Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Feminism, labels, and principles

An interesting discussion at Protein Wisdom about feminism and labels. Equity feminism, gender feminism, establishment feminism, liberal feminism, ifeminism... my head is spinning.

I don't have time for a long post right now, but a few thoughts. Christina Hoff Sommers' "equity feminism/gender feminism" distinction (originally made in the 1994 book Who Stole Feminism?), which I've sometimes used myself, is rather imprecise, and too open to being used as shorthand for "feminists I like/feminists I don't like." Sommers defines "gender feminists" as those who see women as oppressed by a "sex/gender system" ingrained in cultural gender roles, and "equity feminists" as those who want simply to establish legal equality and equality of opportunity. But one needn't be a particularly radical feminist to believe that various aspects of traditional gender roles lead to unequal opportunity, and one can seek to transform those roles while seeking "equity" rather than female advantage. (Many of the early feminists Sommers praises, such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were harshly critical not only of legal and institutional inequality but of traditional femininity.)

So, what terms would I use? Actually, "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" still make sense to me, but I would fine-tune the definitions somewhat. "Equity feminism" is focused on fairness and equal treatment for individuals regardless of gender; "gender feminism" -- a form of identity politics -- is focused on solidarity with women and seeking the betterment of women. However, as Jeff has found out, the term "gender feminism" is fairly useless in discussions with feminists to whom one would apply the term, since they regard it as a slur (much as I do "anti-feminist"). I wonder if "identity feminism" would be an acceptable term?

In any case: Here are a few basic principles of my kind of feminism, whatever one wants to call it.

1. Equal treatment regardless of gender. No excuses for unequal treatment such as "we need to make allowances for women's lack of power/history of oppression," "real equality means redistributing power from the oppressor to the oppressed," etc. Feminism should be about equity, fairness and judging people as individuals, not "siding with women" (individually or collectively).

2. We should seek to achieve greater equity/equality by expanding choices for both men and women, not narrowing them -- e.g., not make it less socially acceptable for women to stay home with their children, but to make this option more available to men. Equity does not necessarily mean full parity in every field; it means equal opportunity, including freedom from cultural barriers that can hold men or women back from excercising their options (e.g., the belief that it's unmanly to be a child care worker, or that a woman should be interested in "people things" rather than scientific abstractions).

3. Western women today are not an oppressed or powerless group. While women have some gender-based problems, so do men. Gender-based disadvantages and prejudices should be addressed whether they affect men or women. In today's society, "more for women" is not necessarily synonymous with justice.

4. Women as well as men can be sexist -- toward men as well as women -- and can have sexist expectations of and prejudices toward men. Female chauvinism (e.g., the belief that mothers have a special bond with their children inherently superior to that of fathers) should be taken as seriously as male chauvinism.

5. Not everything bad that happens to women (e.g., rape or domestic violence) is the result of sexism or "the patriarchy" (which, in my view, is a meaningless concept when talking about the West in the 21st Century). Women's personal wrongs in relationships with men should not be considered a feminist issue unless some institutional or cultural bias against women is involved (for instance, a man's belief that he is entitled to multiple sex partners but his wife or girlfriend is not).

6. Claims of sexism, sex discrimination, or male mistreatment of women should be taken seriously, but not given a presumption of truthfulness and objectivity. Giving a woman's account greater credence than a man's because of her gender is just as sexist as presuming a man to be more believable.

7. Finally, my kind of feminism takes a non-adversarial stance toward Western and American society. This was brought home to me by Jeff Goldstein's exchange with Lauren, who sees a young Muslim immigrant's decision to wear the hijab as possibly a positive and empowering one because it's a protest against the majority culture. I don't regard an adversarial stance vis-a-vis American culture as something valuable in itself. For all its flaws and its much-less-than-perfect history where women are concerned, the West today is the civilization that champions freedom and equal rights for women. For that alone, from a feminist point of view, it is worth defending.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have been a feminist for years and do not mind that some females are as well !

Anonymous said...

Well-defined terms are essential to reasoned discourse and exceedingly rare in our label-mad culture.
Next up - "liberal" and "conservative"?

Anonymous said...

Cathy, I agree with much of what you've written here, but I still find the binary problematic because it is so very reductive.

Additionally, my post in question has been misread multiple times, so I feel the need to reiterate that my primary point was to vent my thoughts on the multilayered cultural politics at play in my student's non-conformist assignment, and secondly to reconsider cultural cues such as hijab in a non-oppressive Western environment. I'm still baffled as to why my public wonderment is so controversial.

Anonymous said...

"For all its flaws and its much-less-than-perfect history where women are concerned, the West today is the civilization that champions freedom and equal rights for women. For that alone, from a feminist point of view, it is worth defending."

