"Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
—Warren Buffett
Remember?
Remember when men went to work and women stayed at home with their abandoned dreams and bottles of Valium and sherry?
Remember when women's hopes and dreams were fulfilled by simply getting married and having kids... and then vicariously through the lofty achievements of their husbands and sons?
Remember when a woman knew to keep quiet and to never talk back to her man?
Remember when a woman fancied herself lucky if her husband didn't beat her too often or too forcefully? Those glorious days when domestic violence was something that happened at home—and everyone truly believed the oft-repeated refrain, "A man's home is his castle"?
A time when divorce, not domestic violence, was the nastiest of offenses?
Back when couples stayed together no matter how much they despised one another, all for "the good of the children"?
But also a time when a man could simply up and leave his family, leaving his wife and children destitute, with no financial support and no legal avenues of address?
Remember back, as late as the early 1960s, when women—like my mom—were asked during admittance interviews for med school whether they planned to have children or not, and, on answering "yes", were told it would be a waste of time and valuable resources to educate a future mother to become a doctor?
In other words, remember the good ol' days? The days when men dominated all walks of life and women knew their place?
Well, the National Post Editorial Board sure does.
A Reactionary Backlash
You want a-holes, I mean real sexist a-holes? Better yet, you want some a-holes going off on a good ol' fashioned reactionary diatribe? Well, look no further than these guys.
In case you missed their editorial a few days ago—Women's Studies is still with us—it was a real doozy. Ostensibly about university Women's Studies programs, it was really all about how feminism has destroyed our once idyllic society.
The piece is a must-read for anyone who wants to know just what sort of world the editors at the National Post envision and idealize. It's a vision for the world that, at least when it comes to relations between the sexes, is not all that dissimilar from that of the Taliban.
Ok, perhaps that's a bit extreme, but so is their rabid anti-feminism.
Sounding not unlike a bunch of good ol' boys down in Alabama or Mississippi venting at how racial integration has destroyed their once harmonious and perfect world, these bigots at the National Post remember a time before women wrecked everything with their unceasing demands for equality.
Now, that said, I don't doubt for a minute that there are at least a couple of women on the National Post Editorial Board, for they never would have published a piece like this if that were not the case. Probably some ultra-right-wing, wealthy snobs who care nothing for regular women and the struggles they have faced—and often still face today—in the real world.
Whoever they are, they sure don't get the irony of writing such a piece. Because, obviously, they'd never have had the career they've had and they certainly wouldn't be sitting on any boards, editorial or otherwise, if it weren't for the feminism they so despise.
Young Non-Feminists
Sadly, many young women today—and not just right-wing ideologues—adamantly and quite ludicrously claim that they're anything but feminists, grossly ignorant that a) feminism simply means a belief in the equality of men and women, and b) their freedom to do anything and everything they want with their lives is something that was won for them through hard-fought struggle by generations of feminists, starting back in the 19th century with the suffragette movement's simple demand for the right to vote.
And regardless of what one may think about the situation here in Canada, America, and the rest of the developed world, the fact remains that the majority of women around the globe continue to live in incredibly oppressive, discriminatory, sexist, and sometimes outright misogynist societies. And I'm not just talking about places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Women's Studies
As for the specific topic of Women's Studies programs, I took a couple of Women's Studies courses (in which I was one of only two or three men in the class) back in the 1980s when I was at the University of Victoria and, truth be told, they were the best courses I took during my four years there.
I thrived at history, political science, sociology, etc., but I always thought it was a bit silly when certain profs tried to pass off what we were learning as "objective truth". There may be such a thing in the world of math and science, but not in the social sciences.
And Women's Studies embraced that reality and openly encouraged the mixing of objective facts with subjective experiences and feelings to come up with something much closer to an honest educational approach.
Simply put, real world experiences are relevant to academic study. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim are all fine and dandy, but nineteenth century theories can only carry one so far. Sometimes it's good to mix in a little personal, real-life experience.
And that—the National Post Editorial Board's ridiculous exaggerations, oversimplifications and nostalgic pining for the days of outright inequality aside—is why I'd say every university student should take at least one Women's Studies class at some point in their academic career—particularly those young women out there who are planning to be doctors and lawyers and engineers, but who claim to want nothing to do with feminism.
Though those pining for the glory days of the nineteenth century, and/or 1990s Afghanistan, should probably take a pass.
How Offensive Was It?
Finally, I should point out that this piece was so offensive that even Anne Marie Owens, the National Post’s managing editor for news, felt compelled to write her own response in February 5's paper.
