Feminism, Affirmative Action,
And Other Bunk
Margaret Wright - February 23, 2004

Don't ever call me a feminist. I am a woman, but most of all I am a person, and in my eyes, all people should be seen as equal. Living on a college campus I am continually confronted with the issues of racism and sexism, witnessing protests, reading various essays on the subject, attending classes that focus on this theme - and I'm sick to death of some of the outrageous things I've seen. I have not seen a continuing problem of racism and sexism in America, but rather the growing problem of reverse discrimination.

Recently the cause of feminists has been constantly brought to my attention, especially as I read selected essays from Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde in my philosophy class. I understand that it is an important goal to achieve equality between men and women, but in all honesty, I do not feel I am at a disadvantage. Perhaps I would feel differently if I was living 20 years ago when many of the pieces were written, but as it stands I have never encountered any obstacles put up on account of my being a woman. I do not doubt that these problems persist elsewhere, but misogyny is not the huge social disease it is described to be in some feminist literature. It is no longer an overwhelming national problem.

The main trouble I see is Lorde's damning invective against the male sex. We should be able to admit that men and women are different, and this should not be seen as bad. There are inherent differences between the sexes; it is fair to say that men are generally stronger, and women are naturally more nurturing. This does not set one sex above another. We should celebrate our differences and learn from one another. Men and women should complement one another, each using their strong points for a greater benefit. I don't buy into the whole idea that we are operating under a hopelessly patriarchal society. But if this is what women feel they must fight against, it is ironic that many feminists tend to become more like men. They want power, and so they act more masculine, which only serves to acquiesce to the statement that men are more powerful. Why can we not be powerful as women? We should be able to retain our femininity while being seen as strong.

In all fairness, men are stereotyped as well. Women complain that they are forced into certain gender roles, but what of men? Men are expected to be tough. They are encouraged to bottle up their emotions, and it would be shameful to cry. Lorde insists that poetry is an art form that can only be mastered by women, as men lack the emotional capacity to summon up the powerful feelings characteristic of poetry. She defines the poetry of the "white fathers" as "sterile word play" (Lorde, 37). It is unjust and highly stereotypical to deny men feelings. Men tread on dangerous ground, as chivalry is now a double-edged sword: if a man holds a door open for a woman he is insulting her since she is capable of getting the door herself, but if he neglects to, he is a rude misogynist. We are caught up in reverse sexism.

When reading militant feminist writing, one gets the impression that they don't merely want to be equal, they want to crush men and reverse power. In some ways it even works to my advantage to be a woman, since it can be used as a trump card when things don't go my way; I can say, "You're not hiring me because I'm a woman," and visions of lawsuits will dance in the employer's head. The problem with feminism is that it further ingrains the differences between men and women, highlighting them and stressing the inequalities so that they will never go away. Equality is a noble goal, but society will never be able to stop seeing women as inferior if the idea is continually shoved into their face. Being hostile in return is no way to effect change; it further exacerbates the problem and eliminates sympathy for the cause. It is unfair to generalize men, as most men view women as equals and the sex is not universally against women. We need to stop putting one group against another. My intention is not to generalize all feminists as irrational man-haters, but to voice my disapproval of those who erect impenetrable boundaries between groups of people. Clearly we need to fight for toleration and equality, but in doing so we cannot simply reverse the tide of discrimination and criticism. To do so would be counter-productive.

Another frustrating problem is reverse prejudice and racism, which Lorde's essay reeks of as well. She preaches the necessity of difference and her wish that a bridge could be erected between them, and yet defines hatred as the "fury of those who do not share our goals" (Lorde, 129) whereas her own complaints are termed anger. This is a biased definition. Anyone who does not share her goals is guilty of hatred, whose "object is death and destruction" (Lorde, 129). She is laying the blame on everyone else, and is displaying very clear "us and them" thinking. She can criticize whites freely, but that should be seen as racism. There is no dispute that all races should be equal, but the way to achieve that is not by aiming discrimination in the other direction. It doesn't seem fair that Chris Rock can rail against whites with no problem, but if a white comedian were to do the same in reverse, he would be burned at the stake with a sign that screamed "RACIST" blazing on his forehead. I don't think anyone should put down another race and make them the butt of their jokes.

Affirmative Action is another controversial point. The whole concept is unfair; it codifies difference. If a minority wishes to be equal, they should be treated equally and given the same opportunities as everyone else. Affirmative Action is not sameness. It is not equality. It is preferment. An example of the double standard is the denial of tenure of an African American professor on my campus. Protestors broke out their signs, boycotted the history department, and flung racism charges at the University. It became a diversity issue. If the professor had been white, no one would have raised an eyebrow, accepting that her teaching skills did not meet the required criteria during a standard tenure review. Not everything is a race issue, and when do we decide that the situation has changed enough for Affirmative Action and these accusations to end? It seems as if these groups aren't so much looking for equality, but for a shift in power. The goal should not be to turn the table; it should be to sit across from one another peacefully and on equal ground.

People will always be different from one another and we should not immediately see this as negative or try to entrench these differences by labeling them. We value individuality and uniqueness, and it should be encouraged. This sparks creativity and allows people to learn and grow from interacting with one another. These lines should be crossed freely. At the very least, we should be tolerant of one another. This same principle should be applied to the issue of homosexuality and heterosexuality. An individual's sexual preference does not harm others. Sexual orientation should not completely define us. These labels get in the way. The public should not interfere with people's happiness as long as no one is being injured. One group should not feel superior to another and deny rights to those different from them.

My idealistic vision is that people could stop defining themselves as part of diametrically opposed groups, and that people could see one another as fellow human beings rather than immediately categorize one another based on their differences. I don't like labels and categories. I don't want to be forced to see people as Male, Female, Black, White, Gay, Straight. We are first and foremost people who all deserve respect and acceptance equally. I don't expect the world to change overnight, or possibly ever. I'm sure discrimination will always be a problem as long as people insist on putting each other into categories. Until we start seeing people as people, biases will always exist. I'm not against the fight for equality; I'm against reverse discrimination. We need feminism, civil rights activists, and instigators of change of all kinds, but in their pure forms which call for equality, not a shift in superiority or a reversal of power. We should be able to create change without putting down those different from us or reversing the direction of discrimination; to do so would be to sink to the low level of the oppressors and exemplify exactly what we are intending to oppose.