Agreed, and yet not. I realize you were pressed for time when you wrote this, but here goes:

The idealist in me believes this to be true, though the real fight is for the hearts and minds of individuals to nix emphasis on arbitrary gender divisions that lead to more systematic divisions.

The realist in me is nevertheless required to point out that Western feminism is not the only defender of women worldwide (though by virtue of the West we have considerable clout that must be considered) and women are using their varying abilities to improve their own conditions in their own environments on their own terms. Women who wear hijab are not delicate flowers under headscarves simply by virtue of being women in a patriarchal religion in a patriarchal society, &c. They do have agency and they are using it.

Anonymous said...

The only problem with this whole line of argument is that it's wrong, and comes from a misunderstanding of how language works (and that is what the disagreement comes down to - language.) Words do not come from the dictionary. You cannot arbitrarily define what words mean. Case in point: Sommers invented the terms "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" eleven years ago but I find no evidence of these terms ever actually being used except in cases when they are being defined (or re-defined).

Like it or not, "feminism" means "gender feminism" (or "identity feminism") and always has. There never was a golden age when the term just referred to basic egalitarianism and individualism applied to gender (which is what "equity feminism" is supposed to mean.) True, there may have been a time where the main emphasis in feminism was on fighting inegalitarian policies and anti-individualism, but that was because those were the main (and most obvious) anti-feminist battles. (Incidentally, I think this still holds true. If a policy which blatantly discriminated on the base of gender against women were enacted, all feminists would oppose it, and you can bet the first arguments out of their mouths would be individualist arguments and appeals to equality under the law).

Let's consider a thought experiment. You take a sample of, say, 1000 people who are self-proclaimed feminists. You show them writings from some mainstream NOW member, from some university Woman's Studies professor, from some radical Marxist feminist, from some MacKinnon/Dworkin radical feminist, from some Starhawk-Gaia goddess separatist type, etc. You also show them writings from Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, maybe Camille Paglia. You ask them one question only: Is the person who wrote this a feminist? You are not asking them whether they agree with the person, or how close the person's beliefs are to their own, only whether the person is a feminist or not.

I think the answer would be clear. All of the people in the first group would be considered feminists by the great majority of the respondents. There wouldn't be much variation. Andrea Dworkin would be considered just as much a feminist as Ellen Goodman or Gloria Steinem. People in the second group would, however, not be considered feminists by the majority. Your average NOW member, even though she may have more in common with Cathy Young than with Andrea Dworkin on most things, would still recognize Dworkin as a feminist, because they share in common the essential belief of feminism: that women are oppressed.

So, Cathy Young, the answer is that you are anti-feminist. I mean this as a simple objective description. That is not to say that you are anti-female. They are two different things. What you are in favor of is applying egalitarianism and individualism to gender, not feminism. And that's a good thing.

Cathy Young said...

Lauren, a pleasure to see you here, and I just corrected my post which mis-attributed your hijab post to Jill.

I hope to be able to reply soon.

Cathy Young said...

anonymous (12pm post) -- well, that's an interesting viewpoint, but the problem is that just as the label "feminist" does not distinguish between Andrea Dworkin and Ellen Goodman, the label "anti-feminist" does not distinguish between Wendy McElroy and, say, F. Carolyn Graglia, whose anti-feminism is explicitly anti-egalitarian (or even outspoken misogynists such as the "Fathers' Manifesto" group).

Anonymous said...

While some of the jargon leaves my head spinning (*SMILE*) I agree with Cathy's initial post.

Yet...

I also agree with the Anonymous post of Wed Dec 14, 12:00:00 PM EST.

Hmm...

I'm not quite sure if I've contradicted myself here, but... however you want to label those who believe in the general ideals of equality... put me in that camp!

Pooh said...

Anon, the irony of your post is that while claiming that "this is how language works" you end by saying something that doesn't mean what you claim you intend.

Anti-Feminist, to most, means anti-female. (Query, didn't we talk about this, at length within the last two weeks?) You can claim you don't mean it that way, but next thing you know, Cathy's arguments get dismissed (*cough*Barry*cough*) as 'anti-feminist' and therefore anti-female and therefore not worthy of consideration.

I also find it curious that the central tenet of feminism, as you define it, is that women are oppressed. That strikes me as an inherently self-defeating ideology.

Anonymous said...

Hi Cathy,

This is the poster formerly known as Anonymous88, and briefly Dancer88. In the future, I’ll just go by Eighty-Eight.

Thank you for this post, which was very useful in helping to understand your positions. I have a question for further clarification. In your view, are there any circumstances in which a history of oppression is a relevant factor in the consideration of a group, if the oppression has been rectified in the law, but perhaps not yet in practice? I understand that you believe women in the west are no longer oppressed, but I was curious as to your position on other groups in which the legacy of the oppression is generally still agreed upon as having current-day effects. An example might be a marginalized minority within a developing country (just to take the discussion away from sensitive domestic issues.)

