Letters to the Editor
-
Time for Less Simplicity
Unfortunately, Rebecca Traister's article in response to David Brooks communicates very much the kind of simplicity of perspective that she seems to be seeking overcome. So too do some of the early responses.
To suggest, which she clearly does, that David Brooks position can only be interpreted as the words as a scared or intimidated male does not add any clarity to the situation. This itself contains a simplistic stereotype and an old gender role: Should a man find fault in a feminist idea or seek to challenge it, he must be threatened by it (the implications of how men should be is quite clear here).
The fact is, a clearly picture of gender relations is coming out of the bag which breaks this simplicity. For example, Warren Farrell's book--Why Men Earn More--breaks down very clearly the different choices that most men and women make when it comes to work and their lifestyle (and much of which supports choice-feminism and Brook's more basic points). And yes, a major determining factor is women's choices to take up more interpersonally fulfilling careers and turn down more working hours. But are there many women who chose the opposite. Yes, absolutely that too. The answer comes when we can hold this dialectical position and not get so emotional reactive when we here the other: that as groups men and women are different--and there is a huge amount of empirical evidence to support this, it isn't a fiction--but that doesn't proscribe the behavior of any one individual. Women can (and do) do whatever they want. Choice feminism is therefore where it is at.