However, this response by Penni Stewart (president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers) and Katherine Giroux-Bougard (national chairperson for the Canadian Federation of Students) is a much better rebuttal.
Mike Cowie is a freelance writer who writes about politics, music, film, travel, and much more. You can read more of Mike’s views on his Web site.




Comment (61)
Comments
Miguel
Those days are still with us. Thanks for nothing "feminists".
Thank you!
I believe in equality: equal treatment, equal pay, equal rights, equal everything. But feminists don't.
The movement has, for more than 30 years, lobbied for Special treatment in family law (any man knows at least one other man who has been raped by family law), employment law (ask any union or government agency), and any and every other institution that has given the movement a voice.
If they wanted equality, there would be no problem.
I agree with the author of the NP article because I want equality, not special treatment.
1.When parents split up, the primary custody of the child (by default) goes to the mother. I’m not saying the father doesn’t get custody, because they do. They just don’t get it by default. They have to fight for the custodial rights, and usually end up with weekend visits or something similar. Even if they get 50% custody, they are still financially responsible to 100% of the child. They have to pay for the child when they are with them, and have to pay child support for when they are at their mothers. I’m not saying it happens this way every time, but the majority of the time.
2.If the police are called to a domestic disturbance, and both the male and the female admit to hitting the other, the male is placed under arrest. It is then up to the officer to decide if the female will be placed under arrest or let go. On a very VERY rare occasion does the female get arrested without the male getting arrested too. (Remember I said that they BOTH admit to hitting the other)
3.Young women get better insurance rates than young men. In fact, insurance treats men and women differently for nearly every type of policy. Especially medical insurance.
4.Case and Point: I have a friend who recently underwent surgery to have his prostate removed due to a very aggressive cancer. This left him “unable to perform.” With the proper medical prosthetics, he would be able to perform sexually, but his insurance denied coverage for it. He would have to pay for it on his own.
He and I are on the same insurance plan because we both work in the same lab. Today, I received an “important notice” from our insurance in the mail. Apparently there is a “Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998.” With this act, women are covered (under OUR same insurance plan) to receive breast reconstructive surgery and two postoperative breast prostheses. This includes reconstructive surgery to the breast that had the cancer, and reconstructive surgery on the other breast to make it symmetrical in shape and size.
Basically, under our insurance plan, men are not covered when they lose their ability to perform sexually due to cancer, but women are entitled to cosmetic surgery
on their breasts when cancer ruins the shape of them.
There are many more instances in life where women are treated better than men, and yet they still argue that they are treated unfairly in society. Everyone is treated unfairly in society, it what makes society”¦society.
Maybe if men started burning our underclothes and marching up and down the road with picket signs, we’d get preferred treatment in society as well. No, we’d just get ridiculed.
That we should recognize and address destructive or discriminatory habits gets lost in the unholy zeal of that lunatic fringe, and instead of including everyone in some reasoned debate it simply turns people away.
PETA is another example of of a group polarizing society.
What would be an important message in some instances is turned into schlock theater that repulses prospective sympathizers.
The problem that everyone misses is that while women fought for equality, and as evidenced by the comments there many still blame the other gender for societal inequities.
The losers in today's world are families.
When I was a kid, one parent in a two parent family could stay home with the kids, and there was a reasonable chance the family could buy their own home. What many of us thought equality meant was that Dad would be the one to stay home with the kids. Not so. Today, Mom and Dad both work and probably will never be able to buy a family home.
The winner of the battle of the sexes was corporate Canada. While men & women fought one another, Canadian corporations fought for tax reductions, leaving families to pick up the slack.
While many third world nations absolutely need a voice for equality, feminists have taken the easy way out and fought their battles in in countries like Canada, where they are now at a distinct advantage.
Women's Studies are a breeding ground for more jack-booted feminists and we don't need or want them here in a first-world country.
Before I go off on a tangent, I would like to comment on one thing. The National Post article was supposed to have talked about the name change of the programs offered in universities compared to how feminism has ruined people's lives. We should not forget about the main thesis - though the supporting arguments (from readers' comments) are well justified and completely legitimate. Whoever wrote the National Post editorial bashing feminism needs to take a women's studies course themselves before speaking about them.
And the so called response from the National Post doesn't seem like much of a response at all. I read it, but it felt more like she was praising about her own life. Must we not forget that race, class and gender are all connected. Just because her life might be fine and dandy, it doesn't mean those in minority groups or living under poverty are experiencing the so called equality she is.
