I am a Feminist

I'm a guy and I'm a feminist.  What do I mean by a feminist?  I mean that women should be treated in the same way as men to the extent that is possible while taking into account physical differences.  Women shouldn't have yearly prostate exams, for example.  I think that women should have equal opportunity to men, but no more.

Now, what does equal opportunity mean?  It means equal access to the things that lead to opportunity.  Examples are an equal education, the right to speak freely, own things, start companies, equality in hiring, etc..

In the USA, and also in the UK, women on average get paid a substantially lower wage.  This applies even for the same positions, women get paid less to do the same work.  There is an extreme difference in the number of women in high executive positions, the "Glass Ceiling."  Women are employed to a very large extent in the lower-prestige, lower paid service industry jobs.  In the USA women make up 17% of Congress.  In the UK women make up 22% of Parliament.

This seems a pretty clear case of unequal opportunity, doesn't it?  Surely women would like to get paid the same amount of money as men.  Surely women would like to have prestigious positions?  Surely women would like to run large companies?  Surely women would like to have a substantial say in the actions of their government?

However, those are measurements of results, not opportunity.  I am not a believer that society should be organized so that everyone is equal, with equal money, an equal job, equal respect.  Some people are smarter, more competent, harder working, more ambitious.  For me, it isn't necessarily an evil that different groups live in different conditions.  It is an evil if people are denied the opportunity, but a stupid, incompetent, lazy person shouldn't get paid much money.

So, let's take a look at the opportunity.  In the USA the Equal Rights Amendment was passed in 1964, forbidding discrimination in hiring practices towards women.  Women have had the right to vote since 1919, and there have been women members of Congress since 1917.  The distribution of girls by income is the same as boys, there's no systematic discrimination as to what comes out of the womb by income level.  Girls are required to go to the same schools as boys, and there are actually more women college graduates than men.  There is no legal, financial, or educational difference of potential opportunity between boys and girls.  Boys and girls have the same family incomes, in the same geographical areas, go to the same schools, and it is illegal to discriminate against them.  Legally there is an absolute equality between the sexes.

So, why the differences in income, careers, and leadership positions?  It is common to think that there is an "old boys" network that keeps women down.  That men hire men, pay men more, think men are better at jobs, and men have all the jobs with power.  I think there's a large amount of truth to that, but it simply cannot be the whole story. 

Women make up more than half of the population in a democracy.  This means that if women all wanted things to be a certain way they could simply make it happen by voting.  If women wanted a female dominated government they could simply nominate women for every government position and vote en masse for that candidate.  In a representative democracy the results would be a government almost entirely made up of women.  If women wanted universal health care, six months off for new mothers with pay etc. they could get it if they got together and voted on it.

Let us address the men hiring men etc. position.  Now, this is illegal.  Any women in such a situation could sue the company for money.    I am sure there is no shortage of women with employment law degrees who could successfully sue corporations if they consistently didn't hire women with equivalent qualifications.  If this is pervasive throughout the country why have there not been so many cases of legal discrimination that this problem is simply stamped out? This would apply at least as much to women at a higher level as to those at a lower level within a company.

There is simply not a law that forbids women from starting businesses.  I see no reason why women should not be as successful at starting businesses as men.  There are as many women as men.  If women don't discriminate based on sex then in at least half of the companies started up there would be no such discrimination.  In a free market, the company that won't hire half of the competent people in the field will be crushed by the greater competence of the company that will hire anyone.  The simple solution to supposed widespread workplace discrimination is for women to start their own businesses and be in charge.

The Equal Rights Amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been in effect for 48 years.  Most of the people who had management positions at the time are dead.  It's been two generations since it was passed.  Women have the same legal rights as men and the same educational opportunities.  If they face discrimination there are two options available, a legal one or an entrepreneurial one.  As far as I can see there has been plenty of scope, time and opportunity for women to have equal positions in the workplace and government.  Given equal opportunity why is there such a stark difference between the sexes?

In my opinion it comes down to this; men and women are different.  Please understand that these are generalities.  Men and women are the product of thousands of years of evolution, and have developed different roles, and different physical and psychological attributes to fill those roles.  To put it simply, men evolved to leave a tribe and go hunt things, or fight other tribes.  Women evolved to produce and care for children, and to gather nourishment.  As a result men and women have different skills, and even different cultures within the sexes.

Men are bigger, faster, stronger.  They have better spacial relations (the are better at telling how far something is away etc.).  Men have a somewhat higher threshold for pain.  Men are  more violent, more competitive.  The basic way men think is to see a situation as a problem, find a solution, and try to solve it. 

Women, are smaller and slower, but have very similar levels of endurance.  Women are far better at noticing what is in an environment (go into a room for thirty seconds, come out and women can identify more things that were in the room than men).  Women are better at repetitive, detail oriented tasks.  Women are less violent, more collaborative.  The basic way women think is to see an environment, pass on the information to others, discuss the situation, find a consensus. 

These are well established psychological facts, and are cross-cultural.  If these differences are based on culture, upbringing, attitudes, then cultures around the world are the same in these respects.

In hunting or fighting what psychological characteristics do you need?  Risk-taking, aggression, hierarchical organization (when trying to kill a deer you can't sit around and discuss what you should do next and reach a consensus).  In gathering and child rearing what do you need?  Social cohesion, communication, environmental awareness, risk avoidance, methods of de-escalating violence.

Transfer this to politics and you get men being more willing to take the risk to become elected, more assertive in telling people what should be done, more aggressive when trying to defeat the enemy.  Transfer this to the workplace and you get men being more likely to demand raises, be more willing to quit a job, be more likely to do everything possible to obtain more power, care less about the business as a whole, be more willing to sue.  Human beings are also animal enough to naturally think that big males are supposed to be leaders.  In a study of all the presidential candidates of the USA, taking into account everything from age to psychological style, the best predictor of the winner was who was the tallest.  In such circumstances what we see is exactly what would be predicted.

Now, I don't want to get across the impression that women are inferior to men, because I simply don't believe it.  After all, I am a male housekeeper, who had a career in social work, whose best qualities are in writing and speaking, who is empathic and whose greatest skill is in the understanding and helping of people.  In many respects I am a stereotypical women, and I am most proud of those characteristics.  I think there is nothing wrong with being community oriented,  consensus building, being aware of our surroundings, de-escalating violence.  I think it much more worthy to be a teacher than a CEO.  If I had to choose a sex to run the world there would be no hesitation, women for certain.

I am a feminist.  I believe that women should have the same access to opportunity as men.  However, if women want the same outcomes as men they will have to act in the same manner as men.  As a women, if you think you deserve more pay or to be treated better you need to ask for it and be willing to leave if you don't get it.  If you wish to advance in a company you need to step on those beneath you, aggressively compete, care more for yourself than the company.  If you wish there were more opportunities for women you need to start things that produce those opportunities.

I am also a masculist.  I believe that men should have the same access to opportunity as women.  If men want the same outcomes as women they will need to sacrifice money for community and family.  They will need to seek consensus, pay attention to the feelings of those around them, put the group before the individual.

One of my axioms is that you can either complain and do something about it or not complain at all.  Complaining about something about which you do nothing is for me worse than useless, it's harmful to you and those who have to listen to you.  Which is very male of me.