Women are Not Spotted Owls
Published October 18, 2004
Well, ok, some may be. I am not. Most of the men out there have probably met very few women who are NOT in favor of the ERA. Well, you have now.
I am not a member of minority who needs "special protection" as though I was a second class citizen and needed special laws. The 14th amendment covers me just fine. Equal protection under the law.
Had I been an activist back when the ERA was first proposed, with women burning their bras and protesting in the streets I don't know how I would feel. But I know how I feel now. I am every bit the first class citizen that anyone else is, covered by the Constitution, and I need no special protection.
There is a huge difference in the interaction between men and women in a social setting, and men and women as citizens of a country. One is courtesy, one covers my rights under the 14th amendment.
In the boardroom, I want men in my face, expecting me to get right back in theirs with my positions and my brains. I'm not going to dress like a man to be taken seriously, I'm not going to do anything but be myself and use my assets to their best advantage, just as men do, (ok, and if that means wearing a man's shirt, short skirt, and playing Shania in the background, I might even do that) but if that works, it is because I used my brains to my advantage.
In social settings, I WANT doors opened for me. I want my chair held out for me. I want my date to turn to me first to order. Ideally, I want him to know already what I would order (although I don't take that chance anymore since I was presented with a red snapper with a face on it, ordered by a date while I was in the ladies room).
Social graces are courtesies between men and women. They make men special because they do them, and make women feel special because they are done for them. They make no one weak. Only courteous. They make a man a man, and a woman a woman. And if you don't want that as a woman, fine....but I like that social pedestal that tells a man that I am the softer, the sexier, and the one who needs to be courted, and socially protected. Believe me, I court right back. Just in different ways...that is SOCIAL, not constitutional.
- Women are Not Spotted Owls
- Published: October 18, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Claire Robinson
- Claire Robinson's BC Writer page
- Claire Robinson's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Thank you, Andy....i suspect that it will be one of the few comments of solidarity I will get....but I've never run from a good fight...I'm pleased we don't have to fight over this one. :)
claire
One more thing..I'm really glad women are not spotted owls...I mean, spooted owls are kind of interesting to look at, but...well you know what I mean!!!
another great piece Claire, you rule!
On a side note, I once heard a woman hoot just before she pounced upon and ate a rodent - I just present the facts - YOU decide
As long as women make about two-thirds of the wages men do for the same or similar jobs, live in poverty when they are divorced with children, and one is beaten or raped every few minutes in the United States, the claim that gender equality has arrived lacks substance. Yelling 'I'm not a victim!' may sound good, but, in reality, the woman yelling it is probably getting the short end of the stick in numerous ways.
Women, like all people make choices. If they choose divorce with the attendant children without making sure that the support of those chidren is not in place by the fathers...then bad on them!
I am NOT a victim. I make every penny of what a man makes for my job, and anywone who doesn't either isn't qualified, or doesn't demand it.
I am completely sympathetic to women who are in a catch 22. They need to get out of it. But the way to get out of it is is not through legislation or laws. The way to get out of it is to be BETTER educated, and more creative than the men in the same position.
The short end of the stick is a choice. I don't accept it, and dont expect any of my fellow women to accept it either!
Claire
Eric...you have no idea what even your presence on a thread does. I appreciate your comments. That rodent thing, tho, is pretty scary..LOL...
Claire
Claire, I'm not sure why you feel that you need to assume victimhood in order to think it a good thing that your equal rights as a citizen of the United States will never be denied to you on the basis of gender because they are explicitly protected by the Constitution. I don't feel like a second-class citizen these days myself, but I support the ERA. I also don't want to be on that pedestal that you like standing on. It has historically been used to maintain a male-dominated status quo, and makes it really hard for me to see eye-to-eye with the men in this world, which is really the only way I want to be looking at them. As you point out, the social niceties you mention in your essay have more to do with courtship than they do with women's rights in society, and I very much doubt that the passage of the ERA would prevent a gentleman from holding the door for you if he were so inclined. And the fact that laws can be abused doesn't render law a bad thing in and of itself.
I make every penny of what a man makes for my job, and anywone who doesn't either isn't qualified, or doesn't demand it.
Naiveté, thy name is woman!
Distorted angel...you don't have to like the pedestal or even my opinion...but I am gratifed that you read and commented...I think the law diminishes me... you don't...thats fine...and while we have opiions...
Claire
bhw...how can you make a considered opinion without KNOWING whether or not I make a "man's" salary? I'll bet every penny I have in the bank that I do. I am qualified to do so, and I wouldn't take a job where I didn't. Whip out the W-2's...
Claire
Diminished angel...where did I claim "the victim"?? My whole point is that I am not. I make what I make on merit, I do what I do based on my qualifications. Anyone that relies on "gender" to get there...is the victim...I'm not. Are you?
Claire
I was posting blog entries when I read this entry, and did not have time for a longer comment. Now, I want to address a couple issues.
~ Actions in the workplace and by the government involving women do get closer scrutiny under the law. The scrutiny is a tier down from that given to issues involving race, strict scrutiny. Sex discrimination is subject to "intermediate scrutiny," requiring that the discrimination be "substantially related" to an "important" government objective. The effect has been to end policies that penalize being female in various ways.
~ Women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action. The wages of white women have risen significantly since the passage of the Title VII. Job opportunites previously closed, such as law and medicine, have become increasingly open to women. The trades still lag behind, but have made some progress, too.