That's my 2 cents for today. Though I don't know if I've even commented enough to make a justified statement, I just don't want all of us to forget about what the main issue is. Feminism and the main thesis is well interconnected, but the significance of the name change has not been explicitly laid out. How come no one has commented on how great it is for women's studies programs to include gender and sexuality as part of it's program title? Or perhaps, how come no one has argued how wrong it is - and actually spoke about it? Both feminism and women's studies name change are significant - I just didn't want to leave either one of them out!
More like " In other words, remember the good ol' days? The days when white men dominated all walks of life and women and minorities knew their place?"
Probably explains why "passive" Japanese girls are so desirable in Vancouver, until their white husbands realize how "assertive" they are later, lol.
I never took a Women's Studies course (I think you and Mike Wilkins got the last two spots!), but I consider myself pretty evolved. The big problem remaining - as I see it - is the same as in many political arguments: extremism, on both sides. You could argue that extremism was permissable and even necessary to make the gains that women have made - and I would agree. However, in 2010 what we need is dialogue and respect. Entrenched, polarized positions on both sides only take us further away from our goal of ensuring equal rights for all. We have to be vigilant to retain the rights for which generations of women - and reasonable men - have fought. What we must not do is resort to framing this as a "men vs. women" issue - that only serves those who love the fight more than the ostensible goal. We need reframe the debate as "reasonable, compassionate people vs. extremists". I refuse to pick a side in the "men vs. women" debate because I think that paradigm is part of the problem. Just my $.02.
Thanks Mike
No, it's easier to dump on the West with our white man's guilt, than on those who would cut your head off for even considering the crazy notion that a woman as anything more than chattel. Dirty chattel, at that.
Thanks for the reminder, people! Seems ideas are not all that different, really, than the "second wave" revealed.
Lorena Elke
By the way, US was very proud of first women pilots, soldiers etc... in Soviet Union there were squadrons of women pilots and sharp shooters, women doctors during WWII why? because they had to take on man's jobs. There's your equality, no feminism.
Awful long way to spell "quisling."
Bunch of mama's boys, afraid to realize mama lied to them, and if the world is fucked up, guess who raises the kids? We need less power for women, not more---they're the ones who whisper into baby's ear, the world over.
But, as in Eden, guess who blames the "snake" (*snicker*)?
Yeah Mike, I found your ridiculous exaggerations and oversimplifications to be extremely offensive. I think one day soon you're going to regret writing this piece.
No surprise most lunatic whiners (far left and far right) come from this group. It is much worse in the states, but still seen among middle aged members of this demographic in Canada.
- A socially liberal, fiscally moderate straight male in urban Canada
If you article is accurate, as a male of species I am disgusted. I thank my mother for not letting me fall into the pit of bigotry the generations before me embraced. Violence of any sort against women is pure yellow cowardice. If you can rationalize it as something other than that, seek help now. I've seen unions I've been involved with claim "women don't need equal pay, they are just working to kill time while the husband is making the real wage." , this thinking in the age of the single mother is criminal. How can someone act as if they don't owe their life to their mother?
That they have cravenly removed the article is not surprising, authoritarians flee scrutiny like cockroaches flee light.
I do not like feminism, and I do not like historical feminism.
It wasn't the feminists that got women anywhere, it was two wars where whole generations of men were lost and if the women didn't take up the jobs, they'd have starved. The suffragists .were getting places, slowly but surely, then the suffragettes radicalised and turned the public against the idea. War broke out and boom, they're working to get men in the trenches and women nursing. Odd that they weren't working to get women in the trenches and men nursing if they're so "equal"..
Feminism is not the support of a society where men and women are equal, the clue is in the name: FEMINism. It is about women swapping places completely with men. I am an egalitarian when it comes to gender, we have the same worth, but it shows in different ways. Why would I, as a woman, want to be so masculine that that I feel it's acceptable to scratch my crotch in public, fart and hold my partner's head under the covers? And why would I want a partner who couldn't get spiders out of the bath and couldn't hold something of weight that is beyond my strength? We're different, and we need each other.
"Girls Gone Raunch" a thoughtful article in Canada's Macleans magazine confirms that young women today equate female empowerment with sexual depravity. Encouraged to compete with men, and spurred by examples like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, they have adopted a promiscuity more common to single males.
"I was pretty stunned by what I saw in high school students," said Ariel Levy, the author of a study. What she observed was girls everywhere, even at the most progressive schools, doing their best to look the "skankiest," trying to "look as slutty, willing and wanton" as they could. Snapping their thongs and baring their cleavages, these girls had astoundingly gone any sexist male one step better: they were treating themselves and each other like pieces of meat.
