Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part 2: Professional Success While Parenting

The underlying premise of feminism is a fundamental refusal to recognize the fact that men and women are differently abled in a fundamental evolutionary necessary function.  Females of all sexual species including women produce and generally care for the fertilized ovum until it becomes an independently viable organism.  Generally in mammals independent viability is defined as being able to feed themselves. Males besides providing the necessary gamete also provide the necessary safe space for the female to get the zygote to viability.  Both functions can be shared but there are significant costs to doing so. 

Privileged feminists of both genders deny this fundamental difference and attempt to turn women into male surrogates. (There are few feminists in the underprivileged groups, they have different problems to deal with.)  The problem with male surrogacy is that the male function is to provide a safe space for children. This generally involves competition for resources to provide that safe space excluding most other values.  Even social activities and recreation are devoted to networking to increase access to those resources. 

It is not impossible for women to succeed in prick dominated professions, but they either need to be childless prick surrogates, even pricks aspiring to high levels are expected to be childless, or delay children until they achieve either success or failure.  Feminists of both genders seem to be advocating one of these career paths for women. 

The only alternative for a professional mom is to have a partner at home to share the child raising and housekeeping.  A lot can be contracted; even discriminatory pay in a prick job is generous if not equal.  But the quality time with partner and children can not be delegated, so some compromises on the job are necessary. Note that in many cases the partner is employed in some cases in a well-paid prick job, but even parent males in prick jobs face discrimination that limits both their income and opportunity for "success."  Being unable to spend the off-work networking time fucking around with the guys is a serious professional handicap for any parent. Even at conventions fucking around time is limited as a responsible parent still must read bedtime stories and deal with relationship issues for their children. Not to mention providing loving support for their parenting partner who for the time being is mom regardless of gender.  A sick kid can even cut into booth time at a convention.  Or in one case board meeting time in the home office.  

Once reliable contraception became common, and it became possible for women with the cooperation of their partners to choose not to accept the traditional role of barefoot and pregnant homemakers without giving up either sex or children.  "Family planning" with 2 to 4 well-spaced children became a desirable life style among the non-religious and some religious families which gave women time to be active in their communities and freed men from the rat race of having to provide a desired life style and opportunity for too many children.  For the first time a middle class family could afford to have all their children aspire to higher education and for the woman to seek opportunities outside the home after the youngest was in school.  

A few women were able to plan their lives around professional careers with or without children.  Those that planned professional careers with children knew that their partner would have to provide significant support mainly at home and that both would have to take the career hit that homemaking with children entailed.  

HOW ONE WOMAN DID THE JOB 

The following is a story of one such woman. It is not atypical, it is just one I know well.  By the time she entered high school in the 50's she knew that she was going to be a professional biologist.  She took all the STEM courses, one of the few women in the classes in high school and took her transcript to one of the most respected biology departments in the area and was admitted instantly.  

She dated normally, sex was not normally part of the dating scene at the time, but people were pairing off with the women seeking the Mrs. asap with a man with good potential as a provider with sex as the hook. 

The biologist was different, her date relatively early in the usual courtship rituals knew that sex was a distant dream.  This selected out most of the traditional menfolk, but did attract a certain group who were attracted to her mind and aspirations rather than her vagina.   

One such man met her after freeing himself of all female obligations in order to attend a prestigious distant University, and they bonded quickly but loosely.  The intellectual/aspirational bond was maintained by mail and phone, and occasional vacation partying, but was still non-exclusive.  Both dated normally for their peer group but the sex hook was dodged by both. Neither found a partner that shared their aspirations for a high achieving couple with children.  

She graduated college a year after he had started his desired career path in chemistry, and could support her in her master's degree at a local State college.  Plans evolved and both found themselves at the door of the financial aid officer at a prestigious university that advertised that admissions were need independent and that support would be provided for all admitted. The FAO explained that the way it was done was that the woman worked while the man got the MBA, then he supported her on her PhD program to which she was admitted.  This put the first kid 6 or 8 years off and the horny man lit into the FAO and said we are both starting in the fall, how are you going to get it paid for.  He delivered and the couple spent two years in abject poverty, to fit into the meager resources found.  The shared goals kept them going, and the newly minted MBA left for a prestigious job on the other coast, while she finished the residence requirements for the PhD.  She finished the masters and the PhD at a local university, while he finished his management rotation training assignments.  

He requested a transfer to a major metropolitan area with a rich source of opportunity for her as his first real assignment.  His first mistake as the company had other plans. He was told it was a stupid move as manufacturing was much more prestigious in the company than marketing. But privilege has its privilege and the transfer was arranged.  The first mistake of many.  She took a position far below her qualifications both in pay and prestige in a notoriously misogynistic occupation, but kept her head above water simply by being better than her male colleagues.  As she frequently quoted being better than the average man is not difficult.  

