If a woman can do it…
(posted by jackson)
My co-worker Alix has a weblog devoted to peace. She is now traveling around America, on back roads, stopping everywhere and interviewing people, asking them what their personal definition of peace is. She did this last summer as well, 11,000 miles on a scooter (but with a 120cc engine, so legally it is a motorcycle), engaging people in conversation and encouraging them to go to her website and leave a thought about peace. She plans to take a route that will ultimately be (when viewed on a map) in the shape of a peace sign. On her weblog she usually writes about her travel, and the people she meets. Today, however, she shares her frustration over a comment she keeps getting from men, and about how the biology of her sex effects her travel:
I hear this comment a lot, “Well, I was thinking, if she can do it, so can I.” 100% of said comments come from men. And so I think, yes, yes, YOU CAN. You always could. But could you do it in a woman’s body? Perhaps I don’t offer a lot of my personal impressions ( which from this moment on, is going to change) because I don’t want anyone to minimize my personal experiences because of my sex. Perhaps this custom comes from one specific thing we don’t talk about. And once in a blue moon, it affects most of my day. Fellas, could you do a ride like this in my body?
…Another comment I hear often, from men and women, is, “Wow, she has balls.” I have ovaries, thank you. They are the female equivalent of balls, yes. And they do develop a lot of the strength that women have. We bear children; at least 8 hours of pain racking our bodies after 9 months of hosting a tenant in our stomach. Let’s do some math. Average cycle is 5 days, 12 months in the year=60 days we experience something you don’t. Often, a very unpleasant sensation.
Two months of our year is spent wondering if we just ruined another pair of pants, going to the bathroom when we don’t have to pee, putting our intimacy on hold (and yours).
Let’s say on average, we have one miserable day and the others not so bad. On average each lady has this cycle for 30 years. That’s 360 days of learning to cope and go through everyday activities as though all is GREAT. 360 (that’s almost a year) of pain and discomfort, where you want nothing more than to be massaged by God himself. Instead, we go out there and do the same stuff men are doing, and try to smile.
So why am I talking about this anyway? I figure it’s high time to share this perspective. Just to shed light on what is often a tight lipped subject. One, because when I was going through the ride last year, I couldn’t find any information about how a woman’s cycle might react to a long distance ride and Two, well, it just shouldn’t seem so shocking every time a woman accomplishes a great feat. Of course we are strong enough.
So to every person who hears a man comment, “If SHE can do it, so can I” and “Not bad, FOR A WOMAN”, I say find your voice and challenge that statement.
The other day I speculated about such statements, and thought, if I’m considered the lowest common denominator, wouldn’t that make my accomplishments twice as noteworthy ? If it would be so effortless for a man to make this ride in comparison, does that mean my miles driven are worth twice as much? Perhaps I should say it’s a 40,000 mile Peace sign?
On a different topic, Jim Henley has already linked to the post by RadGeek, wherein RadGeek makes a point about how our social order is partly shaped by the threat of male violence. I think at its most general level, the point here is that each of us (male and female alike) adapt our behavior, not only to the crime we experience, but also to the possibility of what crime we experience. In an ideal world none of us would have to worry that some particular activity would make us the victim of violence, yet in reality all of us calculate the danger of any particular thing we might do. There are some roads we don’t walk down alone at 3 AM, because we perceive those roads as dangerous.
This is a fairly obvious point to make, but I notice the commenters at Brad Delong seem to not get it. I think these commenters would understand the point if it was made about business - clearly our economic institutions are all shaped by common sense perceptions about what activities would involve too much physical risk, and too much violence. There has been an ocean of academic articles published about how violent crime effects the willingness of businesses to invest in some geographic areas. However, RadGeek is writing specifically about how male violence shapes women’s behavior, and because of that, her his post triggers some powerful emotions, and is met with a wall of denial. Consider how far off this comment is:
What is this all about? That if a woman is being robbed or raped, a man should not try to defend her? Because that kind of dependence can just as easily become frustrating and confining for the woman, and that kind of power can just as easily become corrupting and exploitative for the man, as any other form of dependence and power. So I’d rather slap the bitch myself, you hear me, ho?
Or consider this comment:
To conclude that we have a socially constructed “rape culture”, or that only men are responsible for rape, or that there is either some over conspiracy we’ll call the patriarchy to keep women down and controlled sexually or some bizarro world collective spontaneous would seem to ignore much of what we know about biology and mammalian behaviors.
Of the first comment, as RadGeek said, if the same point was made about the intrusive nature of government (”We are here to protect you!”) relative to the potential victims of violent crime, many people would have an easier time getting the point.
Of the second comment, it is a bit pathetic that the commenter needs to resort to using the word “conspiracy” when RadGeek was so careful in explaining how an unplanned, spontaneous order can create all of the social ills which she he is describing.
