Feminism
Introduction
Studies have shown individual women are just as good as men, or some women are better than some men or even the average of men. They are used to argue society should put women in charge.
A second argument by feminists is based on the value of equality. Shouldn't females get the same results as males? Feminism advocates argue for eliminating gender discrimination. "Pay equity" argues that people should get the same pay for the same work. Eliminating the "glass ceiling" argues for equalizing promotion. Discrimination by gender can be measured, advocates say, by statistics, including pay averages by gender and the number of leadership positions by gender. If men and women are equal, shouldn't average pay be the same? Shouldn't each gender be represented by equal numbers of leadership positions? So if pay differs, isn't it obvious there is unfair discrimination?
Philosophical analysis
Gender differences
Of course, the argument that group averages proves discrimination is flawed because no two jobs are identical. Neither are any two people. Members of any abstract group are not identical, and they do not gain ability because they are part of a group.
Research on the basis for decisions has found other differences tied to gender. Many women have babies. This causes them to drop out of the workforce for months (or more). The break in work time puts them at a disadvantage, which has led to fewer promotions. Women's mothering role means many are less available to travel and work outside of normal business hours. The fathering role within families means fewer men have as strong restrictions on their availability. Many men and women resist redefining parenting roles. Many assign raising successful children a higher priority than their careers. Legislation has not been passed to force a change. Several other factors have been studied with similar results. There are other differences that explain statistical differences between groups of men and women. Evidence of gender-based bias has not been found to be common. Did it exist? Well, there is the well-known case of firing women to make jobs for returning servicemen following World War II. Note that this policy likely had the support of many women who frankly took manufacturing jobs because they could thus support winning the war. It wasn't because they loved handling asbestos insulation in cramped and poorly ventilated new "Liberty ships" or riveting. Yes, there must have been women who preferred not to be fired. I've never seen statistics on this, or seen survey results of asking "Instead of your job, would you rather have been a warrior (such as carrying a rifle and sleeping in a foxhole)?
Identity politics
Feminism is only one prominent version of what's called "identity politics," which rejects the ad hominin logical fallacy and claims the primary factor determining truth is what groups one belongs to. The groups are defined by selected characteristics of individuals, such as gender. Like all groups, they have statistical averages of characteristics. The statistics show that the subgroups are not identical.
Feminism is only one of several doctrines espoused by egalitarians. All share a desire for equity and "fairness." All these are measured by statistical averages of groups of people assumed to be alike because we can put them together in the same class based on easily identified characteristics. And all seek equity and fairness among individuals (treated only as members of their group). Identity politics treats groups as arbitrary constructs based on lumping characteristics at some level of abstraction. That is, egalitarians might lump all females together because they share the characteristic of the same gender.
Basic facts
All organisms are individuals, and die when their body stops working (such as being strangled by a predator).
Society is not individualistic. The basic unit of human society is not the individual; it's the basic social unit[i]. Because partnerships can not outlive their members, the basic social unit can't be life partnerships. For many pairs, their life partnership has a high priority for both partners, usually secondary only to raising successful children. During the pre-historical Gap[ii], the basic social unit was the nomadic family-centered band. A century ago, in Western countries and some other places in the world, this was a close-knit extended family. But it could be a tight church congregation, a frontier settlement, or a community of traditional farmers. No doubt, these existed. Yet partnerships are also important. Fundamentally, the life partnership between men and women forms nuclear families. Adults in strong partnerships make decisions based on what's good for the partnership and for their children, not for themselves as individuals. Partners who ignore the partnership in favor of their self-interest (such as to pursue the careers) tend to split up. The partnerships that don't do so can persist because one partner subordinates his interest to that of the other. Yes, a wife often gains a richer life if her husband works long hours and climbs the job ladder. But she does so by giving up her own serious interests. And he often strays, finding his partner boring compared with women he meets on the job who accomplish more as individuals.
Both individualism and equality have roots in human nature
Individualism
· Organisms are individuals. They live, develop, get injured or sick, and die as individuals.
· Individualism treats individuals as separate and mostly independent of one another.
· Competition is intrinsic for species that reproduce by adults mating. Competition produces a social hierarchy and determines which organisms get limited resources, including the chance to mate.
· It is appealing to presume competition should be conducted fairly and that agreed-upon rules should be followed. But even siblings show rivalry. And sometimes, being dishonest or cheating is the way to win. You've no doubt heard the statement, "All's fair in love and war!" Cheating and lying may allow for an initial win. But these tend to be discovered, engender resentment, and lose in the longer term.
Equality
Egalitarianism is communal. It assumes fairness, honesty, and following agreed-upon rules.
I've already commented on life partnerships as a communal joining of two adults.
Parents can not know what characteristics of a child will be beneficial when he is an adult. So, the appropriate strategy is to help all of their offspring grow into successful adulthood. Hence, they should allocate equal resources to children who have equal chances. Should a child lag a bit, the parents should allocate more resources to help that child catch up. A wise strategy would be to abandon a child who has little chance of success. Currently, most societies do not allow this, but history records it.
Members of a band depend upon the band's success. This means they should help lagging band members catch up or at least persist. This is especially true if households are basic economic units and resources available come in large units (such as hunting large animals). Hence, a successful hunter should share the meat with unsuccessful hunters who might become the successful one in the future.
How to judge suggested changes
Human groups developed cultures that have grown increasingly complex. These consist of all characteristics, including beliefs and values. These are characteristics of individuals. However, a culture can be described as averages across all members of the group.
Societal
Many ideas have been tried--just as many mutations have been tried by evolution. If an idea (or mutation) doesn't work, selection eliminates it. Evolution also works on social groups in that they compete for resources and can flourish or fail. If a social group does not persist, it is fair to conclude it--and its culture--failed. We can say that evolutionary selection removed it.