Revenant said...

Well said, Cathy.

And Anon -- words mean what people use them to mean, nothing more. You might not have heard the terms Cathy is using before, but plenty of other people have. Indeed, the dictionary definition of "feminism" is that of equity feminism, not gender feminism.

Anonymous said...

Cathy wrote: well, that's an interesting viewpoint, but the problem is that just as the label "feminist" does not distinguish between Andrea Dworkin and Ellen Goodman, the label "anti-feminist" does not distinguish between Wendy McElroy and, say, F. Carolyn Graglia, whose anti-feminism is explicitly anti-egalitarian (or even outspoken misogynists such as the "Fathers' Manifesto" group).

I've already agreed that I won't refer to you as an anti-feminist in the future. But nonetheless, I don't follow your logic here.

It's agreed by all that the label "feminist" includes a wide variety of views, such as Andrea Dworkin's and Ellen Goodman's. The fact that Dworkin and Goodman (or, even more so, Dworkin and Susie Bright) are at complete loggerheads on many substantial issues doesn't prevent them from both being feminists.

So why is it a problem that the lablel "anti-feminist" should include a variety of views, some at complete loggerheads?

Regarding this:

This was brought home to me by Jeff Goldstein's exchange with Lauren, who sees a young Muslim immigrant's decision to wear the hijab as possibly a positive and empowering one because it's a protest against the majority culture. I don't regard an adversarial stance vis-a-vis American culture as something valuable in itself.

I don't think Lauren's post can be accurately described as taking "an adversarial stance vis-a-vis American culture" in itself. As I read the post, the student was responding to the racist culture of the school around her, and to the hypersexualization of American teen culture.

But surely a reaction against a particular racist school culture, or against a particular specific aspect of American culture, is not the same as taking a stance against American culture in and of itself.

Anonymous said...

The hijab thing illustrates what's wrong with the strand of feminism that's founded on the belief that women are oppressed by a patriarchal conspiracy. The need for identity that's expressed in this group is so strong that it has to actually fight against equality. Equality, after all, undermines the basis of this form of feminist identity and threatens the whole enterprise.

The woman who chooses to wear the hijab participates in her own oppression and reifies it. Thus, she strengthens the foundations of identity feminism and is therefore lauded by its membership.

Identity feminists oppress women, in other words.

Anonymous said...

"Western feminism is not the only defender of women worldwide...and women are using their varying abilities to improve their own conditions in their own environments on their own terms."

Wow! Now there's a load of nonsense! What was western feminism doing for the women of Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Or, and I could go on and on...

What western feminists have mostly done is stand back, doing little, and/or find common cause with oppressive regimes--but mostly to oppose US efforts to bring freedom, liberty, the voting franchise, and a modicum of equality to those parts of the world.

(And since Cathy Young is called an anti-feminist, by these so-called feminists, Ms. Young, of course, is excluded from my preceeding generalization.)

Lauren, you can ramble on all you want about your binary reductive problem with arbitrary gender assignments that trigger non-conformist cultural responses in a multilayered, non-oppressive Western environment, but until you straighten out the rhetorical pretzel you've twisted up, unintelligible--rather than controversial--is the only characterization such thoughts earn. (What, pray tell, is a non-oppresive western environment? Other than a women's locker room?)

Oh, and best of luck to all the third world muslim women using their agency to improve their liberty. Yup, powerful tool, that agency. You should be proud of your hard work on their behalf, Lauren!

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Forbes, do a Google search on Muslim feminism and see what you come up with. You might be surprised.

Anonymous said...

Wow, great post Cathy. And I was surprised to hear you dare to use the term I personally prefer: "female chauvinism". Chauvinism in the strict dictionary definition, i.e., "unreasoning devotion to one's own race, sex, etc., with contempt for other races or the opposite sex".

When viewed from this angle I find that many instances of truly mindbending pretzel logic (from what you would call gender feminists) become immediately clear.

reader_iam said...

In my experience, the word "labels" is almost always at odds with the word "principles."

Those who most quickly rush to label, or more specifically, demand to be the arbiter of who is what, tend to get distracted and end up equating labels with principles. Which, of course, they really don't. Not in any kind of practical,
on-the-ground sense, in terms of actually improving the daily lives of real people living in the real world.

The semantic stuff may be fun, but in the end that's basically all it amounts to: a game.

That's how I see it, anyway.

(And I do, very much, think that words matter very much. Words actually happen; labels stall. And to the degree they stall, they also put the skids on more important things.)

Anonymous said...

http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/feminism_vs_equ.html#comments

trish wilson has an interesting take on it

Anonymous said...

fix the the link http://tinyurl.com/c325n

mythago said...

