I'm Not a Very Good "Feminist"

The title of this post probably doesn't really come as a shock to anyone. After all, I'm the one who is extremely possessive of her kitchen (as in, when I'm cooking and other people try to help, I banish them to the living room). I told a friend of mine the other day that it was my fault if he was upset, since he had been in my apartment for twenty minutes and I hadn't made him a sandwich yet. I'm relatively traditional when it comes to my relationships, in that I think the man should be the one doing the majority of the chasing, and every once in a while I like being taken out and spoiled a bit. I find a lot of the posts on traditionally "female" sites to be unnecessarily self-righteous and bitchy. I subscribe to Jezebel's RSS feed, but a pretty solid percentage of the stories I read get me riled up.

Because of this, I've had kind of a difficult time with women, historically. Many that I've met while at NYU are exactly the types I can't stand: constantly preaching about the need for "equality" and "women's empowerment" while still expecting benefits that have been given to women historically but in today's modern society are completely irrelevant and, if they really thought about it, are somewhat offensive by their own frame of reference. An example: I knew a girl who constantly talked about the need for women's rights to progress beyond what they already had. She felt that the promotion of a man to a position for which a woman was also a candidate was horrible, even if the man was better-qualified for the position. When the topic turned from policy to relationships, though, this girl expected a man to be very old-fashioned: hold car doors, walk on the street side of the sidewalk, always pay on dates, ask her father for her hand in marriage.

This girl didn't seem to realize the hypocrisy of her statements. And it's these kind of women that frustrate me beyond belief. They claim to want "equality", but then also want to be treated like little pink damsels in distress.

Now, this is not to say that I don't appreciate everything that feminism has done for me. It's because of women like Lucretia Mott (of whom I'm a descendent) that I have the right to vote. I can wear whatever I want. I can join the army. I can run for public office. I can be as educated as I want. And I'm super happy about all of those things. I know they weren't easy to come by, and I think it's awesome that I'm growing up in a time where I can do pretty much anything.

But I think our society has reached a point where we've gone too far. I feel much the same about affirmative action. If all of these "minority" (and I use the term nonspecifically) groups really want equality, than shouldn't they be subject to the same standards and requirements as the majority? I find admittance and hiring quotas ridiculous: accept/hire the best-qualified people, without consideration of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.

I remember writing an essay about this subject in my senior year of high school, as part of my college Spanish final (yes, the whole thing was in Spanish, and yes, it was awesome). It sparked a discussion among our class, and we ended up being pretty evenly split. I remember that someone said that once I had "grown up a little" I would feel differently.

Well, it's been over two years since then, and to be honest, my opinion hasn't changed. Maybe it's the moderate part of my typically left-leaning policy positions, but I think that if you really want equality for everyone, then everyone should be treated, well, equally.

A Little Political

I follow the news pretty religiously (I enjoy being informed, and honestly, what else is there to do at work?) and I've been very interested to watch the development of opinions about Elena Kagan, who Obama has nominated to fill Justice John Paul Stevens' Supreme Court seat.

I tend to agree on most of the points made by Eric Alterman in this article on The Daily Beast- one of my favorite news sources, and one of the few I read every day. Obama has picked someone who he knows will most likely be confirmed, who he knows he can trust (since they've known each other for quite a long time), and who he knows will bring very little scandal to the process. The fact that the biggest story concerning her is speculation on her sexual orientation is something that Obama was banking on. Personally, I feel that her behavior regarding military recruiters on Harvard's campus, as well as her previous criticism of the Supreme Court confirmation process, is something that should be given far more media attention than her sexuality. Another recent issue to come to light was that she urged President Clinton in 1997 to support a ban on late-term abortions. But while many extreme leftist liberals are seeing this as a telling sign of her stance on abortion, the memo she sent to Clinton was more about the politics of the decision than the ethics.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece on Salon.com a few days ago, completely bashing Kagan in every way he could imagine (I don't often read Salon; I find it to be, comparatively, poorly written and badly sourced). Greenwald states that he "will keep an open mind", but he very obviously has made a definite decision about Kagan already.

As someone who would define herself as a moderate liberal (not a liberal moderate, and there is definitely a difference) I think Kagan is a good choice. I wish she had served as a judge before, since I feel that prior judicial experience is important for someone being considered for the highest court in the land. But from what I've read of her opinions and the way in which she sticks to the letter of the law, I think Kagan is a solid appointee.

Watch the State of the Union address on my blog!

thx Hulu.