Orlando's picture

    Living in a Post-Whatever World

    I've always been a bit puzzled by our rush to declare something over. I suppose it shouldn't be so surprising since, as a nation, we suffer from a mad case of ADD, always enthusiastically moving on to the next new craze, be it hula hoops, cabbage patch dolls, energy drinks, or those cute boy bands made up of brothers with floppy hair.

    Yet at the same time that half of us are rushing headlong into the future, the other half of us have to be dragged kicking and screaming. Could be fear of change. Could be love of drama. But whatever it is, there are those of us who prefer to look back on the mythic past as bygone days of a better era, glossing right over inconvenient truths like racism and sexism.

    In somewhat of a paradox, it is often times these lovers of all things static that proudly declare we have moved past the need for a organized plan to advance the rights of any particular group of Americans.

    We are in a post-feminist era, declare the women are so liberated that they no longer have need for advocacy of women's rights. And while it is true that I'm in no rush to get together with a bunch of my girlfriends while we examine our vaginas with hand mirrors, I have this nagging feeling that there still might be a little consciousness left to be raised. For example, women are still not paid the same wage for doing the same work as men. Imagine, in this post-feminist world, that I have to work almost 25% harder to support myself than does a man in a similar position. But it's okay, because I can dress provocatively and sleep with whomever I choose. Yay for the second wave.

    Similarly, I have heard a few pundits declare that we're now living in the post-racial age. That is such a joke, I don't know where to begin. Our inner cities are devastated by the lack of equality in educational and economic opportunities, and a good portion of a generation of black men is serving time in prison for crimes borne of making a living in the only avenues available to them. Further, while it is clearly unacceptable to the majority of the population, crosses are still burned into front yards and racial slurs are still uttered. Yes, we just elected our first African-American president. It's a proud moment and one that will hopefully change how we look at one another going forward. But let's put off the congratulatory, "we're so enlightened", back pats for now.

    And when three states have just voted to strip rights away from gays and lesbians, I certainly hope no one is ready to declare the post-sexual-orientation era is upon us. A few mornings ago,

    I was listening to the news report about another suicide bombing in Baghdad. A female suicide bomber had blown herself up and taken a couple dozen people with her. Horrific. But why call her a "female suicide bomber?" Or more to the point, why don't we ever hear about "male suicide bombers?" Why is there never a story about John Smith, the white male doctor instead of Dr. John Smith (white-maleness implied)?

    When we haven't achieved something so simple as not having a conversational default to white and male absent other qualifiers, we aren't post anything. Yet.

    Comments

    Welcome to the dag, O. Thanks for the sober reminder as well as the breath of fresh estrogen wafting though the blog.

    PS For those who like their racism and violence against women wrapped neatly in a single tragedy: Woman slain as she tried to leave KKK rite

    PPS I fixed your paragraph breaks. Sometimes the software makes you do a little editing after pasting.


    Thanks, G. I'm glad to be here. Hopefully, I can tart up the place a little bit.


    That won't be necessary. We already have deadman.


    Ah, G, with the orange, wide-lapeled shirt, you have to take a low shot at me, do you?? I may not be as hairy as you, G, but I am all scary, manly man.

    Though actually, Tartman was actually my second name choice.


    By the way, welcome to Dag, orlando! good first post. But do you mind if for a second I play the role of the obstinate troll (a male term, right?) I saw mentioned in one of your comments in my piece?

    what would a post-sexist world even mean? unlike with races, where despite some controversial claims to the contrary the only proven difference has to do with pigmentation, man and woman are not the same creature. There are some things women can do better and some things men can. There are some physical things you can do that we can't do at all (have a baby) and vice versa (sprint as fast).

    the fact that journalists feel the need to add female to the term suicide bomber is a good thing, not a failure of society, and says a lot about the gentler nature of your sex. there's a reason why few (if any) serial killers have been female.

    I know I'm mostly being semantic - I'm not suggesting that women should get less pay for equal work, and you're not suggesting that there aren't any differences between men and women, right? but i just had to start a little something to prove you're just one of the boys Laughing...

     


    I actual don't think the term "post", when applied as a modifier, is particularly useful in most cases. Take postmodern, for example. I know it's a specific term used to describe an art movement, but when it's used to describe the world we live in, it's sort of dumb, isn't it? I mean, modern isn't static. It evolves as we evolve. So, post-sexist or post-feminist doesn't have much meaning to me, especially when it refers to the evolution of thought on the subject of women's advocacy and women's rights.

    I find the gender and ethicnicity qualifiers really irritating, not for what they describe, but for what they leave out. Why should the assumption be that we're talking about a white man, unless we throw in a "female" or a "Latino". Those are important descriptive words. But my point is that when those words are not there, we all assume the speaker is referring to a white man--or a white woman even--in most cases, "female suicide bomber notwithstanding.

    I'd like to see journalists and pundits and all of us start to use white and male when we're describing anyone who is actually white and/or male, and not just reserve the description for perps.


    I think there's a difference between a post-feminist world and a post-sexism world.  Gender inequality is certainly out there, though from some vantage points it's difficult to find.  (I'm lucky enough to have been oblivious to it my life, but I'm aware -- intellectually, anyway -- that would never had been possible without sacrifices from previous generations.)  So I think that classic feminism is becoming irrelevant in some segments of our society, but it's still very important in others.  On the shoulders of giants, as they say.

    And we certainly haven't moved beyond racism.  Egads.  Though, again, I wonder if we're moving toward a post-racial world more rapidly than toward a post-racism world.


    The way I see it, feminism is needed as long as sexism exists. Feminism is simply the theory that women and men are equal. Sexism is counter to that theory. Without feminism, the advancement of women stops.

    Paige referred to "classic feminisim," which was an interesting choice of words. Do you think the nature of feminism has changed or needs to change? Or the flip side, has the nature of sexism (or racism) changed?


    I'd say yes on both counts. Classic feminism was all about demanding a voice and demanding to be taken seriously as equals. Women now have that voice, but the sexism has taken a more underground approach now. It's no longer acceptable to fire pregnant women or push women into clerical jobs. But we do still make less on the dollar and we are still underrepresented in a lot of fields. And the first question we're asked when we go car shopping is almost invariably, "What color do you want?"


    Latest Comments