While women have some gender-based problems, so do men. Gender-based disadvantages and prejudices should be addressed whether they affect men or women.

Cathy, what annoys me about your usually rather sensible discussions is the not-very-well-hidden assumption that sexism hurts men and women equally and that men and women get equal benefits from sexism. It's one thing to recognize that sexism harms men (you'd have to be an idiot not to), but you don't like to consider that sexism might have more benefits and less drawbacks for men.

Glaivester said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Glaivester said...

Let me explain what anonymous was saying more simply.

Feminism means that you support increasing women's rights relative to men's.

Feminism has nothing to do with equality per se. Where men are favored, feminism happens to coincide with equality. Where women are favored, feminism is anti-equality.

That is all.

Pooh said...

Mythago,

WHAT? There has been no attempt at equivalance here. Unless arguing that in certain instances women have more rights than men means you are saying that that makes them equally oppressed. It's called nuance.

Pablo said...

mythago says:

It's one thing to recognize that sexism harms men (you'd have to be an idiot not to), but you don't like to consider that sexism might have more benefits and less drawbacks for men.

I don't mind considering the possibility, but I don't believe it's true.

Between Family Courts and the Domestic Violence industry, our very society is systematically abusing men in very serious, damaging, life-changing ways. Oh, and the kids get some of the grief too!

Day in, day out. Day after day after day after day... In what forums are women so systematically abused?

Anonymous said...

I've been watching this unfold for some time, and have written a response here.

Anonymous said...

Eh, this is the link I meant to give

Pooh said...

Mary, nice summary of what's been going on, and interesting thoughts.

How much of the schism between the groups you identify is a dispute about the 'facts on the ground' as to the 'oppressedness' (is that a word? it should be,) of women in America?

Revenant said...

you don't like to consider that sexism might have more benefits and less drawbacks for men.

Except that sexism doesn't benefit men. If, for example, women are discriminated against as doctors, that provides a minor benefit to male doctors, but a significant penalty to everybody else (we receive lower-quality care at higher cost). The effect of widespread discrimination is similar to that of a high tariff on all goods -- it is, on net, harmful to everyone. It makes everything more expensive and lower-quality than it otherwise would be.

Plus, of course, there's the fact that almost all men marry women at some point. Discrimination against your wife hurts you, too -- it makes your family poorer and your home life unhappier. Plus, since half your kids will be women, and sexism hurts the victim more than it helps the beneficiary, on average sexism will be harmful to your progeny.

No, there's no upside to sexism. It is a remarkably bad idea, both from a moral and a pragmatic viewpoint.

Cathy Young said...

ampersand:

It's agreed by all that the label "feminist" includes a wide variety of views, such as Andrea Dworkin's and Ellen Goodman's. The fact that Dworkin and Goodman (or, even more so, Dworkin and Susie Bright) are at complete loggerheads on many substantial issues doesn't prevent them from both being feminists.

So why is it a problem that the lablel "anti-feminist" should include a variety of views, some at complete loggerheads?


Interesting question.

I think Susie Bright and Andrea Dworkin certainly shared the basic belief that women should have freedom and equality with men, even though they defined these concepts quite differently. Certainly, both saw themselves as pursuing female empowerment (again, while understanding it very differently).

I don't see myself as having any common ground with, say, F. Carolyn Graglia, other than the fact that she and I are both critical of "established" feminism. However, I think that people should generally be defined by what they believe in, rather than what they're against. Otherwise it's a bit like lumping together atheists and religious Jews because both groups are non-Christian.

mythago: Just to clarify, my comment about gender disadvantage being a two-day street applied solely to Western civilization in the last 20-25 years. That's how things look to me, at least. What are some of the areas where you believe women in America or Europe today are more disadvantaged by gender-based biases or barriers than men?

Lauren and Barry, on the hijab issue: having read Lauren's post, I definitely did not get the impression that Muizza's primary reason for wearing the hijab was to protest the racism in the school (and the added bit about her garb being a protest against the hypersexualization of teenage girls in America is simply speculation). Isn't there a way to protest racism without endorsing a symbol of female submission? (I think it's quite telling that in many Muslim immigrant communities, men are not expected to wear traditional religious garb or to have beards, but women are expected to dress traditionally.) I also think it's a bit naive to refer to Muizza's environment as "non-oppressive"; in many immigrant communities, the pressure on young girls to follow traditional rules of modest dress is very strong.

No time to answer all the other posts right now, but Mary, very interesting post! Darleen, I'll check out your link; good to see you back here. And drumgurl, welcome to the Y Files!

mythago said...

Cathy, you're arguing that a smaller gap means no gap.