As time went on he was wrapping up a time consuming but extremely successful project and her first grant was on the books and the time was right for the next phase of their project: reproduction.  The feminists and the powers at her work were aghast as the implied bargain was no children. She didn't notice and started her next grant that was due about the same time as the child.  As her office was near the O.B. department she went in to work as usual prior to the planned induction at 2 in the afternoon.  She took the next 10 days off to work out the details of newborn care with her partner.  The grant went in on time, was approved in her name, and a long overdue promotion to her proper academic status followed quickly.

The next major event was an executive BBQ to vet the man for a major promotion earned by the successful project and not incidentally to see if his wife would fit into the paternalistic company's executive wife support group.  She was at a conference that weekend present her results.  When this was made known to the responsible exec, the man was told that his wife should just cancel the presentation and come to the BBQ, it was that important.  It had been obvious for some time that she would never fit in the paternalistic social milieu created by the company at the headquarters city, so the conference went on, the man was disinvited from the BBQ and all talk of promotions ceased.  It is probably significant to note that two of his superiors and their wives rode the project to the presidency of the company.  He began to look for other opportunities.            

A new job for him, a promotion and a bit more money for her, a new kid on the floor, and life went on.  Promotions for both, an injured kid dragged him out of a board meeting, but mom out of town raised no eyebrows, he neglected to mention it was a major scientific conference so there was no pushback.  The company was failing anyway so it was back to the job market for him.  The only opportunities in grade and in industry were out of town so another career change was indicated.  It is always interesting backing a successful career mom.  
There are many more interesting similar stories of interest only to the participants. 

The takeaway is that neither achieved the success that a married prick would have in the same job with or without children.  The only reason she could do as well as she did with children was that the career hit was unequally shared by the privileged male.  Maybe she would have done better as a childless prick, but the cultural handicaps remain for all women regardless of the noise feminists make about irrelevant issues. The possibility of pregnancy cannot be ignored by employers in spite of denialism by feminists.  

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n: Feminist Ignore the Fundamental Gender Differences

Other issues I have with feminism is that feminists for the most part are attempting to deal with peripheral issues associated with the discrimination while ignoring the fundamental differences causing the discrimination. 

Why I am Not a Feminist Part n+1: Language Idiocy

The issue of trying to change the language to comply with feminist dogma is one I have been fighting since I was thrown out of an early feminist meeting for insisting that trying to change "Men/man" from generic to specific was a huge mistake. I tried to point out that a male pronoun should be created to refer to male humans.  Comparable to "woman" like "heman."  Pronounced hee-man to encourage men to flex proudly and adopt it willingly. 

Feminists are still trying to change historical usage like “All men are created equal”  to “All people are created equal” trashing not only the author but herm meaning as well.  Pretending that Jefferson was not a heman of his time ignores a crucial part of our heritage that has made equal rights for women, minorities, and non-propertied men a major issue for Americans ever since.    

Not incidentally I proposed at the time to create a gender inclusive/neutral pronoun to refer to "men" when gender is not significant.  I proposed hesh and herm and have used them since in my own writing as specifically gender inclusive at first for hemen and women but currently for all gender varieties.  I have found the usage useful when gender of the referent is known but irrelevant.  As in: herm article in a journal or popular publication.  Conceptually thinking of an author as "hesh" is particularly useful in avoiding unconscious gender bias in reading an article.  I generally notice the name of the author only when after reading the article I find the name useful for reference.  This practice is useful whether gender is an issue or not.  I don't have to try to forget the author of a worthless article.  

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n +2: Strong, Independent Women Don't Need It

I come from a family tradition of strong, independent, competent women.  In choosing women friends and partners I search out those same qualities. None to my knowledge call themselves feminists.  They are too busy being twice as good as the average man to achieve their goals in life.  (As more than one noted “Fortunately that is not difficult.") If a man tries to be a prick, they don't try to change his ways or his attitude they simply ignore him, or as one commented dripping in sarcasm "God, I am really impressed!"  The reason men are pricks is to attract the attention of women, and feminists play into their hands by objecting to it. 

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n+3: Men Will Always Be Boys

Incels, single men, and philanders have been catcalling women since birds learned to sing.  Women have been ignoring them since then if they are not interested.  Some women take a catcall as a complement and respond with a non-inviting flirt move.  Some women may actually check out the catcaller to see if he might be interesting and if so make an inviting flirt move.  She may even look up and smile.  This is behavior that can be observed in all sexual creatures.  

