A Rant on Sexism, Gender Equality, Political Correctness, Hypocrisy, and Rhetoric

So I recently read an article about the push for politically correct language. Words and phrases such as "manhole", "master bedroom", and "gentleman's agreement" are being labeled by some groups as offensive. Now this just seems silly to me. I really doubt that words like "snowman" are contributing to inequality of the sexes and arguing about these words just distracts from larger and more important issues. On the flip-side, anti-male sentiment has become popularized in modern media. In TV shows and commercials there are numerous example of the "dumb man" and the "smart woman pairing. But that isn't very disconcerting. I recently came across a "Chicks Rule" calendar at the locals Borders bookstore and what I saw worried me. Here are some images contained in these calendars:

When people look at these pictures some may see female empowerment and others may see the subjugation of males. Now, as a male, I am not threatened by these images, but the fact remains that they are sexist. But of course there's no great outrage about them, which isn't surprising. So of course what bothers me is the hypocrisy of it. Blatant sexism against males is allowed, but suddenly "snowman" just isn't sensitive. Doesn't give the feminist movement much credibility when they say they want gender equality.

Besides examining the hypocrisy, it's important to ask what this is doing to the younger generations. I remember a popular rhyme from my youth that I believe is still around: "girls go to college to get more knowledge, boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider." While this popular chant is grammatically incorrect, it is hurtful and sexist. Well I can't say anything for certain as I am not an expert and child studies, I feel that our society's children could be growing up in an increasingly male-intolerant environment.

There has a been a big controversy about a book and line of clothing produced by the clothing company David and Goliath. The products that this company sells carry slogans such as "Boys tell likes, poke them in the eyes", "Boys make good pets, everyone should own one", "Girls will be girls, boys will be toys", and "Boys aren't housebroken". These T-shirt designs often depict boys as being stupid or slovenly and portray acts of violence against boys. Masculinist critics decry these images saying they encourage misandry (which is the hatred of men, the male equivalent of misogyny). Other people say that such images are all in good fun and creator Todd Goldman has stated that they are meant to be humorous.

It doesn't really matter what the intentions behind these kind of images are, it still stands that they can be considered offensive and hurtful. Again, we see the hypocrisy. There is no market for "Girls Are Stupid" products because feminists would yell and protest until they were off the shelves. But we are no strangers to hypocrisy so that is not the most important issue at hand. What is important how these products affect young boys. Yes, the images are supposed to be funny but boys may not get in on the joke. Masculinists argue that these kind of images stigmatize and victimize young boys, which may not be too far off. In general, girls seem to being performing better than boys in many scholastic areas. Boys are much more likely to develop social and behavioral issues. Now, masculinists contend that boys are being confronted with a new crisis of self esteem. Imagine being a 10-year old boy and seeing someone wearing a T-shirt that says you're dumb and that girls should hurt you. How would that make you feel? And if you were a girl that saw a T-shirt that made fun of girls and encourage violence towards girls, how would you feel? It's not acceptable either way. These kinds of images can either be considered a form of bullying or can lead to bullying.

While some people believe the concerns raised about the "Boys Are Stupid..." products may be exaggerated, I think that it's an issue that deserves more attention than the debate over the political correctness of using "spokesperson" instead of "spokesman". Should we shorten "woman" to "wo"?

On an almost-related note I feel like discussing this image:

Now, at the surface this seems like an interesting statistic that is supposed to spark some sort of moral outrage. This is a poster made by the Guerrilla Girls, a feminist group dedicated to exposing "sexism, racism, and corruption in politics, film, art, and pop culture." I'm all for that I just don't like it when people go about it in stupid ways that leads to a loss of credibility in my eyes (which is really also my problem with PETA). But let's look at the poster. "Less than 3% of the artists in the Met. Museum are women but 83% of the nudes are female." Now, I know what the argument behind this poster is supposed to be: women are unfairly unrepresented in museums due to sexism. That's what they're trying to say but I feel they did it in a poor way. If you examine it more closely, you'll see that the statistics they have provided are completely irrelevant to their argument if examined in a logical way. 

The Metropolitan Museum of art is filled with art, thousands of years worth. It's a sad truth that women's rights have only really emerged in the past 100 years or so. It has been a male-dominated world for most of history. While there have always been female artists, historically they have either been outnumbered by men or overshadowed by men for whatever reason. I am an outsider to the art world and have only a very limited knowledge of art history. I have learned and heard about Dali, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Picasso, Monet, and van Gogh and all the other "great" artists that everyone knows. The only notable female artists I can recall coming across are Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo. Now my lack of knowledge can be the result of sexism in the art world or something else. Maybe the reason I don't know about many female artists is because they were ignored in their time. That is probably true to some extent. However, we cannot reconcile the prejudices of old. 

I find it perfectly reasonable that only most of the art in the Met is made by men. I believe that in history there have probably been a greater number of male artists (or at least a greater number of successful male artists) than female of artists in history. From what I have seen men have been the dominant cultural force in art. If this is not true then there must be a conspiracy amongst art historians. Do I believe that the curators of the Met purposefully left out art by females? No (but then again I may just be naive). Besides, should there be a quota for pieces of art by females? Would that accomplish anything? 

The next part that gets me is the fact that 83% of the nudes are females. Interesting, but irrelevant. In my mind this statistic was included to make an emotional connection to the subjection of women. But I know rhetoric when I see it. Let's see: most of the art is by men and a lot of men find the female figure beautiful so it only makes sense that most of the nudes would be female. Would it be less sexist if all the nudes were male? Probably not. The statistic is included merely as a rhetorical ploy to inflame emotions. Is celebrating the female body sexist? If so why do so many women like the Vagina Monlogues?

The point I'm trying to make that the two statistics really have no meaningful connection. "Do women have to be naked to get into U.S. museums?" Well I believe museums follow the policy of "no shirt, no shoes, no service". 

Maybe I'm completely wrong. Perhaps museum curators and popular historians have been hiding the truth. Maybe there have been just as many female artists as males who are just as capable and I'm just talking out of my ass.  That's extremely possible. The Guerrilla Girls may very well be on to something. I'm just always wary of rhetoric, whether it comes from right-wing pundits on Fox News or left-wing activist groups such as PETA. I think the Guerrilla Girls have a worthy cause, I just wish they didn't make it seem so petty.