You seem to be arguing that 20-25 years ago, it was true that men had more advantages and fewer disadvantages, but that's no longer the case. What do you believe the greater advantage was, and how has it changed in the last two decades?

Revenant said...

how has it changed in the last two decades?

Well, one fairly obvious change is that the workforce shifted. In 1980 most of the workforce had grown up and worked much of their careers in workplaces where sexual and/or racial discrimination was normal. Over the past 25 years most of those people retired or died. Today only the oldest workers have any memory of such a time. There is no longer an expectation that women will have a second-class role in the workplace.

Cathy Young said...

eighty-eight:

In your view, are there any circumstances in which a history of oppression is a relevant factor in the consideration of a group, if the oppression has been rectified in the law, but perhaps not yet in practice? I understand that you believe women in the west are no longer oppressed, but I was curious as to your position on other groups in which the legacy of the oppression is generally still agreed upon as having current-day effects. An example might be a marginalized minority within a developing country (just to take the discussion away from sensitive domestic issues.)


Sorry I missed this before. A very interesting question, and one that I think may warrant a blogpost of its own.

Obviously, I think culture matters, not only legal equality. I hope to elaborate on this later, but for now: I think the integration of women into public life and non-traditional roles, in a way, has been much easier than the integration of minority groups, because women don't (IMO) have a separate culture. Quite a few white men in positions of power have actively promoted women in the workplace because they have career-oriented daughters they care about. That's not a factor with regard to minorities.

Mythago: do you mean the gap in earnings and high-level jobs? Because I don't think that's the only measure of societal advantage.

In terms of "lifestyle choices," I think women today clearly have more options than men do (i.e., to work part-time or stay home after having children). The flip side of those options is that women can get blamed much more easily for not being "good enough parents," and the option to stay home or cut down on work can become an expectation. But this is where I think it's debatable "who has it worse, men or women," and a lot depends on the individual situation.

mythago said...

In terms of "lifestyle choices," I think women today clearly have more options than men do (i.e., to work part-time or stay home after having children).

This always strikes me as a bit like the argument that women have more freedom than men do because we can wear skirts OR pants. It ignores the fact that one of our 'options' is rather more heavily promoted than the other, and that we do not in fact have the same options as men. For example, "I am going to leave all the childcare to my spouse, and focus on my career" is not viewed the same when a woman does this as a man.

And, of course, one of those options involves economic vulnerability and dependency.

Of course it's true that all men do not have an advantage over all women, or that sexism only harms men or benefits women. I'm referring to the overall picture, though, and I don't see the point in pretending that everybody is benefited and harmed equally. I guess it's a useful fiction if you're trying to persuade men to work against sexism, and fear that they will be defensive and unhelpful if it's suggested they are not equally "oppressed".

Anonymous said...

This always strikes me as a bit like the argument that women have more freedom than men do because we can wear skirts OR pants. It ignores the fact that one of our 'options' is rather more heavily promoted than the other

All I can say is, where I work, the dress code for uniformed personell at least is pants, for both male and female. Among the non-uniformed personell where I worked, and at my last job, the women I saw wearing skirts seemed to be doing so as an expression of their individuality (i.e. one woman was kind of a "Tolkien freak" and really into flowing, fairy-tale type clothing--she also wore a lot of handmade pewter jewelry; another woman enjoyed sewing and would wear outfits that she made at home, including skirts--for added fun, try imagining a man coming into work, being asked where he got that nice pair of slacks, and saying, "Oh, I made these on my sewing machine.") Most women routinely wore pants, including myself and my own immediate boss. So I don't know if that analogy works for me....

mythago said...

for added fun, try imagining a man coming into work, being asked where he got that nice pair of slacks, and saying, "Oh, I made these on my sewing machine

Imagine a woman coming in and saying "Hell, I don't know where these pants came from. My husband bought them for me."

Cathy Young said...

Imagine a woman coming in and saying "Hell, I don't know where these pants came from. My husband bought them for me."

The response would probably be "how nice, he bought you a present."

If it was clear that the husband was buying the woman's clothes on a regular basis, I wouldn't be surprised if some people suspected that she was in an abusive relationship. In fact, some years ago I attended a workshop on abuse in which one of the presenters mentioned, as one likely symptom of an abusive relationship, the man shopping for his wife's clothes.

By the way, I'm a bit confused; are you saying that women are still culturally discouraged from wearing pants?

Lori Heine said...

Although I have long considered myself a feminist, I don't particularly like the word "feminism" in any context. It implies that I must be "for"
women and "against" men -- as if the rights of one sex are somehow automatically at odds with those of the other. The very word itself, in my opinion, is threatening to many men because of this implication.

Let's be honest. When a man calls himself a "masculinist" (if he dares do such a thing), what do most people think? They assume he must be a woman-hating jerk. Why choose a name for ourselves that unnecessarily provokes hostility?

