Finding the right balance on feminism

This was originally printed in the News & Record on October 18, 2006

Years ago, when the first of the women-only gyms opened in Greensboro, one my guy friends and I concocted a business: a men-only gym, aimed at the scrawny guys who are uncomfortable working out in front of the buff, tank-topped clientele at the average coed gym. The problem with this business plan is, of course, that while women feel entitled to space of their own, particularly in matters of body image, many women feel that male-only space can only be a tribute to misogyny. It seemed inevitable that such a gym would eventually be picketed, sued for sexism, or otherwise attacked by radical feminists. The solution to the imaginary problem at our imaginary gym was to station women bouncers at the doors.

This theoretical business came to mind recently when my 11-year-old nephew, overheard me describe the Guardian Life Girls Going Places Entrepreneurship Conference to his sister. "“You should have something like that for boys,"” he said.

Though I consider myself a feminist, I don'’t believe that feminism (or any movement meant to bolster the status of minority groups) needs to be anti-majority in order to be effective. Truly, the feminist mission (as well as gay rights and ethnic minority rights missions) should be, and most often is, to obtain equal rights, not special rights.

Unfortunately, when inequality is the status quo, it sometimes takes special rights to even the playing field until it can remain level of its own volition, or in other words, until equality becomes the status quo.

This, of course, is not a new argument. This argument resurfaces every few years as a debate about affirmative action, most often accompanied by the overarching questions: How will we know that affirmative action has been effective enough to become irrelevant? And, is affirmative action already irrelevant?

Recent reports of a predominance of women in higher education, and the rapidly growing economic viability of women and ethnic minorities suggest that we'’re heading in the right direction. But income disparities alone suggest that the mission isn'’t complete. Women continue to earn 25% less than their male counterparts, and most ethnic minorities, with the exception of Asian groups, have a median household income of 69% of that of non-Hispanic whites.

I'’ll admit that when my nephew suggested a business program for boys, my first reaction was an awkward silence, followed quickly by one of those unfortunately vague answers adults so often give in order to get out of difficult questions from kids. The honest answer would have been, "We don't have special programs for boys because being white and male in America is advantage enough."” But I knew that he, who is likely experiencing the same feelings of awkward outsider-ness that most go through in middle school, can't yet see his advantages.

Still, I'm left with a discomfort that feels similar to a conversation I once had with a woman who said she encouraged the dreams of her daughter more than her son because, as she believed, his natural advantages meant he need encouragement less. I can'’t help but wonder: is it necessary, or even useful, to deny our sons in order to bolster our daughters?

But even as I write this, I'’ve had a second uncomfortable realization: when I complement my niece, I speak of her strength and intelligence, and when I complement my nephew, I speak of his creativity and handsomeness. I suppose as we fight for equal rights, we must be vigilant against becoming that which we fight.