The Shotgun Blog
« Celebrate International Women's Day #1 | Main | Celebrate International Women's Day #3 »
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Silencing women's voices
No, it's not what you think.
Whenever I hear talk of women's voices being "silenced," it invariably comes from the left. It's not enough that there are plenty of Women's Studies courses all across North America. And it's not enough that there are special centres and drop-in places everywhere where men are not allowed (very few "men's only" places exist and, when they do, they are one lawsuit away from being opened to women).
But don't get me wrong. I don't mind. Women's only places are just fine as far as I'm concerned. To be sure, I don't want to pay for them--but I don't want to pay for anything apart from the police, the law courts, national defense, and (on those exceedingly rare less radical days) basic infrastructure, that I didn't expressly enter into a contract about.
What galls me is the silencing of conservative and libertarian women.
True story: I once told a female professor of mine at Queen's that women had a profound intellectual influence on me. I told her about Harriet Taylor, Isabel Paterson, Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, Wendy McElroy and others. Especially Ayn Rand, I told her. Her response? Those women don't really count as women. Why? Because they're busy pushing for "male" philosophies and "male" preferences--like capitalism, negative liberty, and competition. In order to count as fully female, you have to push feminist care ethics and the virtues associated with caring for infants and the household and the community.
Alison Jaggar explained the need for feminist ethics through her criticism of standard, western moral systems. Part of her critique was that traditional ethics, "overvalues culturally masculine traits like independence, autonomy, separation, mind, reason, culture, transcendence, war, and death, and undervalues culturally feminine traits like interdependence, community, connection, body, emotion, nature, immanence, peace, and life." In addition, "it favors culturally masculine ways of moral reasoning that emphasize rules, universality, and impartiality over culturally feminine ways of moral reasoning that emphasize relationships, particularity, and partiality."
You see, women care and men compete. Men like rules, women like the flexibility of acting in accordance with making everyone feel better (rules are supposed to apply independently of how anyone might feel--that's what makes them rules and not just suggestions). And so on. Since Ayn Rand, for instance, falls squarely in the deontological, natural rights tradition, and--egad!--supported capitalism as the only moral economic system, she sort of falls out of consideration as a representative of women. She represents a distinctly male approach to the ethical life.
Is Rand covered in Women's Studies programs? I doubt it. Apparently, she doesn't count as a woman. And neither do you, reader of the fairer sex, if you think that free markets and capitalism are anything other than elaborate systems of rules devised to keep women oppressed, in the kitchen, and raising children.
Wait. I'm confused--are women in the kitchen and raising children because they are suffering under "false consciousness" brought on by oppressive capitalist machinery, or are they there because it's, uhm, a distinctly feminine sort of task that is--how do I put this--natural? It looks to me like some feminists (of the distinctly left-wing variety) are talking out of both sides of their mouth here: On the one hand, women are raising toddlers and infants because capitalism forces them into those social roles; and on the other hand, they are raising the munchkins because it naturally flows out of their distinctly feminine nature as caring, emotional, and community-oriented people.
Never mind. Better not spend too much time untwirling that Gordian knot. Instead, let's do what I'm guessing Women's Studies departments don't: Highlight some pro-liberty, pro-free market, pro-awesome groups and individuals who happen to have two X chromosomes:
The Independent Women's Forum is a fine source of conservative and sometimes libertarian news, information, and commentary. A little more libertarian is Ifeminists.com, also a great daily read for everyone (the "I" stands for "individualist.") You can always check out the conservative women's network blog roll. Or ProWomanProLife, Shotgun blogger Andrea Mrozek's project.
And, to make you smarter, read the following:
The Ayn Rand Lexicon, full version, now available online. The whole thing. Rand was influenced by Canadian-American journalist Isabel Paterson who is sometimes called the "earliest progenitor of libertarianism as we know it today." Her most trenchant book is "God of the Machine." Paterson was born on Manitoulin Island in Ontario, but soon moved out west to a cattle ranch in Alberta. Then read up on Rose Wilder Lane. This triumvirate of liberty is featured on the Cato Institute's "Three Women who launched a movement" site.
(Of course, there's plenty more where that came from. So hold on to your hats for an update in the next two or three hours. Or provide your own ladies of liberty in the comments for our readers).