I favor equal rights for every human being -- male or female, Black or White, gay or straight. Why don't we find a new name for women who seek to promote womens' rights -- one that fosters solidarity with men instead of dissent?

Just don't ask me what that wondrous new name might be, because I've been pondering the question for years and still don't have a clue.

mythago said...

The response would probably be "how nice, he bought you a present."

Speaking from experience, it's more along the lines of a confused "Oh..." And I live in California.

Really, what I was getting at is not about pants, homemade or otherwise, but the notion that because women have some entry into the better-paid, prestigious 'man's world', that they are not only equal to men, but have more options--with the implication that women are, really, better off than men. It's true that legally both men and women have equal options, but the culture--and the de facto working world--have a lot of catch-up to do.

If we're going back to the clothes example, I'd note that men in my profession can simply pick a plain gray suit and be done with it. Women have more "choices" as far as clothes go (wow, we can wear colors!), but we also have to worry about hem length, pantyhouse, shoes, blouses, and so on in a way that men don't, and aren't judged by.

Anonymous said...

Mythago, this sounds dangerously close to "oppression through options." I hope that is not what you meant.

Anonymous said...

I was enheartened by your balanced comments on this issue.

When I was in my mid-30's, I had reached the ceiling at my job and wanted to expand my horizons; so, I went to law school at night. I was excited about moving from engineering to law; I felt like the sky was the limit.

New lawyers really need to spend some time with established attorneys as mentors before launching out on their own; and that's what I tried to do. I was slam-dunked and run off from almost every job I ever got -- by the female support staff.

I had been warned in law school about this; but I hadn't worried about it because I have always been a fair-minded, cooperative individual, careful not to tread on toes or invade others' space, and showing deference to everyone. Nevertheless, as the person responsible for the outcome of the cases, I was forced to make decisions, some large but mostly small, about how things were to be done. As I saw it, the job of the support staff was to help me help the client.

Boy, was I wrong.

I no longer practice law. I have been effectively been driven out of the profession because women who I thought were supposed to help me pushed me out.

I have struggled to understand what happened. My wife has suggested that the women resent me because they think I act like I'm supposed to be in charge because I'm the man, when in reality I act like I'm supposed to be in charge because I'm the one responsible for the work being done. It has nothing to do with gender; it's about who's accountable to the client and the profession.

I've tried being self-deprecating, even, giving way to everything until an issue comes up that I must deal with authoritatively; and even that doesn't work. I actually had a paralegal read me the riot act one day because I didn't defer to her redaction of the grammar I used in one of my letters (and she was wrong). To her, this was evidence that I was too big for my britches.

I gave up. I now work at a job far below my qualifications. I was making more in engineering almost 20 years ago than I am making now, and that's in unadjusted dollars. I have read some about the feminization of the American office, and it seems other people have had experiences similar to mine. It seems as if these days, in order to succeed in the office environment, you have to apologize not only for being in charge, but also for being male.

I also read that our young boys are being punished in elementary school for acting like boys.

I will be glad when the pendulum swings back toward the center again.

Thank you for letting me post.

Anonymous said...