Is it so hard to grasp the concept that the possibility of future violence influences our behavior, and to the extent that we adapt our behavior to avoid violence, the possibility of future violence ends up shaping our society?
Tags: biological differences between the sexes, long distance travel, Peace Scooter, traveling alone, women
May 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
However, RadGeek is writing specifically about how male violence shapes women’s behavior, and because of that, her post triggers some powerful emotions, and is met with a wall of denial.
RadGeek’s a “he”. No big deal, but perhaps an interesting point about our assumptions of who can convey what messages.
There’s got to be a more grammatical way to have said that, but you get the idea.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
This is a really insightful piece…linked to another insightful peace. I have truly found soul fuel today. Thank you for writing/sharing/being.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I say insightful because, in the discussion leading to writing Alix’s ‘peace,’ the topics that RadGeek discussed came up as well. Alix’s blog didn’t discuss it, but invariably, there is dialogue about rape incorporated in every conversation that touches on the disenfranchised feeling one can’t help but experience when force and force of nature, and social norms push her down and make her feel less.
Feminism belongs to each of us, because when the world raises humans (men and women) who believe that they are all every bit the gift to the universe that the Creator intended them to be, it resolves injustice and we become that much closer to living in peace.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Daphne, thank you for your comment. I tend to agree that our Creator, however broadly understood, endowed us with certain inalienable rights, and that recognition of those rights is the basis of both peace and justice.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I’m sorry, but I think this is hypersensitivity. Neither of these comments offends me as a wimmins:
Yeah, yeah, I have ovaries, too. But when I have been told I “have balls” — and I have been told that — I take it as a compliment.
The battle of the sexes has been going on for well before the start of Western feminism, and will continue. But I see no value in scaring off males with fear that I will take common colloquialisms as some sort of sexist insult.
Men are, in the aggregate, bigger and have more upper-body strength. The best female football player is not a match for the worst NFL rookie — or if she is, that is a truly, truly rare phenomenon. I’d expect reality-based folk to accept some of these points.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:00 am
It isn’t so much about being offended by a comment such as “she has balls” as it is to understand the power of acknowledging that the strength of a womyn comes from her OWN biology.
(If men are so easily scared off by those implications, perhaps that makes the point even more valid.) It’s important see the risk of accepting “common colloquialisms” without at some point questioning their validity. This kind of passiveness perpetuates the thinking that womyn are in their rightful place as the weaker sex.
Clearly, this article recognizes that there are innate biological differences (inequalities as well) but while isn’t true that ALL men are stronger in their upper bodies than ALL womyn, it certainly isn’t appropriate to say that when a womyn exhibits strength, she is man-like. The idea here is that it is every bit as womn-like to be strong.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Fixed.
As far as sports go, that’s a “no duh” to me. I remember hearing female relatives marvel about how muscular certain basketball players are, and thinking to myself “not many opportunities for that the other way around…”. No matter how much we try to look past it, we still do factor in that primitive sense of sexual attractiveness. I readily admit that’s why I can watch women play tennis but not basketball: women that are good at tennis still look like women on average.
Apologies in advance if you’re hot & can shoot hoops, Mona.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“Soul food”?
::blinking at screen in appalled disbelief::
And, wow, haven’t seen ‘womyn’ used other than for comedic purposes in years.
Get over yourself, please.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
And, wow, haven’t seen ‘womyn’ used other than for comedic purposes in years.
Or ironically, as I use it.
This level of feminism reminds me why I couldn’t complete a Women’s Studies minor in the 80s; too much was silly. I recall one women’s studies prof brought in from a relatively prestigious university who made a serious argument for rejecting the term “seminar” in favor of “ovular.”
Moreover, I am seldom so conscious of my gender as when some white male is — in person or online — tripping all over himself to let me know he understands his “privilge” and my “oppression.”
May 21st, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Apologies in advance if you’re hot & can shoot hoops, Mona.
In all modesty, I was hot until the last few years when meds caused me to gain weight, and I also got lazy and stopped working out. (sigh) Until then, I was a man-magnet — I still look ten younger than I am.
But I don’t shoot hoops. I like aerobics, tai bo and volleyball.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I’d consider myself much more of a humanist than a feminist. (On a hindsight note, I saw the funky spelling Mona used for woman and thought “when in Rome”…it felt so strange to me you might notice I didn’t do it on the last one-in an attempt to leave the issue open)
At any rate, it’s clear that I barely had to say a thing to articulate my point; your strength and conviction regarding how unnecessary you feel it is to point out how strong and convicted you are, speaks for itself.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Daphne: My irony is lost on many not familiar with my style. Please, stick around and don’t take it personally if you were dissed for following a suit you may (understandably) have thought I meant to lead.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 am
If you’re interested in how threat of male violence shapes behavior you may like to read the zoological paper about forced copulation in birds and the creation of a dangerous environment hypothesis.