I used to be a feminist. When I graduated high school ten years ago, I was right on the feminism bandwagon. As a fresh-faced, doe-eyed eighteen-year-old, I felt invincible. The world was at my fingertips, regardless of my gender, and nothing or no one was going to stop me.
But as I got older, I noticed not all women felt the same. Whenever I gleefully insisted I was going to be rich one day, my slightly older girlfriends rolled their eyes, and muttered cynically about some sort of ‘pay gap’. I was party to endless conversations about how misogynistic a male co-worker was because he criticised one woman’s typing skills, and how terrible it was that men used sexist terminology every single day. These venting-fests always ended with the phrase, “See? This is why we need feminism. Women need to be empowered!”
However, the modern-feminist message I took wasn’t one of empowerment. By my mid-twenties, my youthful audacity was replaced by a burning frustration that the world was allegedly dominated by straight white men, whose sole purpose was to make life as difficult as possible for women. In order to succeed, or even to survive, I had to be tough and aggressive – just like a man.
But here’s the thing; women aren’t men. Regardless of the feminist rally against gender norms, there are some characteristics men and woman have that you can put down to biology. These variants, however small, inform many of the differences in male and female behaviour, as well as the life choices they make. And somewhere deep inside me, I knew it. I knew the ideology I was buying into was, on some level, fake.
I became increasingly uncomfortable with feminist articles popping up in my Facebook news feed, admonishing men for seemingly trivial things like ‘manspreading’. I couldn’t take seriously the notion that a gentleman sitting with his legs spread slightly too wide was a deliberate misogynistic act of male oppression, or some form of gross inequality. Especially as women in Saudi Arabia aren’t allowed to drive, can only exit the house if they have a male escort, and can be arrested and whipped for not wearing a hijab. And when feminists started inventing even more words to agonise over, like ‘mansplaining’, ‘manterrupting’, and ‘male privilege’, I knew something was up.
But the feminist billing I was most skeptical of was the legendary ‘gender pay gap’. In Australia, that equates to about 84 cents to every dollar a man makes. Surely, I reasoned with myself, in a developed country, employers simply wouldn’t be allowed to pay their female employees sixteen cents less? That would mean nobody would ever hire men, because women would be far cheaper to employ. So I did what any self-respecting millennial would do; Googled it. And I’m embarrassed I didn’t do it sooner.
Turns out, from what I have researched I think the pay gap is a total myth. Women are not getting short-changed for the same work as men (which is fantastic news). The confusion lies in how it’s usually presented. Rather than a comparison of wages, calculating the pay gap is just a lump sum average of what women and men earn in total, across all professions and all work types. It doesn’t take into account the fact women leave the workforce to have babies. Or that many end up working part-time, and tend to boycott time-consuming but lucrative professions such as law, engineering, and politics. Why? So they have more time for their children, which they have a biological drive to produce.
If you ignore these variables, of course it’s going to look like women make 84 cents to the dollar. However, that’s not because women are being paid less than men for the same work; they’re just working less hours, and in lower-paid vocations. The only (very small) discrepancy is that men have more testosterone, which makes them generally more assertive when negotiating a raise.
Given this, and the many incentives to help women overcome hurdles at work (such as affirmative action, and support programs for women in notoriously male-dominated fields like STEM), it doesn’t seem like there is a looming patriarchal plan to subjugate women. There is more awareness of gender inequality in the workforce than ever before, and a genuine push, by men, to combat it.
So, my mind officially blown by the busting of probably the biggest feminist narrative of them all, I wondered why, if the playing field is level, were women still choosing to step away from work and pop out kiddies? Feminists by and large insist it’s because traditional gender roles still have us in a stranglehold. While this obviously has some credence, I found that overall, most women choose to be mothers simply because it makes them happy. And that is a wonderful thing.