 The campaign claiming that this demeans women is totally worthless.  Women are sex objects.  So are men.   But whatever attracts his interest the man must make his interest known to the strange woman in order to have any chance of meeting her at all.  Women are expected to be more subtle, but if she sees a stranger that may be a desirable sex toy or a sugar daddy she will certainly find a way to make it known.

 "If a man stops looking lustfully at a woman, bury him he is dead."  The feminist insistence that there is something wrong with a man who appreciates the physical differences in the women he meets when women are flaunting those differences in every encounter are not only making feminism look ridiculous but expecting men to not be male mammals.

There must be limits. It used to be that there were universal social signals that were respected and enforced by both genders.  A man at a bar who touched a woman who had just turned her back to him risked anything from a physical attack by some other man, to ostracism, to somebody of either gender to loudly commenting "Leave her alone, go jack off in your own back yard."  These signals seem to be still evolving in this more permissive and equal opportunity "Hook-up" culture, but among reasonable people seem to be known and agreed to.  The rape culture is fighting back, but then rapists were never reasonable people.  One can't help but wonder if the wolf crying in the first paragraph has not decreased sensitivity to actual abuse.     

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n +4: No Action on Women's Work

Feminism seems to be unconcerned about women and men doing "women's work" other than insisting that they have non-gendered titles. They are too busy trying to get equal pay in "men's jobs" to pay any attention at all to getting equal pay in "women's jobs"

• The caretakers: Nurses, Physician Assistants, teachers, child care workers, etc. 
• Doctors in family practice, pediatrics, and similar. 
• Servers and retail workers.
• Interns and secretaries. 

They all have more flexible hours and generally shorter work weeks that allow time for people to be: Stay at home moms that get their children to school, go to PTA and school board meetings, get them to practice and lessons, in short making sure that the next generation becomes useful citizens.

They also have universally shitty pay plans that insure that a man that wants to support a stay-at-home mom will choose "men's jobs" that pay more and demand more:  more hours, less flexibility in scheduling and location choice, and frequent short notice time away from home. 

Women who chose "men's jobs" and to be a parent must have a partner to share in being mom in exchange for her being dad as needed. Much of the joint income will be used to contract those housekeeping and child care jobs that have less parenting associated with them.   

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n +5: Breedig is Sinful

Perhaps I am not up to date on modern feminism and am locked in the mommy wars of the late 20th century, but I have yet to find many feminists of either gender that are not permanently physically and philosophically non-reproductive.  They seem to have traded the benefits of active sexuality and material success for the bonding necessary for parenting. 

Once they have achieved the good 'prick job' and the reproductive drive is satisfied with casual sex they seem to have settled for delegating the breeding to others less successful and therefore less able to provide the necessities for the next generation of leaders in any occupations let alone the 'prick jobs.'  While I do not object to any human breeding, the cream will rise from any population; I still want to scream at a well bonded couple with a successful female partner "Knock her up, humanity needs her genes."  As Heinlein noted, "Nobody owns his genes, he is merely their custodian."  Successful homosexual bonded couples solve the problem by having or adopting children.  I have heard of one lesbian couple who worked out an arrangement with a gay couple to have children naturally with both two dads and two moms.  Similar to a shared custody agreement, although at the time impossible to formalize. 

One of the issues feminists' apparently still have with Heinlein is that all of his intelligent, strong, competent, successful women were breeders.  They actively searched out intelligent, strong, competent, successful men and got pregnant as soon as possible.  Even most of the juveniles had strong female characters that were scheming to be breeders.  One would think feminists would celebrate conservation of the genes of such women, but it seems not to be the case either in fiction or in real life.  

Public Figures, Private Lives, and Sexual Issues.

 I evaluate authors, artists, and publishers on their public works not their private lives. In particular the scandal sheets and tabloid reporting. There are damn few people, maybe even me, who could stand a tabloid report on their private lives. If you are one of them go ahead and shit on anybody's private life you want to. We will see what the tabloids say when they get you on the cover. 

 When autobiographical data that I disagree with creeps into art or fiction, I will criticize the character or art as inappropriate or socially dysfunctional, but even if there is credible evidence that the artist is similarly dysfunctional, that is herm privilege, and only those close enough to be affected have the right to comment.  

 This is one of the reasons that when I quote authors, whenever possible I quote the character, with proper annotation of the work and the author and date.  People who allege that an author believes something and quotes a character to prove it I will shout bullshit, even if there is evidence that the author in fact does believe something like it.  If one wants to shit on an author's beliefs, better get and cite the source of the direct quote by the author.  

 There is a current trend in virtue signaling to claim that personal behavior even after the fact revelations of the creator taint the value of the work which quickly turns artistic discussions into gossip sessions. This consigns many excellent works to the dustbin of public opinion when the behavior of the creator had no apparent effect on the message or the value of the work.   