"Why...? Don't you need someone to pose as your girlfriend this year?" Then he answered, "No, there is no need for that anymore......"
Before he can continue, he was interrupted, discount nike shoes"Oh yes! Must have found a girlfriend! nike shox r4 You haven't been searching for one for the past years, right?" The man looked up, as if he has struck gold, his face beamed and looked directly at the drunken girl. tn dollarHe replied, "Yes......you are right! I haven't been looking for anyone for the past years."
With that, the man darted across the floor and out the door, cheap nike shoesleaving the lady in much bewilderment. He finally realized that he has already found his dream girl, and she was.....the Vancouver girl all along! The drunken lady has said something that awoken him.
All along he has found his girl.nike tennis shoes That was why he did not bother to look further when he realized she was not coming back. It was not any specific girl he was seeking! cheap nike shoxIt was perfection that he wanted, and yes.....perfection!!
Relationship is something both parties should work on. Realizing that he had let away someone so important in his life, he decided to call her immediately. His whole mind was flooded with fear.free shipping shoes He was afraid that she might have found someone new or no longer had the same feelings anymore..... For once, he felt the fear of losing someone.
As it was Christmas eve, the line was quite hard to get through, especially an overseas call. He tried again and again, never giving up. Finally, he got through......precisely at 1200 midnight. He confessed his love for her and the girl was moved to tears. nike shoes It seemed that she never got over him! Even after so long, she was still waiting for him, never giving up.
He was so excited to meet her and to begin his new chapter of their lives. He decided to fly to Vancouver to join her. It was the happiest time of their lives! nike discount shoes But their happy time was short-lived. Two days before he was supposed to fly to Vancouver,cheap puma shoes he received a call from her father. She had a head-on car collision with a drunken driver. nike shox shoes She passed away after 6 hours in a coma.
The guy was devastated, as it was a complete loss. Why did fate played such cruel games with him? He cursed the heaven for taking her away from him, denying even one last look at her! How cruel he cursed! How he damned the Gods...!!nike free shoes How he hated himself....for taking so long to realize his mistake!! That was in 1996.
The moral of this story is :
Treasure what you have...
Time is too slow for those who wait;
Too swift for those who fear;
Too long for those who grief;
Too short for those who rejoice;
But for those who love...
Time is Eternity.
For all you out there with someone special in your heart, cherish that person, cherish every moment that you spend together that special someone, for in life, anything can happen anytime. buy shoes onlineYou may painfully regret, only to realise that it is too late.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I like your blog, it's, you know, wonderful. I learn a lot from it.
Recently, I am always wanting to buy high quality, low price prince tennis rackets, and I find many places, where sells perfect tennis racket. In order to play the game and search the place where can buy the head tennis racket, and finally, I find thistennis shop. You can buy what you want in this store online.
Would you want to be more attractive? If your answer is "Yes", you can wear best-seller columbia jacket, you really need a pair of white ralph lauren jacket. They can make you become the attactive person.
Would you like wearing cheap polo shirt? Do you want to be a fashion chaser? Follow me and you can chase the most popular white polo shirts. it can help you increase your attraction, you will be the focus wherever you go only if you wear polo clothes.
polo shirt women
polo shirts men's
cheap polo jacket
high quality columbia jacket
claasic north face jacket
perfect spyder jacket
ralph Lauren shirts
polo A&F shirts
polo shirt
north face jackets
polo short sleeves shirt
ralph lauren polo long sleeves shirts
prince accessories
cheap head tennis racquets
wilson tennis racquets
superior babolat tennis racquets
head tennis racquet
babolat racquet
wilson tennis racquets

Adi said...

thanks for sharing this info. greets from Pandeglang. Pandeglang is one of many places in Indonesia are eligible for tourist destination.
Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang Objek Wisata di Pandeglang Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang Pantai Carita Seni Saman Rampak Bedug

Anonymous said...

Online Degree Programs

Anonymous said...

Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the athletic shoes.
cheap puma shoes
discount puma shoes
It has the advantages of durable, skipproof, flexible, elastic, extensive, stable and proper hardness.
nike shox torch
nike tn dollar
cheap nike shox
PU is a kind of macromolecule polyurethane materials which is offten used in the midsole
cheap nike shox shoes
nike shox r4
puma mens shoes
Sometimes, it is also used in the outsole of casual shoes.
PU is durable, strong hardness, upstanding flexbility and more important, it is environmentally
cheap nike max
discount nike shox
cheap puma ferrari shoes
The disadvantage is also outstanding. Strong hydroscopic property, break apart and EVA.
nike mens shoes
nike shox nz
discount nike running shoes
which is usually used in the midsole of the running shoes and casual shoes.
EVA is quite lightweight, elastic, flexible and suitable to a variety of climates.
discount nike shoes
nike shox shoes
cheap nike shoes
PHYLON. Phylon is the product of the EVA after the second processing. Just as the rubber
nike sports shoes
puma running shoes
puma sneakers
The midsole of running shoes, tennis shoes and basketball shoes in the world is made PHYLON.
nike air max tn
puma cat
puma shoes
The upstanding hardness, density, traction and extension make it favorite by the manufacture.
nike running shoes
wholesale nike shoes
nike shoes
Just as a coin has two sides, Phylon is nonrecoverable and easily shrink under high PHYLON.
nike shoes kids
nike women shoes

men's clothing said...

chaussures homme
chaussures homme nike
chaussures homme pas cher
acheter chaussures homme

Anonymous said...

feminist movement is going strong in NY..

http://britesmile-whitening.blogspot.com


http://the-laser-eye-treatment.blogspot.com

http://laser-correction.blogspot.com

http://alcoholic-rehabilitation-info.blogspot.com


http://alcohol-abuse-rehab.blogspot.com

http://help-for-alcoholism.blogspot.com

http://private-jet-charters-web.blogspot.com


http://term-life-quotes-info.blogspot.com

http://motorcycle-injury-lawyer.blogspot.com

http://drug-lawyer-info.blogspot.com


http://eloan-loan.blogspot.com

http://home-equity-lending.blogspot.com

http://mesothelioma-support-group.blogspot.com


http://brown-leather-office-chair.blogspot.com

http://little-tikes-doll-house.blogspot.com

http://bearington-teddy-bears.blogspot.com




http://boyds-bears-ornaments.blogspot.com

http://pore-cleanser-web.blogspot.com

http://complex-acne.blogspot.com


http://acid-reflux-diet-web.blogspot.com

http://beauty-for-nails.blogspot.com

http://cellulite-brush.blogspot.com


http://cellulite-and-liposuction.blogspot.com

http://printed-golf-balls.blogspot.com

http://diaper-cloth.blogspot.com


http://remove-tattoo-fast.blogspot.com

http://skin-microdermabrasion.blogspot.com

http://babor-products.blogspot.com

Larah said...