Though conservative women often seem not to realize it, they are beneficiaries of these changes in the law. They think of racial minorities when they hear the phrase, but, in reality, the greater impact has been on opportunities for women.
Claire, I'm not questioning what you do or don't earn. I really couldn't care less one way or the other,.
Your naiveté comes from the fact that you think women who don't earn as much as men are to blame for their own wage discrimination, either by being unqualified or by being negligent somehow. Or that these women can just up and demand more money and get it. Or that if they don't get it, that they can simply leave and find another job that will pay them more.
Your anecdotal evidence aside, the fact remains that, on average, women still earn less for doing the same work men do. Since MEN do most of the hiring in this country, how is that the fault of the female employees?
Besides, around me, MEN and WOMEN feel lucky to have the jobs they do, and they would be laughed out of the office if they "demanded" more pay.
Distorted angel...you don't have to like the pedestal or even my opinion...but I am gratifed that you read and commented...I think the law diminishes me... you don't...thats fine...and while we have opiions...
Well, I was under the impression that discussion and debate was at least partially the point, so I offered an opinion counter to your own.
..where did I claim "the victim"?? My whole point is that I am not. I make what I make on merit, I do what I do based on my qualifications. Anyone that relies on "gender" to get there...is the victim...I'm not. Are you?
No, Claire, I'm not. And my whole point, which you seem to have missed, is that one doesn't need to be a victim, or feel like a victim, in order to support the ERA. I, too, am well-qualified to do my job and well-paid for it. That doesn't blind me to the fact that gender inequity does sometimes exist in the workplace.
I don't deride anyone for supporting a cause they believe in. I just don't happen to be one of them on this issue. I think laws which just mimic other laws are more government interference in our business, make for more litigiousness down the line, and are generally, superfluous.
Debate IS what this is all about...and I appreciate all points of view. I think that debate and coming together to discuss the things we face in our country and the world are the ONLY thing that will save us from total anarchy.
Who was it who said "Never doubt that a few committed people can change the world...do you know why?" ...."Because it is the only thing that ever has."....
I just love that.
Claire
bhw...there ARE still inequities in pay for women, but it is party due to the women themselves who have made choices in their personal lives to devote time and effort to having and raising families. I don't say those inequities are right...at ALL.
Women make an average of 79 cents to the dollar that a man makes. That is a jump from 57 cents to the dollar that a man made in the 1970's. It still isn't equitable. All I'm saying is that we do not need a superfluous additional law to correct it. We already have a constitutional amendment which covers the issues of equity.
If someone supports the ERA, I will clap and cheer for them. Just as I hope they would for me when I am out letting bunnies out of cages at cosmetics company who does chemical testing on rabbits. Whatever people's causes are, I am proud that they have them. I have mine, everyone who is responsible has some. I just feel that as a citizen of this country, I don't need another law to "protect me". I feel sufficiently protected by the 14th amendment.
:)
Claire
Claire, I am reading your pieces every night, and I fear the GOP may be too. Careful, your appreciation of art, music, understanding of the second amendment, and equal pay for work just might get that Republican card taken away from you. If you aren't fighting for tax breaks for multi-national conglomerates... this administration is not for you. Hell, read Eisenhower's son's endorsement of the good Senator.
your values are dead on, but your allegiance is off. Regardless, I enjoy your posts. They are the ones in the political group that somehow don't end up with 'fuck you!' 'No, fuck you!'. You may have noticed that in other threads. Somehow, you keep us civill
Lono
Lono...LOL...you could be right. Now here is the crux of my political stances.
I AM out there fighting for tax breaks for the corporate world. I have reasons, but it would start a whole big thing...the bottom line is...when they do well, we all do well in better technology, better medicine (which no one is going to be able to afford, but thats another issue), better quality of life for all of us...
I have also become a warmonger (kidding), but I believe in a strong, well equipped military, and a commander-in-chief who isn't afraid to kick the shit out of anyone who looks cross-eyed at us and would hurt my country, oppress others, or disregard the human rights of its citizens. (After, of course, diplomatic efforts proved or would prove fruitless).
If the liberals would just jump the fence on those two things, (and get off the entitlement program bandwagon), I'd be driving the bus :)
Claire
rodents are a fine source of protein and practical women are aware of this
EO, and as a practical woman, I admit that you are correct. I have learned they come in many shapes, sizes and disguises...:)
The ones with little legs and long tails, I will admire from afar...:)
claire
I wonder who Claire is caling a rat???
I agree that Claire does not fit neatly into the 'conservative' box. I suspect we are not noticing that after our recent experience with Kathy, the vitrolic Roman Catholic. It was as if she could not leave a cliche about liberal/conservative unsaid.
Thank you Mac...now that my site is actually linked to my name...perhaps people will realize that the whole of me does not fit into a slot....
Also, I am probably confusing the site with only typing "claire" on my comments...I don't want to usurp credit from another "Claire" who has made some posts but I don't want to step on her toes...and so I show up as both Claire and Claire Robinson...I'll have to figure out a way to fix that...LOL...
Thank you for the compliment...I don't fit neatly into a box.
Claire
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/21104)
Claire, where have you been all my life??? I don't agree with you on all your issues, but I couldn't find a word in this one to disagree with!!!