not wanting women to "dirty their hands in politics" and to leave the dirty work of civic engagement up to the men (presumably to give women the *opportunity* to devote themselves more fully to the domestic sphere...)
This type of mindset has also been used to justify the sexual shaming of women, since they are more moral and "know better," while men just have to follow their natural, "spread the seed" urges. This is just a different flavor of the whole men and women are different species, with biologically determined adult roles, emotional levels, and life paths. As a non-nurturing, impatient, crabby person, it's as offensive to call me a member of the "fairer" sex as it is to say that women aren't as naturally good at math as men.
This is a fair and extremely well-written post. I agree with you. The whole reason I'm a feminist is because I believe in gender equality, not that one sex is inherently better than the other.
Also: Was I the only one that was a little bugged by the title? "America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex"? While he worries about gender stereotypes, right in the title he's enforcing the stereotypical belief that women, as the "fairer sex" need protection and defense.
Even Susan B. Anthony was caught writing that she thought women were morally superior to men -- it was endemic, it was the "Angel in the House" myth, and it was a tempting belief for men and women alike (though for very difficult reasons).
But nowadays most feminists are very skeptical of the mythos, simply because of all the terrible things that come bundled with "moral superiority," including but not only:
- exclusion from politics and business (because, hey! it's a jungle out there)
- the strictures of purity, piety, and domesticity
- paternalism in all its form, including chivalry and condescension
- all the bad art (anyone ever read a didactic novel from the 1850s?)
(the last one is more important than you might think! the "fairest" characters are so boring)
ever read twilight??
Hello :) I realize Female Supremacy is unconventional in every sense of the word and I respect those who do not agree with same. I like to think of myself as liberated from the illusory notions of convention, equalitarianism, social conformity and so on. I think most people who aspire toward an "alternative lifestyle" can—or should—understand those latter sentiments well enough. I do not expect everyone to agree fully with the things I believe in. I'm aware the idea of Female Supremacy is (to some) an evil and absurd concept, but even the boldest objectors must concede Female Supremacy is the beneficiary of certain irrefutable truths, truths written into the hand of Nature itself.
I also realize not all female supremacists share the same ideals. It is my own belief that Female Supremacy is not rooted in misandry; it is about celebrating and honoring Women as the primary sex. Female Supremacy is a doctrine of harmony between the sexes based on our biological qualities and roles. Though following and living out certain principles and philosophies, we do not believe in imposing our way of life upon others in any sense. We only wish to live the way we choose with those whom share in our beliefs and ideals. We do not hate men at all. We simply advocate for women's empowerment in areas such as businesses, schools, societies, etc... and wish to create a society based on matriarchal ideals.
Thank you :)
i understand the comments here and in general agree that many males use the idea of "female supremacy" to perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes. i also question the embrace of the sexuality - power relation currently popular among many young women.
that said, since the age of 3, or so, i have found myself drawn to strong women. i am partnered to a significantly older woman, who is the primary decision-maker for our family. i also take on many of the traditional roles of a wife--cooking, cleaning, laundry. since i was quite young, for whatever reason, i have gravitated toward these domestic tasks, they seem natural for me, i am good at them, and it makes me happy to do these things for my partner.
i think we are all comfortable with strong women here... and the more the better. and we are all uncomfortable with passive roles for women. my question is, are you comfortable with passive and domestic men, like myself?