And her corporate ethics were certainly nothing to aspire to, successful or no. So do we hold Handler up for the simple fact of her gender even though that very fact is what made her success so very unlikely?I've always been hesitant to give women the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assuming they're the more moral sex. I'm not too familiar with American feminism pre-60s but during England's imperial days, that was the only thing women seemed useful for -- injecting morality into the empire, despite the fact women migrating to the colonies was heavily discouraged
( ... )
I certainly don't believe in gender (or more accurately, I guess, put much emphasis on it) so I heartily agree with the idea that women are somehow more "moral" then men, or that we belong on some kind of pedestal.
What I meant by that statement was that Handler was a pioneer, undoubtedly. But she, like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly to name but a few, was NOT a feminist and didn't especially identify with the movement (if not the extent that Coulter and Schlafley have eschewed it). My rhetorical question was whether or not feminism (and women as a whole) should hold her up as a role model despite the fact she didn't really believe in "our" cause. I mean, don't get me wrong, the mere fact she WAS a woman was an achievement and meant she had to work at least twice as hard as a man to get there and she did put a female face on power, it's just to we want to embrace a woman as a pioneer for a movement she wasn't especially in favor of? That's the feminist conundrum I was talking about.
Comments 2
Reply
What I meant by that statement was that Handler was a pioneer, undoubtedly. But she, like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly to name but a few, was NOT a feminist and didn't especially identify with the movement (if not the extent that Coulter and Schlafley have eschewed it). My rhetorical question was whether or not feminism (and women as a whole) should hold her up as a role model despite the fact she didn't really believe in "our" cause. I mean, don't get me wrong, the mere fact she WAS a woman was an achievement and meant she had to work at least twice as hard as a man to get there and she did put a female face on power, it's just to we want to embrace a woman as a pioneer for a movement she wasn't especially in favor of? That's the feminist conundrum I was talking about.
Reply
Leave a comment