I try to finish my capstone project about feminism! Your post helps me.

Unknown said...

niche blog game online terbaru, game online, cerita lucu, tante girang, fb

Unknown said...

This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want...HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great....
cerita dewasa foto bugil bokep 3gp gambar bugil cewek bugil cerita dewasa

Unknown said...

nice share thanks a lot :)

download free pc games
affiliate review

jelish said...

Dear friends,Cheap Sale Louboutin online.All shoes elegant shoes is one of masterpiece from Christian Louboutin Evenings. When you buy yourself a pair of Christian Louboutin Pumps shoes you allow yourself to benefit from the vast experience and expertise that this brand has collected over the years.Christian Louboutin Slingbacks shoes is the personification of women,is their direct orgin of racial pride.Christian Louboutin Peep Toe shoes is the personification of women,is their direct orgin of racial pride.Welcome to our Louboutin 2011 stoer.http://www.sale-louboutin-shoes.us

Anonymous said...

Nice principle.,Can you check my link?==>big and tall suits

Anonymous said...

Nice post! Thanks for sharing!
Comprare Reductil

JimHalpert said...

When you have got a possibility to use thebuying essays service, do not doubt, purchase essays and just relax.

nike air max said...

buy best nike air max shoes, Welcome to visit

Anonymous said...

We are dedicated to delivering the most recent and greatest high quality Louboutin Heels along with other artist at Cheap Ugg Uk.With this broad variety of Christian louboutin Heels and the beautiful Moncler Outlet and Moncler Outlet Online at our Moncler Online Shop. now gets the ladies' favorite. New Best Hair Straightener from our finest locks Straightener on the Chi Hair Straightene anything you have to produce Babyliss Hair Straightener that great bohemian style.

Deriz R said...

I gave up. I now work at a job far below my qualifications. I was making more in engineering almost 20 years ago than I am making now, and that's in unadjusted dollars. I have read some about the feminization of the American office, and it seems other people have had experiences similar to mine. It seems as if these days, in order to succeed in the office environment, you have to apologize not only for being in charge, but also for being male.

I also read that our young boys are being punished in elementary school for acting like boys.

I will be glad when the pendulum swings back toward the center again.

Rizkythea | Eval Blog | Celebrity Biography | BoyKB News | Blogger Asyik | Car Collections | Interiorking.com | interioronly.com | Celebrity Diet Rules

Nevermore said...

There are some shoes that undoubtedly call up for no explanation. The Nike air Max 90 is one of those people air max shoes. The past basic performance operating shoe altered the film game back again through its preliminary release, and offered that then has turn out to be among one of the most well-known casual types of all time by method of a mixture of comfort, collaborations and unforgettable colorways.

hbalxb said...

black boots

Chocolate boots

sand boots

Chestnut boots

gray boots

pink boots

grey boots

Ugg Boots For Sale

Sand Ugg Boots

joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jhon said...

nice post love reading it
women leather biker jacket

Unknown said...

Welcome to http://www.mmoggg.de website to buy RS Gold, offer a lot, of course, Diablo 3 Gold or Diablo 3 Gold Kaufen and WoW Gold, to be purchased at any time, at any time shipment, and look forward to your visit!

Unknown said...

Great wordpress blog here.. It’s hard to find quality writing like yours these days. I really appreciate people like you! take care
Small Business Loans

Lara Gargett said...

After reading this blog, I understood how students make mistakes in Assignment. However, the experts of Online Assignment Expert provide unique online assignment help . To students all across Australia. This is ensured by the multi-levels of quality checks that make the assignments error-free. Obviously, the assignments would furnish every guideline of the marking rubric.
As a student, I have availed off their services frequently as I feel their nursing assignment helpexperts are master at whatever they do. I have observed the kind of precision that they display in their work, thereby providing me with an impeccable assignment.

bretl460 said...

A research paper help guide saves time and energy and make you score an A.

crazy 4 watches said...

Our aim is to provide the best quality services at the best price. If you are seeking for, then you are at the right place. We provide first copy watches in Mumbai. We have more than 10+ years of experience in this business. Our customer care services are available 24/7 to assist all your needs. You can get the best quality Longiness Replica watches in India at the best price. Just visit and choose according to your need and budget. 100% secured online payment gateway.