When Levy asked one high school student why she was dressed like that and told her that in her own day, "you would have been embarrassed, ostracized to look like that," she looked at me like I was absolutely from Mars and said, 'How did you get the guy? Charm?' "
If anything, admits Levy, women caught up in the "liberating" aspects of raunch "think of men as superior. Over and over again these women are telling me they want to be like a guy. It's really fascinating. It's fetishizing masculinity in the sense that maleness in this equation means smart, funny, capable, brave, sexually adventurous, all of that."
Levy is mystified that feminism which ostensibly aimed to give young women self-respect has resulted in their selling themselves like meat.
She shouldn't be surprised. Feminism was always about rejecting femininity and usurping the masculine role. Femininity is based on women's consecration of her sexuality to a future husband and family. Feminism taught them to behave like men and have sex without love or commitment.
"the National Post Editorial Board's ridiculous exaggerations, oversimplifications and nostalgic pining"
Does everyone realize that the author is guilty of the exact same thing here. It's almost laughable if it wasn't so depressing. Most of the article can be reduced to juvenile name-calling.
"I thrived at history, political science, sociology, etc., but I always thought it was a bit silly when certain profs tried to pass off what we were learning as "objective truth"."
Again, he doesn't realize that feminism itself declares "objective truths"... as if outlining patriachy as a fundimental conditon isn't some sort of objective truth. I think more emphasis on critical thinking, and less ideological reenforcement, needs to be the norm at our universities.
So yeah, I get it... everyone who doesn't bleed progressivism is some kind of evil monster. Care to tell us why? Or is merely name-calling enough?
I guess feminism is absolutely perfect in every idea that was ever attributed to this ideology... so there is ZERO need for any kind of criticism. If every man should be required to take a course in female victimology, then every female should be required to take a course in masculinity. I took one such course in university, and it was extremely refreshing to analyse gender (and specifically masculinity) from a non-feminist perspective... again, Feminism is not representative of some kind of objective truth.
Feminism has had an effect on many institutions, yet, for example, one is a bigot for pointing out that as a result this, males are stuggling at school because competative events and interactive hands-on learning methods have been replaced by more docile and passive ones. Male test scores have plumetted relative to female's and something like 2/3's of new college students in arts are female. Every human deserves be treated equally, yet this idea does not disqualify any sort of criticism.
It's also interesting to note that a lot of the criticism here in the comments is directed at white men. Can't muster the conviction to be critical of other racially / culturally different men? I was under the impression that we live in some sort of multicultural paradise...
Women still have to fight for equal pay for work of equal value. The federal government certainly wasn't going to "give" it to them.
Women's studies and feminism are important or hasn't any one been watching the news. A number of female RCMP officers have charged they were sexually harassed and nothing was done about it. One of the women had been on sick leave for 4 yrs.
Women's sudies and feminism is important or hasn't anyone noticed the "Pickton enquiry". IF it had been 40 or 50 men murdered and not women the police would have been all over the case and it would have been solved years before it was.
Women's studies and feminism are important because if we didn't have them women today would be much worse off than they are. Women's studies should be part of every high school students program. It would help with young women's self esteem, give young people better insite to how our society has changed in the last 40 yrs and the fight women waged to change it.
In 1998 the Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Fed Gov’t underpaid 200,000 federal employees in female-dominated jobs even though the Canadian Labour Congress found that the employment of women in the public sector had risen by 47% between 1976 & 1996, whereas that of men had fallen by 14%. Furthermore, female employees had become the majority and their average earnings were almost double of those in the private sector. This pay equity case cost taxpayers $4-5 billion dollars not to mention the increased rate of pay for future years. Thanks Women’s Studies Programs.
No policy is going to eliminate the wage gap between men and women b/c women who stay home with their kids will lose financially. I would rather like to see better compensation for women who take time off to be with their child during his or her early formative years but I don’t seem to see Women’s lobbyist groups fighting for this with the same tenacity that they conduct witch hunts against men in cases of pornography, prostitution, harassment, and domestic/family law. I also don’t see Feminists (products of Women’s Studies Programs) helping and supporting men in the last 40 yrs to become more involved in helping out in domestic duties so that there isn’t so much burden on women.
Don't you get it yet?
Men are the enemy!
Of course women, being the weaker sex, could never fight a physical war against men, so they've been fighting an incremental war against men, since they instituted alcohol prohibition, which was their first brilliant political move, more or less.
But remember, never, ever suggest that a majority of womens studies teachers in Universities are lesbians who have trouble relating to men. That'll get you crucified.
When the outrage settles they'll just do it again. Repeat cycle until one day we flush the corporate media away