FLYGIRLS AND COCKTALES
A blog for people who break the mould where roosters rule the roost
In recent times I’ve noticed a lot of people using ‘feminist’ as a derogatory slur. This is somewhat perplexing because as John Scalzi points out in his blog post ‘To the Dude bro that thinks he’s insulting me by calling me a feminist’, a feminist is someone who thinks that women deserve the same rights and opportunities as men.
Why doesn’t everybody want this? Did I miss something? Are these men and women who use ‘feminist’ as a slur, scholars of philosophy who have realised how the limitations of social constructionism and post-structural thought impact modern day feminism? Or have they been listening to a bit too much Rush Limbaugh and Alan Jones, who are deathly afraid that women are going to ‘Destroy the Joint’ by booting men off the ladder and relegating them to the lowly rank of… well… many women (and non-whites, and non-Christians, and non-hetrosexuals etc)?
I propose that the issue is one of mismatching paradigms. When we talk of patriarchy, it refers to the vertical system of a dominating pecking order that is traditionally led by men. When we refer to feminist ideals, it does not seek to dismantle the pecking order so as to establish a new one with women at the top. Rather, it has a horizontal outlook and takes issue with the whole idea of a pecking order, which happens to be quite problematic for many men too. Namely the men at the bottom of it.
Interestingly enough, these two ways of thinking even end up in the language differences in little boys and little girls. Deborah Tannen undertook numerous linguistic studies and found that generally speaking, little girls in the USA bond through being the same and telling each other their secrets (I have a dog, too!), while little boys bond by bettering each other (I can hit the ball to the moon!). But we also isolate each other through similar means. Women will hurt each other through exclusion, and men through putting each other down. From this stand point, it makes sense that many men, who only really know the pecking order paradigm, are deathly afraid of being kicked off their perch or put down by women. Similarly, many women are afraid, I think, of excluding or feeling separate from the men in their lives. They don’t necessarily realise that feminism has a different agenda: to create a round table.
Aside from the underlying paradigm mismatch, words such as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ seem to further confuse matters. If I am a woman with stereotypical ‘masculine’ traits (decisiveness, rationality, objectivity, etc) should I be insulted? Or should men with stereotypical ‘feminine’ traits (generous, nurturing, cooperative, etc) be insulted? Does ‘feminism’ mean that we can only embrace our feminine selves at the expense of masculinity? Or should we be embracing both our masculine and feminine selves no matter our gender?
Whatever your answers, I propose that feminism needs to adopt a non-gendered frame that enables greater solidarity and understanding of the injustices at hand. Specifically, the frame of subordinated cooperation and coordinated cooperation, as described by Indian mystic and philosopher, P.R. Sarkar. This lens transcends the limitations of gender based language and instead focuses on the nature of the harmful power structures at play, particularly how we treat one another. Furthermore, it offers a new way of understanding other power related issues such as racial equality, workers’ rights (and responsibilities), prejudice and systemic privilege.
Subordinated cooperation is based on a master-slave relationship while coordinated cooperation is when two different entities come together to work with equal rights, prestige and standing. Of course, this is not to say that hierarchy is necessarily bad. We can have a hierarchy that works from a base of coordinated cooperation whereby a supervisor may treat a subordinate with dignity and respect as they work towards common organisational goals and fulfill their potential. It is not the structure as much as the relationships and capacity to fulfill one’s potential that are important here. I may have more skills or a greater intellect than you, but that does not necessarily make me a better human being. And if we get back to the basics of human experience and what you might wish for on your death bed, I would go so far as to say that what matters most is the radius of your love, not where you stand in some socially constructed pecking order or, perhaps, your contribution to economic slavery.
Thus, IMHO the women’s liberation movement (and every other liberation movement for that matter) needs to adopt an articulated goal of coordinated cooperation. This is where despite our differences (remembering that diversity is the law of nature), we are working towards a common goal in a way that not only values the different contributions that we make, but also our capacity to fulfill our potential individually and collectively.
Do we as individuals treat each other with coordinated cooperation? And do our systems treat each other with coordinated cooperation, or do they privilege one group over another? Whatever the answer and however you want to slice our population, a society that confines the development of various groups in relation to others is like a bird with one wing. It can’t take off and reach its potential. So, which side are you on? Coordinated cooperation or subordinated cooperation?
A short while ago, the Royal Australian Air Force announced via its Facebook page that they had just completed a flying camp for girls as a means of encouraging more young women to pursue careers as pilots. While most of the comments by FB users were positive and encouraging, a number of not so supportive voices stood out. “What about flying camps for boys?” and, “This is reverse discrimination!”
Is there any truth or fairness in these comments? When I was studying for my engineering degree we used to attend Women in Engineering (WIE) events. Some men in our class would similarly complain, “but that’s reverse discrimination!” or would feel threatened by their imaginings of what we might be up to. I really enjoyed going to the WIE events. We listened to really interesting guest speakers talk about their experiences of being women in a male dominated culture and found their tips for being successful useful. It provided a space for bonding with fellow women and a network that followed us out into the workforce and supported us in our careers. It seemed like such a good thing. But at the same time, given that it wasn’t geared for men, did that really mean it was a case of reverse discrimination?
I wasn’t entirely sure and didn’t really know how to respond, until one day a friend of mine said, “but every day is Man in Engineering Day!” And suddenly it made sense. The system was culturally set up to support men more so than women. Sure, on an individual level people have different abilities and experiences that help or hinder their success, but in general, the overall ‘engineering system’ was based on ‘men’s cultural values’. In the same way that our WIE events were geared towards women’s needs (e.g. how to survive as a woman in a male dominated environment), the overall system was geared towards men’s needs by virtue of the fact that it couldn’t address the needs of women without WIE events to support it. Thus it was not reverse discrimination. It was simply trying to level the playing field for women who had a disadvantage by being so underrepresented in the engineering demographic and subject to a system that was originally designed around men’s values and needs more so than women’s. This line of thinking can also be applied to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation religion and the disability realms. When you strip back these other needs, you find that the system is typically set up for white men and this is the core of ‘privilege’. The privileged in any system rarely see their privilege because they face fewer obstructions; hence the cries of reverse discrimination.
Back to the flying camp for girls. Women are significantly under represented as pilots in the Royal Australian Air Force. This lack of diversity in any organization or team has been shown to lead to lower performance than where there is greater diversity of gender, race, etc. In 2001 I was the 13th woman to graduate pilot training despite the first two female pilots graduating in 1987 and a few hundred men during the time in between. Some people make biological arguments as to why women are not interested in becoming pilots, but this is short sighted because the issue is really one of social obstacles.
When I was recruited I hadn’t even considered being a pilot since there were so few role models (I didn’t even properly consider it as a serious career). Similarly, spatial awareness is a significant factor in the various tests of aptitude for selection to undertake pilot training. Studies have shown that women tend to do more poorly on spatial awareness tests. My personal belief is that a lot of this comes down to conditioning. My mother, who is a teacher, did a very good job of helping to cultivate both left and right brain functions in me as a child by encouraging not only creative pursuits, but also video games, sports and intellect. However, what about the girls whose parents encouraged them towards less ‘masculine’ pursuits? What opportunities exist for girls to overcome all the obstacles and people along the way who don’t take them seriously if they say they want to be pilots?
Thus we do need a flying camp for girls. It is a small step towards helping to restore the balance by promoting opportunities to girls who, due to social conditioning, may otherwise never consider a career as a pilot. Furthermore, if we only take the best men, aren’t we selling ourselves short by ignoring the best women? A bird can’t fly on one wing alone.