An Open Universities study in England revealed mothers were happier with their lives than anyone, including women without children. Most tellingly, when deciding on the most important person in their lives, almost 60 percent placed their children at number one, ahead of their male partner. Not only that, a 2016 Gallup poll reveals 54 percent of American working mothers would prefer to stay at home. Aside from anything else, it’s no coincidence all the happiest people I know are stay-at-home mums, and all the unhappiest are mothers who work full time. There is no patriarchal conspiracy to keep women in the home; women make that choice on their own terms.
As such, the feminist narrative of Women vs. Patriarchy is largely a work of fiction. It does not reflect the life experiences of most women, a fact I have been coming to terms with for the past two years. This is why only nine percent of British women, and eighteen percent of Americans, adopt the label of ‘feminist’. The reason is not that women are capitulating to men; it’s because modern feminism has sadly lost its way. Rather than equality, the central message now seems to be retribution. It’s too extreme, too concerned with man-hating, and too out of touch.
Look, nobody is denying misogyny exists. However, every negative thing that happens to you is not necessarily its by-product. The minute you start believing you are inhibited by a mysterious, invisible force called ‘The Patriarchy’ is the minute you surrender control.
You’re tougher than that. You’re not a victim. You don’t need to be a feminist to find empowerment. Trust me, after dropping the label, I’m more empowered than I’ve ever been.
Top Comments
Pollyanna. The pay gap is real. Women are really offered smaller starting salaries and fewer increases for doing the exact same work. And don't get me started on the victim-blaming attitude to negotiation. Patriarchy sees women as "bitches" when they're assertive, and "not up to the job" when they're not.
As for manspreading and mansplaining...honey I'm 20 years older than you and an acknowledged expert in my field... and yes it does matter if some man who knows shit-all talks over me. because then ignorance is what gets listened to. And yes it matters when men take up way more than their fair share of public space. Nobody claimed it was a deliberate conspiracy - that's just silly and a straw-man. They're being insensitive and thoughtless - because Patriarchy encourages men to grow up without learning to think of others' feelings or to be considerate. "Boys will be boys" - one of the most destructive phrases on the planet.
If a man spoke to you calling you 'honey' and talking down to you the way you are doing in your comment you would cry patriarchy till the sky fell in, yet you are behaving no better. You have no right to be condescending. You are entitled to your opinion but there's no need to belittle the writer, with whom many on this thread agree.
Honey, really?
Very obvious you have 20 years on the writer.
I have more of an issue with women who seem to believe they own the walkways and aisles in the shopping centre than manspreading on public transport.
1. If I made the sort of silly remarks the writer's made, and someone called me out on them, it wouldn't be Patriarchy. It'd be me being silly and someone calling me out.
2. Yeah fair go, "honey" probably wasn't appropriate but when a man calls a woman pet names, it is different, because of the social structural power imbalances between men and women. Those ones the writer doesn't think exist.
3. So what if lots of people on this thread agree? Lots of people voted for Trump, doesn't make it a good idea. I'm sure an article like this will being out all the fangirls for Patriarchy.
Fact is, when the writer says feminists claim manspreading is a deliberate conspiracy, that's a straw-man and yes, it sounds silly becuase it's such a ridiculous misrepresentation of the feminist viewpoint.
When she says that at the tender age of 28 she personally "blew the myth" of the gender pay gap, she exposes her naivety, and makes herself sound ridiculous to those of us who're older and/or more experienced. Google "Dunning-Kruger". There's plenty of credible research supporting the existence and reasons behind the pay gap.
"Very obvious you have 20 years on the writer".
So you're ageist - nice. One other manifestation of misogyny is the idea that women my age are no longer relevant because we're no longer pleasing to the male gaze. As though women had no other value apart form as decoration.
And yes I can imagine you'd have an issue with women who believe they're entitled to take up space in public. I'm not interested in that opinion either. For many people, any space women take up (except where they're performing as decoration) is too much - and any time they open their mouths, they're talking too much.
You misogynists and anti-feminists are boring me.
Very well said