Why Feminism Today Matters

This post is a response to Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil by Satoshi Kanazawa and Why Anti-Feminism is Illogical, Unnecessary, Evil, and Incredibly Unsexy by Gina Barreca

Kanazawa suggests that feminists believe that men and women are “identical” and “are” or “should” be treated as such. First and foremost, I don’t think any woman in her right mind who has experienced childbirth, menstruation, or menopause would argue that men and women are “identical.” I don’t and will never know what an erection physiologically feels like because I do not have a penis. I do believe most feminists like myself would like to be treated the same as men. Kanazawa also notes that feminists believe that women have always had it worse than men, which he seemly refutes when he compares power to shoes, but what he doesn’t realize or acknowledge is that women, like many other minorities, have been worse off because the opportunity for development, self-exploration, and emancipation have been denied to them. Today’s current society caters so much towards men and the penis that we have found the cure for erectal dysfunction years before we’ve developed a vaccine for female specific diseases like cervical cancer. I’m sorry Kanazawa, but dying of cervical cancer seems slightly more important than making sure grandpa can still get it up.

Kanazawa also suggests that men and boys are more likely to suffer physically and psychologically than women and girls. I contend that there might be a relationship between boys conditioning including being told, “boys don’t cry” and that they are “girly” if they complain too much. Research has shown that when emotions are not dealt with and are therefore bottled up, physiological problems arise. Because girls are not necessarily afraid of appearing “girly” since it would be like denying biological fact, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, they don’t suffer from the psychological and physiological problems that plague men, which in turn makes them die younger than women.

Kanazawa also notes that men need power in order to obtain women and that women don’t necessarily “need” power because men have it, which is utter bologna. This argument is making the “Compulsory Heterosexuality” assumption that heterosexuality is mandatory and preferred to homosexuality.

Kanazawa also notes that less women are happy when given the opportunity to acquire power. Now, are women less “fulfilled” because of the power they’ve acquired? Probably not. For example, research has shown that martial happiness declines when couples have children and this doesn’t rebound until children are out of the nest. Does this mean that married couples need to stop having children if they want to be happy? Not necessarily. Married couples who have children, like women who have acquired power, might be more fulfilled because of their accomplishments and still might be less happy than couples without children and women without power. Again, does this mean that women should stop seeking positions of power because of they will be less happy than if they don’t? Definitely not.

Lastly, it appears to this researcher that Kanazawa prescribes to the same dogma of John Gray author of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Both seem to reinforce the idea that men and women are inherently and completely different, when in fact this is false. Kanazawa’s argument that men and women are inherently different is greatly flawed. I would personally contend that women and men are relatively different because of biological reasons, but they are perhaps more similar than dissimilar. Men and women have been raised in the same environments, exposed to similar stimuli, and have similar desires and beliefs. Society, including one’s parents, indirectly and even directly at times constructs what it means to be a man, which suggests the need for masculine characteristics, and what it means to be a woman, which suggests the need for feminine characteristics. Over the past forty years, many of the systematic and embedded means of reproducing the male/female and masculine/feminine binaries have been and are currently being deconstructed. For example, even though women still bear much of the family/house burden, things are slowly changing. Today, more men are comfortable staying home and taking care of the kids because their wives have become the breadwinners in the family than ever before.

I am in no way suggesting that feminism today is unnecessary. Although change is happening, women are still underrepresented in positions of power in the United States and the world, women are still paid less than men for comparable work, women are indirectly and directly punished for having children, and many still believe that feminism is a man hating dogma. Besides, feminism needs to survive, if for no other reason than to save women from eating disorders, plastic surgery, and submitting to sexist ideals.

Unfortunately, this is not what is conveyed in Dr. Barreca’s rebuttal of Kanazawa’s post. Instead, she relies upon anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which is valid and important, yet it provides no hard evidence regarding the need for feminism today. She suggests that if women had power there would be no war and no slave camps among other things, but I contend that there is no way to know that if women had power that they would end war or slave camps. Female constituents, for example, could vote male politicians who support war and slave camps out of these positions. Overall, Dr. Barreca’s rebuttal could’ve benefited greatly from hard evidence rather than anecdotal evidence.

Last, but certainly not least, I recommend that Kanazawa read John Stuart Mill’s On The Subjection of Women (1869). Even though this text is over a hundred years old, women today are still dealing with some of the same issues Mill discusses. Women need the same opportunities and rights of man because a democratic society should seek to utilize fifty one percent of its population rather than believe they don’t exist.