Shelving the feminist debate to advance the cause of equality
By Julie Herman
A few weeks ago at a debate tournament, I remembered why I dislike feminism.
My partner and I were defending a nuclear weapons treaty between the United States and Russia, so I generally expected our opposition to bring up relevant counterpoints. As it turned out, that was not the case.
My happy assumptions were shattered when their speaker stood up and began to rail against the patriarchy of international relations, decrying it for oppressing and dehumanizing women.
Today, seemingly normal discussions become dominated by a feminist agenda for no reason. Of course, women should by no means be treated as inferior to men, and in certain areas of the world they do continue to experience terrible injustices on a daily basis, but this does not mean that all conversations should revolve around this particular issue.
Just as some whites have argued that affirmative action and other reparations programs have resulted in "reverse racism," ill effects befall males as a result of excessively female-centered dialogue.
Many feminist authors and health workers have noted the downward spiral of young girls' self-esteem upon entering puberty. This has sparked efforts by many in society to reach out to teen females.
While the benefit of this outreach to teenage girls is debatable, it utterly neglects facts: in the age bracket from 15 to 24, males are five times more likely to commit suicide than females.
Feminist rhetoric has so co-opted depression as a female-only issue that the majority of society remains unaware of these statistics, making those who suffer most receive the least attention.
Men also experience neglect in the academic arena. As classrooms became gender integrated, an educational theory shift also occurred, causing males to become more and more oppressed.
Where previously an all-boy environment allowed a degree of rowdiness and free expression, the 20th century classroom evolved into a place of quiet, studious focus.
Female psychology is well-suited to the dogma that demands raising one's hand to speak and sitting still for hours on end. Boys, conversely, are often kinesthetic-tactual learners, meaning they learn best through hands-on activity and motion.
The progressive shift of primary education away from this sort of learning due to increased budget constraints and focus on standardized testing targets has placed boys at a great educational disadvantage.
More boys drop out of school than girls, and most universities accept and maintain more female than male students.
Many institutions of higher learning are even resorting to gender-based affirmative action to keep the gender balance marginally close to 50-50.
However, all of this goes unnoticed due to the loud voices of the feminists. These activists continue to cry out that girls' math scores are slightly lower than those of boys, and tear attention away from other prevalent male issues.
Men and women can never achieve full equality in every aspect of society. Human nature often pushes groups toward bigotry and individuals toward their own gain.
As a result, the statuses of men and women will always fluctuate relative to one another. Stressing the plight of one group over another only serves to widen the natural gap.
The real problem that should be addressed by modern gender dialogue is that the metaphorical pie of resources is only so large. For all the steady gains that women make in education and the workplace, a man loses out.
Primary focus must not be on the fact that women linger behind men in some facets of life, nor should it center chiefly on the disadvantages boys face. If both genders are to find an equal place in society, neither can be shown preference.
If feminists truly believe in equality, and not in avenging themselves on the male oppressor, they can only achieve their goals by baking a bigger pie.
Julie Herman is a freshman undeclared major.