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 8, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e550c7ca798833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Silencing women's voices:
Comments
Very interesting post! I wonder what that professor would think of me: an Objectivist--so pro-capitalism, of course--and yet, a mother whose primary occupation these days is caring for and home educating her young children?
Would my very existence make this professor's head spin off? :o)
Posted by: Rational Jenn | 2008-03-08 6:03:09 PM
You can read the full text of God of the Machine here: http://www.mises.org/books/godofmachine.pdf
And Rose Wilder Lane books, here: http://mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=684
Posted by: Julian Fondren | 2008-03-08 7:24:46 PM
The 90s called. They want their article back.
Posted by: Paul -V- | 2008-03-08 7:29:53 PM
"Is Rand covered in Women's Studies programs? I doubt it."
I think the anthology "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" has helped to introduce Rand to some Women's Studies programs. It’s a balanced scholarly book ideally suited to a serious study of Rand’s contribution to feminism.
BTW, Rand hated the concept of feminism because she thought it was incompatible with individualism.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-08 8:45:26 PM
It's unfortunate that anyone would regard Ayn Rand's thought as gender-biased, since Rand, more than any other thinker I'm aware of, insisted on universally *human* values and rejected the notion of society as tug of a war between special interest groups, be they economic or gender-based. Her politics of laissez-faire protects members of *any* group from having the exploitative plans of others forced upon them because it would _outlaw_ such force, and I'm amazed when it’s not welcomed with open arms by such groups. In my experience this is due in part to a lack of first-hand knowledge of her ideas.
Posted by: Jeff Montgomery | 2008-03-08 9:17:13 PM
Rand was critical of feminism. She was a man-worshiper and proudly so. In that sense, she was a real woman. However, the values touted by feminism are essentially anti-values; values based on a different creature than man. Rand's values started with man's life as the standard. By that she meant men and women. In fact, early feminists were much more honest and bemoaned child-rearing and "feminine" virtues. The old Marxist saw is that everything is about class. The feminist saw is that everything is about gender. Marx and feminism were both wrong on that point.
Posted by: Roberto Diego | 2008-03-09 6:29:03 AM
I'm surprised that this is news.
Growing up, I soon realized that it was best to remain silent about my true goals in life, which were to marry and have children. That was not an acceptable answer to "What do you want to be when you grow up?"
I have lived with the astounding fact that a mother of seven is not regarded as having a 'legitimate' woman's voice.
The gender identity 'woman' must have been redefined as 'a woman is a person who is represented by women's rights spokepersons' while I was busy raising my children, for why else would my voice, which is that of a Mom and Grandmother, be considered somehow 'not feminine'?
Many 'rights activists' have no authority to speak for their constituency. They are self appointed and their continued importance requires an absence of alternate views.
This means that their true goal is to have power transferred to them.
Rather than be bound by the rule of law, with all its hard fought protections, we are coming to be ruled by appointed commissionaires.
These 'rights' activists are robbing us of all of our rights, and are introducing a shadowy rule of privilege.
Posted by: Trudy Whittaker | 2008-03-09 8:13:44 AM
Thanks for the great post! College courses in feminism could only be improved by adding those women intellectuals to their reading list. Feminists will do that when hell freezes over *and* pigs fly, however. Basic feminist ideology rejects any such need for fair consideration of all sides. Like everything else, teaching is merely a power game -- and the feminists are determined to seize power to further their own agenda.
.
In my opinion, the only hope is to abolish women's studies departments entirely. They should not exist. Women's studies is not a genuine field of study like history or literature. So in practice, they're just bastions of leftist misinformation and indoctrination.
.
Signed,
A Philosophy Graduate Student with Too Much Personal Experience with Academic Feminists
.
Posted by: Philosophy Graduate Student | 2008-03-09 10:04:21 AM
One more thought...when I was in college, a fellow Objectivist Club member and I attended a meeting of the college Democratic Socialists. After the meeting, one of the leaders of the DS came up to me, to try to get me to join his group.
When I mentioned that I was part of the Objectivist Club, that I was just at their meeting as a visitor, his remark was "But how can you be an Objectivist? You're a woman!"
To which I replied, "Ayn Rand was a woman!"
