ok, this is my first post in here so be gentle - was watching the west wing last night and Ainsley was talking about the ERA...

[OracleInaCoracle]

and I was shocked to agree with her. I consider myself a sort of soft feminist. I am not active (hence the softiness) but I consider myself the equal of everyone I meet. Male, or Female. I was lucky enough to work in an industry where both sexes are paid equally and my decision to stop working FT after having ds was based on ill health rather than anything else.

for any non-WW fans this is the exchange when talking to Sam about the equal rights amendment:
Sam Seaborn: [speaking about the Equal Rights Amendment] How can you have an objection to something that says...
Ainsley Hayes: Because it's humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man, I am mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white, men. The same Article 14 that protects you, protects me, and I went to law school just to make sure

I suppose I'm confused about equality. We all know that DV is most commonly the case of male violence against the woman. But female/male violence is just as bad, merely less common.

women should obviously have equal right to men, but likewise, men should have equal rights to women. I want to be educated, and possibly have a good owd fashioned debate.

Hmm. I love the West Wing, but I think her rhetoric is brilliant whereas her politics are crap.

Yes, women should always have been equal to men. But we know we're not. IMO, pretending that was what the founding fathers had in mind is incredibly naive, and she knows that.

She's also missing the point that she is a very privileged (white, educated, fictionally created by Aaron Sorkin) woman, so has a lot of advantage.

She gets a load of crap for being female and attractive that men really don't get, on that show, and I think she is presented as quite a conflicted character.

Jericho, thats the issue I found with it. its as if she assumes that everyone thinks the same way as her (something I am guilty of - and its caused some cracking rows with my misogynistic brother) its as if she prescribes to the "act like, and it will be so" school of thought.

I just found it really interesting that as a rampant leftie I agreed with her in this case. even if it was coming from an idealised place.

Stewie, thank you. again, thats what I was conflicted about. we all know that we have a long way to go and in many parts of the world women are treated as second class citizens.

as I said, I have been very lucky to work in an industry that recognizes men and women equally, and Im surprised at how ill-educated I am when it comes to feminism. I remember arguing with an ex about the fact that as a youngster I spoiled my ballot. he was horrified that I didnt take the chance to vote when so many women fought to give me it, and my answer was that they fought for my choice

Yeah, I think that's it, that she thinks if she acts 'equal' it will happen for everyone and not everyone gets to be her, of course.

I notice more and more people saying feminism (or any kind of action by/for a marginalized group) is 'patronizing' and I think it's a knee-jerk response to being brought face to face with the idea we're not equal yet. People want to deny that so badly, instead of recognizing that we are being patronized -and marginalized - by the structure of society, they transfer it onto the person who's drawing attention to that structure.

I'm not explaining very well but someone else probably will come along and say it better.

People want to deny that so badly, instead of recognizing that we are being patronized -and marginalized - by the structure of society, they transfer it onto the person who's drawing attention to that structure.

do you think that as a society we want to pretend it isnt happening because we dont want it to change for financial (after all, it would be cheaper to keep women on a lower wage, and no man will take a pay cut) or social reasons, or do you think we are embarrassed that as a country that likes to tell the less affluent societies where they are going wrong/what they should do we are still getting it so badly wrong?

Yes, I think we want to pretend it isn't happening. I think it's partly financial, and partly people become comfortable with the structures as they are, and resist the effort to change them.

If I can bury my head in the same and convince myself (for example) that if only I work really hard, I too can be a hot-shot lawyer and everyone will treat me with respect, maybe I can pretend that this is a possibility for every woman.

I think the more successful a person is (and therefore the more clout that person has to change things), the more that person is invested in keeping things the same. Becuase of course if you're successful, you want to say that it's your hard work and skill that got you there, right? You don't want to say that maybe if things were different, you'd not ahve been able to do it?

I think that is where Ainsley is coming from, that she's worked so hard, so she has a vested interest in saying that any woman could do what she's done, and that all women have always been equal.

It's the same argument people put forward saying why don't we have more female MPs/judges/surgeons - they'll say, but if one woman has done it, and the others haven't, it must be because they didn't try hard enough.

I think you're spot-on we're embarrassed by it.

its funny you say that, she commented that women "choose" to have children, its all about the choice.

and I got a bit cross about that one.

Yeah, that one really annoys me. I do like the way that WW doesn't consistently show it as a 'woman's choice', like when Andie is pregnant and she suggests she won't tell people Toby is the father, he is really insistent that he is and he wants to be known as the father. And they are very anti Donna's nasty ex-boyfriend who treated her as a financial support through medical school, which I think is maybe a similar dynamic to saying women 'choose' to be home with the kids.

I think that Sorkin quite often gives Republicans what looks like really good rhetoric and lets them make really stirring speeches, but he always pushes it a little bit into parody so you can never quite sympathize. That's my view of that speech anyhow.

Sorry, I keep coming back to WW rather than feminist debate ... I love that show ...

me too.

I think a lot of people are worried that by giving women the same rights as men, it will somehow devalue the male contribution to society.

Another WW fan here, too

I think Ainsley is an interesting character. She's used to illustrate the problem of gender-based harassment in the workplace and difficulties when women are assertive. She has to reprimand a couple of guys - they leave a bouquet of dead flowers on her desk with a card saying "bitch". She's upset and wants to just try and forget the incident, but Sam stomps straight up to the guys concerned and sacks them on the spot.

I've just started a thread about shows that positively challenge certain gender stereotypes and I think WW may well be a candidate. CJ is a great female character and I love Amy, too. And the First Lady....

lissie, as we've discussed in other threads, it seems to be the case that when women are associated with things, those things become "devalued" in the eyes of the patriarchy. So I think you could be onto something there.

I'll be following this with interest, I watched this episode with the kids tonight and, even though I know why I disagree with her, I did a really clumsy job of explaining it.

Imaculada, I loved the first episode she was in, when the presenter patronised her, and advised her not to "over-reach" then she stomps all over sam. although, she does take advantage of the preconceptions associated with her appearance and her personality.

wrt the devaluing of jobs etc, one thing Ive never "got" is the fact that so few primary school teachers are men, but so few women are heads.

Oooh, yes! 'Did ah over-reach?'

Genius.

I think Nancy McNally is an excellent character too.

If you check out the thread about parenting boys being a feminist minefield, we talk about the teaching profession there, lissie. It is indeed an interesting issue.

Teaching young children has for a long time been seen as a largely female occupation, which tends to make it less appealing for males (lower status, lower pay).
Males who do go into female-dominated professions are often shunted up to management positions much more quickly than many of their female colleagues - it's called something like the "conveyor belt effect". Could be to do with elevating their status within the profession more quickly and the possibility that many school governors are inclined to regard them as better "natural leaders" than females .

Which is a shame, as much for the male teachers as for the female teachers passed over for promotion. Many male teachers find they get promoted away from the very thing that attracted them into teaching in the first place - direct, hands-on interaction with their students.

oooh, will look at that thread. its an interesting issue. my brother is such a chauvinist, and I find his attitudes really quite upsetting, to the point that I dont enjoy spending time with him. But I also know that its ignorance and fear.