A couple weeks ago, I read an an editorial in the LA Times about population growth, fertility, and the empowerment of women. (I would post a link, but since I forgot the title and author, I can't find it online) Basically, the argument is that we should empower women through education, resources, and fertility control. The planet is unsustainable as long as population rates continue to grow, so empowering women is good for society as a whole and critical to gender equality.
Last weekend, the letters to the editor rolled in. Most agreed with the author, but one man argued that empowering everyone, not just women, is critical to society. Fine, I get it. He thinks it's unfair to focus solely upon women. It's unequal. What about the men, right?
I study violence against women, particularly rape. Sometimes, people like to remind me that men also get raped, and that violence should be a human rights issue, not a 'woman's issue.' Fine. It seems unfair to focus on women. What about the men, right?
I call this whining the 'what about me?' syndrome. When one disadvantaged group receives more attention, the dominant group likes to point out that there are exceptions and that special treatment just isn't fair. Yes, there are exceptions. Yet, when there are systematic patterns in society, we cannot deny that special treatment and focused attention may be necessary to mitigate inequalities. Globally, women are subordinate to men. A disproportionate number of political leaders are men. Women earn less than men, and more women are at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy than men; this is so pervasive that we even have a term for this: the feminization of poverty. A disproportionate number of victims of rape and domestic violence are women. In the quest for equality, we need to address the inequalities and differences that exist between women and men.
Let me illustrate my point with an analogy. We know that the risk for heart disease is greater among those who are overweight, lead sedentary lifestyles, and have poor eating habits. Do people who exercise on a regular basis and forgo double cheeseburgers also get heart disease? Absolutely, but we know that this is rather infrequent. Yet, if I suggested to you that we just ignore the evidence that tells us that exercise, a healthy weight, and a sensible diet are important to stave off heart disease, you would think that I'm being ridiculous. If I said that doctors should not focus on discussing the risks of heart disease with their overweight and sedentary patients because sometimes healthy people get heart disease too, you would think I'm being ridiculous. See where I'm going with this?
I do not deny that there are exceptions to the rules, but I'm tired of the 'what about me?' syndrome. It reduces women's experiences of subordination and oppression to a single, individual occurrence and prevents us from seeing that these are rooted in systematic societal practices. It prevents us from seeing that there is a larger problem in society that needs to be tackled. If we want to make things equal, we need to acknowledge our differences and inequalities, and sometimes it will be necessary to single people out and focus our attention on particular groups.
Last weekend, the letters to the editor rolled in. Most agreed with the author, but one man argued that empowering everyone, not just women, is critical to society. Fine, I get it. He thinks it's unfair to focus solely upon women. It's unequal. What about the men, right?
I study violence against women, particularly rape. Sometimes, people like to remind me that men also get raped, and that violence should be a human rights issue, not a 'woman's issue.' Fine. It seems unfair to focus on women. What about the men, right?
I call this whining the 'what about me?' syndrome. When one disadvantaged group receives more attention, the dominant group likes to point out that there are exceptions and that special treatment just isn't fair. Yes, there are exceptions. Yet, when there are systematic patterns in society, we cannot deny that special treatment and focused attention may be necessary to mitigate inequalities. Globally, women are subordinate to men. A disproportionate number of political leaders are men. Women earn less than men, and more women are at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy than men; this is so pervasive that we even have a term for this: the feminization of poverty. A disproportionate number of victims of rape and domestic violence are women. In the quest for equality, we need to address the inequalities and differences that exist between women and men.
Let me illustrate my point with an analogy. We know that the risk for heart disease is greater among those who are overweight, lead sedentary lifestyles, and have poor eating habits. Do people who exercise on a regular basis and forgo double cheeseburgers also get heart disease? Absolutely, but we know that this is rather infrequent. Yet, if I suggested to you that we just ignore the evidence that tells us that exercise, a healthy weight, and a sensible diet are important to stave off heart disease, you would think that I'm being ridiculous. If I said that doctors should not focus on discussing the risks of heart disease with their overweight and sedentary patients because sometimes healthy people get heart disease too, you would think I'm being ridiculous. See where I'm going with this?
I do not deny that there are exceptions to the rules, but I'm tired of the 'what about me?' syndrome. It reduces women's experiences of subordination and oppression to a single, individual occurrence and prevents us from seeing that these are rooted in systematic societal practices. It prevents us from seeing that there is a larger problem in society that needs to be tackled. If we want to make things equal, we need to acknowledge our differences and inequalities, and sometimes it will be necessary to single people out and focus our attention on particular groups.