We can make use of other's trials to avoid having to repeat their mistakes. Hence, new ideas about how society should be organized should be tested to see if the idea has been applied successfully in a culture. Any test needs to have a working definition of success. It's the long term that matters to evolutionary lines. I'd use multiple (perhaps 4) generations of success as the criterion. (An Iroquois man told me they used seven generations). Has the new idea aided or compromised sustaining the population size and average fertility of citizens? Any new idea must be compatible with human nature, or it won't work. Hence, it must accommodate both individualism and collectivism. A basic folly of Feminism is that it seeks to apply communalism to all of society.
Individual
Evolution's fundamental criterion for success is the survivability of the evolutionary line. This has resulted in selective pressure and resulted in what we can infer and characterize conceptually. I call it the Natural Life Purpose. I see it more useful if it is expressed as having five clauses.[iii]
Evolution works on individuals, and so the Natural Life Process is focused on the individual. It is expressed as an innate drive to act to achieve each clause.
However, human individuals can choose their life purpose, so they can choose one that is different from the Natural Life Process. For example, they may decide wealth is the only really important thing and make their life about achieving wealth. (The character Scarlette O'Hara in Gone with the Wind dramatically chose to "never be hungry again"). There can be a real advantage to society if some individuals choose a narrow life purpose because they may contribute immensely to society. (Consider Michelangelo and many entrepreneurs). Of course, focusing one's life narrowly does not guarantee that a person will contribute outstandingly. For example, a person who chooses a life purpose to be a good thief fails to contribute positively to society, even if he's a world-class thief. (And each crazy idea in Popular Science has its champion, no?) People who choose a narrow life purpose shortchange potential partners, so they have lower success in pairing. Should they win a partner and have children, they shortchange parenting. Put those together, and people with a narrow life purpose leave few successful children. They also pay a personal price for not attending to most of the clauses. The drives don't go away. So, not attending to them means the individual must manage a drive for behavior they don't want to have. This conflict in motives tears them apart.
For society to persist, there must always be a new generation of successful individuals. For this to happen, most individuals must pursue broad life purposes that include all or most of the clauses of the Natural Life Process. Not everyone can or should have children. The fifth clause gives a way for those who don't have children and those who choose a narrow life purpose to achieve success. There are many ways to aid society and help one's line persist. Consider options. A dedicated inventor may invent something that will help many people. An unmarried nurse or teacher may have a career helping others. A gay politician may serve his society as a leader.
The test of an idea for the individual is if he lives by its principles. Do Feminists either achieve outstanding performance or have successful Natural Life Process lives? Note that people who are strong advocates may not live those principles. Their purpose is likely to succeed at advocacy. For example, consider the priests who preach living according to their religion but molest children. Living by the principles is very different from giving them lip service and living a hypocritical life.
Let's consider feminists in two camps: those for whom Feminism is their narrow life purpose. They naturally gravitate toward activism. They have few children, and those they have often have serious problems like lawbreaking, addiction to drugs, or suicide.
The other camp is people who pursue the Natural Life Purpose, and simultaneously try to be feminists. This doesn't work, because Feminism favors women who put themselves first. They are too individualistic, and the Natural Life Process requires that the person put their partnership, their children, and their basic social unit first. Trying to do both tears an individual apart. Pursuing Feminism precludes partnering or condemns the partnership to failure. And if there are children, they are raised with little parental care and direction. How committed are hired helpers at this? Ever heard a story about an evil governess or an inattentive or abusive nanny? How about an abusive and domineering boarding school?
Final thoughts
One can sympathize with feminists' desire for fairness. Too bad they don't put reality first. And stop wishing for a different reality.
If Feminism is flawed, what do I suggest? Pay for equal value to the company irrespective of gender. Yes, you might be able to pay a weaker negotiator less, but it won't work long-term. You risk losing him to another firm. And it's more expensive to cover his absence, hire, and train his replacement, right?
If an individual puts a higher value on other aspects of life than his job, he's unlikely to apply for a job that costs a loss of work-life balance. Your job, as an employer, is to hire the best person for the job from among those who apply. Discrimination based on gender (or any other irrelevant characteristic) costs your firm by hiring a less-valuable employee.
Tags: #identity politics #collectivism #individualism #glass ceiling #equal pay
[i] I use the term "Basic Social Unit" to refer to an individual's "people." It applies to the band or extended family. At the minimum, an individual is a member of one: his nuclear family with which he lives. (I do not count as a social himself an individual). If an individual is temporarily away, his Basic Social Unit is the band or extended family he would return to. He can voluntarily withdraw from his Basic Social Unit. If someone is now in one Basic Social Unit and forms a partnership with someone from another, they can choose which Basic Social Unit to belong to. (Ordinarily, it's the Basic Social Unit of one of the partners). One partner applies to join the new unit and partially or completely withdraws from the one he's a member of. The leadership of the chosen Basic Social Unit may choose to not accept the new partner as a member." Modified slightly from Hays, Robert 2023. "What responsibilities do members of social units have?" posted May 7 to grandpahays.substack.com. m
[ii] I first described my concept of the "Gap" and it's rationale and implications in my book "Western Civilization 2". It is now in a second edition: Robert L. Hays, 2021 Western Civilization 2. Based on the Gap Theory of Human Nature and Natural Law. 2d Edition. 383 pp. ISBN-13: 979-8744088835 or see Hays, Robert 2023. "The Gap Theory of Human Nature " Posted to grandpahays.substack.com.
[iii] The Natural Life Purpose for a person is to grow up, advance socially, pair, have and raise offspring, and support the future generations of his or her line. Hays, Robert L. 2022 Mastering your life as an individual. Grandpa Hays's guide to a successful life, Volume 2 Edition 2. ISBN 9798849458816,