 11/21/17 update.  Finally women are speaking out about sexual assault by public figures, as they should, but removing the public figure from herm public position is the wrong solution.  These public figures should be held accountable in a court of law, civil or criminal depending on the statute of limitations on the crime or violation, with witnesses given appropriate protection from retaliation, and cross examination limited to veracity and consistency.  External considerations such as "enticement via dress or behavior" should be explicitly excluded.  The law should provide appropriate sanctions but loss of position should not be one of them unless associated with a felony etc. where a felony is a disqualification.  

 Public opinion may affect ratings and votes, but it is the ratings and votes that should determine the fate of the public figure not the allegations.   

 In spite of the failure of Title IX the in camera fact gathering feature of the system encouraged women to come forward with allegations of harassment, assault and retaliation for speaking out.  The failure was in the fact that there was no similar in camera for the accused to respond before the allegations became a public issue as institutions responded to the allegations before proper investigation of the situation was made and the "Believe the woman" brought the whole issue before the court of public opinion with disastrous results for all involved including the complainant who inevitably will be outed when the shit hits the fan.  In one University case I followed the Title IX administrator, several high ranking officials, and the original complainant all left the university "early" in the face of public displeasure at the outcome of the case.  

 

Mansplaining Modern Patriarchy

 There has never been a reasonable moral argument for Patriarchy.  From the beginning it exploited women as breeders of cannon fodder to prey on more stable egalitarian societies or weaker paternalistic and feudal societies. Pragmatically it was one solution to maintain population in spite of inherently high human maternal and infant mortality rates.  It was successful in spite of or maybe because of the resulting excess of poor young adult males. 

 The industrial revolution further enabled patriarchy by removing the father from the home leaving mom holding the lunch bag, the wash bag, the shopping bag and all of the other bags associated with running a household.  The flip side of that was that the man was socially required to provide for his family. Unskilled jobs were paid enough to support a household minimally even at the entry level. The pay envelope went to mom who was expected to manage with what was in it.  Women who did not wish to play the paternalism game were relegated to "women's work" nursing, teaching, and pseudo-housework where the pay was not expected to support a family and sex was not an option.     


 In the West Prior to WWII infant and maternal mortality, lack of household appliances, and wrong information on natural birth control propagated by churches, insured that women's economic contribution to the society was homemaking.  Supporting a man in the workplace by providing meals, clean clothes, and relieving him of all child care responsibilities for his (presumably) genetic line, and networking for him at church and business functions was a respectable and necessary career for a married woman with several children. 

A good Mrs. was a valuable degree.  The men did all the work and the women ran the society. When women were trapped by biology and custom to Kinder, Küche, Kirche, finding a skilled, hardworking, husband and pushing him to success and a nice house through the "right Church network" was the Western woman's dream.  She had plenty of credit, it was in her husband's name but she did the banking.  It wasn't until women got control of their fertility that other options opened for them.  Even today a Mrs. from a top university is a reasonable choice for a woman that can't hack the academic and social pressure of independent living.  A strong Mrs. from anywhere is still a reasonable choice for many women who choose not to be independent.  Contraception under her control gives her considerable leverage over the paternalistic provider.  

 Women may choose to partner with a man for companionship or sex or possibly a business deal, but few men can get past their patriarchal channeling and assume that providing any income to the partnership or paying their partner anything in a business deal gives them their patriarchal rights to sexual abuse as part of the deal. In all too many professions, the assumed inferiority of women gives the patriarchy considerable leverage in providing opportunities in exchange for abuse.  In some instances "The casting couch" was part of the vernacular long before anyone thought it was anything but a perk of the patriarchy.  

 The real problem with the transition, which we are still in, to full gender equality is that the supply of candidates for the Mrs. status is dwindling rapidly while the demand for the services provided by the Mrs. has remained constant.  In addition the social pressure to treat women with the polite respect necessary to attract the attention of the Miss to become a Mrs. has for a number of reasons become negligible.  Compounding the issue is the fact that many women have separated the functions of the Mrs. and rejected the dependence on the income of the male as a condition for any of them making the traditional Patriarchal mating dance useless for the swain, who has no training in treating people, especially women as human and he reverts to the traditional male power games for all.  

....to be continued....

Toxic Masculinity

https://t.co/DddqnZtP67

Toxic masculinity teaches that men cannot assert their own manhood absent sex with a woman that they alone possess

Being brought up male in a few tweets.  Storified by miniver.

Not much I can add, but this tweetstorm is a must read for all males in especially dads of male children.  Sports must not be the only acceptable outlet for the male need for human physical contact other than sex, spouse abuse, or rape.  

 5/10/16