He had nothing to say to me. Just shook his head and walked away. I still think it's funny. :o)
Posted by: Rational Jenn | 2008-03-09 10:22:31 AM
Ayn Rand should in fact be considered a champion by feminists; after all, Rand's novels has perhaps the strongest and proudest portrayal of women in powerful and heroic roles. The female characters of her novels are not merely the "love interest" of the male protagonists, but are crucial movers of the plot in their own right.
Characters like Dagny Taggart, Dominique Francon, and Kira Argounova are presented as fiercely independent women who often wield great influential and sexual power over the fate of the male characters in the story.
And all of this was written by Rand even before the feminist movement actually took off!
But I suspect feminists are not really interested in upholding the esteem of the female gender. They seem more preoccupied with being *against* man and against the institutions of reason and capitalism, which are morally independent of either gender.
Posted by: Jerry | 2008-03-09 1:19:41 PM
I've never gotten how private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) oppresses women. I doubt that a woman would be relieved to have her small business nationalized.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-03-09 7:14:27 PM
Nice post, but perhaps a couple of clarifications are in order.
It's a mistake to characterise Ayn Rand's ethics as deontological, which would put her in the same camp as Kant, the champion of unchosen duties. Rand's ethics is _teleological_, an alternative to the false dichotomy of deontologism vs. consequentialism. For details see Tara Smith's excellent work _Moral rights and political freedom_.
Secondly it's a mistake to characterise Rand as libertarian, a label that she herself repudiated.
Posted by: IndividualRights | 2008-03-09 7:46:14 PM
IndividualRights, I respect your position, and see some credibility to it, but I must insist on both labels to characterize Rand's position (although I don't insist as much when it comes to the deontology vs. teleology, so I'll leave that alone). Her views are deontological as well as libertarian, in spite of her protests against the latter, and in spite of Tara's undoubtedly excellent work with respect to the former.
A "libertarian" is a broad label used to characterize anyone who adheres to principles of small government, regardless of their particular metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, or other reasons. This does not mean (as some Objectivists have mistakenly characterized this) that libertarians believe "anything goes." All it means is that, as a concept, libertarianism picks out the general political position that government should be extremely small.
Thus consequentialists (like Milton Friedman), contractarians (like Jan Narveson), utilitarians (like John Stuart Mill), Kantians, and Objectivists (like Rand and Peikoff) count as libertarians provided they judge the proper size and scope of government to be severely limited (we can get into details, if you like, but I think it is unnecessary for the moment).
"Libertarian" is a concept that does the same sort of work that "Christian" is supposed to. The latter doesn't tell you much about what metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical position a particular Christian takes, just that they believe Jesus Christ to have been the son of God, and a saviour. Further conceptual clarification can be had if we specify the particular kind of Christian someone might be--Baptist, or Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness, or Roman Catholic, and so on.
But, as a concept, "libertarian" denotes a commitment to capitalism, to individual liberty, and a restricted role for the state (and maybe a few other things). Since Rand advocated these things, she counts as a "libertarian."
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-03-10 1:08:11 AM
Is anyone here old enough to have read Taylor Caldwell novels? Taylor Caldwell was an American author but she wrote about many other countries. One of her best novels was about an Athenian courtesan named Aspasia who became the second wife of Pericles. In this Historical novel, the author explores the avenues open to women in Ancient Athens. Taylor Caldwell recognizes the real power of beauty and youth verses the impotent arrogance of maturity and intelligence. She stresses the emptiness of both 'power' portals of life (including possession of wealth) if there is an absence of love for man and God.
I have read all of Taylor Caldwell's novels at least twice and have never been bored, I find something new in each reread. "Growing up Tough' should be read by all people who have children.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-03-10 2:18:27 AM
Nice article. I'm always astonished when people suggest that I am somehow shaming or bashing my sex by being an Objectivist. Unfortunately, collectivist notions such as feminism are hard to combat -- because clearly, if you're against feminism, you hate women!
Posted by: Aubrey | 2008-03-10 4:20:44 PM
Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She claimed to be against racism / sexism (types of collectivism), yet she was openly chauvinist and type-casted women by believing women shouldn't be Presidents. Nice job judging on individual basis' there!
Posted by: Sarah | 2008-03-10 6:17:39 PM
Is Sarah a bigot?
Posted by: dewp | 2008-03-10 6:43:20 PM
Bigoted for pointing out a bigotry? Makes no sense.
Posted by: Sarah | 2008-03-11 1:37:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.