Avery is working this summer at Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest legal defense and education fund dedicated to advancing the rights of all women and girls.
I would say that my gender socialization up until this summer has been the perfect example of what Jessica Taft, author of the book Rebel Girls, is opposed to: I was raised to be an “empowered” girl as opposed to an activist. My family has always been about the “individual,” whether it’s about education, politics, or responsibilities. Even the things they encouraged me to pursue were for my own personal benefit, like when my dad pushed me to run for class president, or when my mom decided I wouldn’t be a cheerleader but would try out for the co-ed basketball team instead. This type of gender socialization was pro-feminist I believe; it defied what you would typically classify as boy’s and girl’s after-school activities. However, this feminist choice stopped when it reached me. I acted in ways that defied gender norms, but never participated in a larger movement. Not that I blame my parents for this. I don’t think they ever considered their influence as “feminist.” They just wanted what was best for their daughter. I’ve never seen it as a negative thing, until I looked at it from Jessica Taft’s perspective. Now I’m questioning how I was raised, how I view the world, and whether these two things have led me to be a pessimistic (and slightly selfish) “individual.”
I was brought up to believe that the world was not a perfect place, and that evil would always exist in it. Coming from a Catholic background, this isn’t an unusual way to look at life. The answer is to go about your business, be kind to others, and give to those in need. Basically, treat the symptoms of the world, but don’t try and cure the disease because that’s just not possible. Evil will always exist. I’m not saying that I now see that it is possible; to be honest, I’m still having a hard time thinking that the social problems in our society can be cured. This outlook assumes that everyone is inherently good, and that poverty and hate exist because our patriarchal and capitalistic system pushed those on the bottom down. I’m not saying this isn’t true. I just have a hard time believing that if we switched to a different system, people would stop pushing others down. I find people to be too self-motivated and ambitious. It took me until now to realize that my opposition to progressive ideals was rooted in the fact that I don’t believe humanity is inherently good. This realization is extremely unsettling.
I’ve always felt that if society was set up in a way in which people had to fight for themselves, the ending result would be optimum. It’s a survival of the fittest, every man for himself sort of outlook. I was fed the typical stories that supported this theory. My favorite was the one about the girl who went to college, and her professor decided that grades would be averaged out and shared evenly. Despite how hard the A students worked, and despite how little the F students worked, everyone wound up with a C. This little metaphor was supposed to represent how socialism failed in the end. I saw some truths in it. It reminded me of group projects in class, when an entire group would get the same grade, even though some group members did nothing while others carried the workload. I favored individual projects, because I believed them to be more efficient.
What I’m trying to say is I think that Taft’s and Sadie Nash’s ideas about collaboration and the effectiveness of a group over the individual is a little idealistic in my eyes. I keep thinking about the kids that don’t care, or don’t want to work. If everyone was equally motivated, collective activism would obviously be preferred to individual empowerment. I’ve just never found this to be the case.
I don’t want to go through life with this pessimistic outlook, thinking that we shouldn’t try to change the way things are done because most people suck. But sadly, I do believe that most people are inherently selfish and self-motivated. Do I want to continue to believe this, and never try to work for a better world? That doesn’t seem right. I’m just not sure that changing the system will necessarily change the behavior of the individuals within it.
I read your post with great interest. I appreciate the degree of both self-reflection and honesty in your critique of Nash’s views. I would like, perhaps, to remind you that using the term “evil” to describe attitudes and choices that you find problematic (perhaps sometimes utterly reprehensible) will not support your goal of achieving greater understanding of social and political dynamics that come to play in the maintenance, or for that matter, in the change of a socio-political system.
Even a quick reading your post suggest that you understand quite well why an individual or a group might chose to act in ways that guarantee their positions of power and secure the unequal distribution of resources that allows them to live a life of economic, social and political privilege. These choices — often collectively shaped and/or determined — are not akin to what we generally speak of when we use the term “evil.” It is my understanding that “evil” usually refers to actions considered supernaturally determined; “evil” people are often described as if loosing agency, acting on behalf of a greater force (being “possessed”). In reflecting on historical events, I have found that self-interested individuals and groups can be rational, if not always admirable. I also find that history has shown us time and again they might also be fundamentally short sighted in what they view as their self interest.
Finally, even a cursory look at what is considered “human” or “socially acceptable” through out history and within different cultures should give you a sense that what is often referred to as “human nature” (particularly by those who ascribe to the views of “evolutionary psychology”) is always subject to great debate.
I haven’t read the Taft text, but does she include the idea of progression or of targeted action? It is possible to begin with empowerment and move to advocacy in situations where the actor is able and interested and deems she will be effective. Think of it as good feminist strategy – or good strategy, period. Expend the effort where it counts.
Also, I was surprised by your high school recollection of being encouraged to try out for the co-ed basketball team rather than the cheerleading squad, and your subsequent comment that this was pro-feminist. Didn’t we get past this obvious gender socialization 40 years ago? One of your cohort has mentioned that you are members of the third wave of feminism, yet when I read this, I wondered about the comprehensiveness of that statement. I suppose this continued stereotyping could be a geographic distinction, but in any case, it sure got my attention.
Your point about my word choice of “evil” is really interesting to me. In fact, my latest reflection discusses word choice and implicit bias, and the fact that I frequently make this mistake goes on to prove how important word choice is to successfully communicate ideas. You’re right in that “evil” is an extremely loaded word, and not the best word I could have picked in order to make my point.
My point about joining an athletic team rather than the cheerleading squad in elementary school (not high school) was because my mom felt I should be scoring goals on my own, rather than cheering on those who did. This was a time in my life where I did not call the shots (being 5 years old) and in her eyes this was a way of empowering me as a young girl. I have nothing against cheerleading, and I’m sorry if it came off that way. The University of Nebraska tried recruiting my dad as a male cheerleader, and although he did not join due to other reasons, he has communicated to me the difficult nature of the sport. I recognize that high school and college cheerleading is an extremely competitive and respectful sport. I had many friends who were state champions. But this is very different from the little girls who cheered on mostly male teams back in elementary school. My mom did not see that as empowering for a little girl, and I agree with her.
I also would not group our program into one general mindset. We all have our own opinions and experiences, and just because one Moxie may have declared herself a part of the third-wave feminist movement, doesn’t mean we all do. We all have different definitions of what feminism is, and what it means to us.