Convoluted Feminism

What a lovely woman! Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED talk on being feminist is quite captivating. It's a real eye-opener to hear of the way African women are regarded as "lower" than men, even to the point that they are not believed to be capable to earning their own money.

While I do agree with her wholeheartedly that we, indeed, should all be feminists, I feel it must be reiterated that men and women are equal in dignity, but they are different in many ways. For one, men and women think differently: men look at the big picture, women look at the details; in meeting other people, men focus on credentials, women focus on connections. Those are just some general differences.

So it really shouldn't be a surprise that there are activities that are considered "men's work" or "women's work." They are just what we naturally gravitate to. Men are asked to do "men's work" (cleaning the car, carrying heavy objects) because their bodies are stronger; women are asked to do "women's work" (sewing, cooking, cleaning) because they notice the little things better. And just because we have these social expectations that men and women do these specific things, it shouldn't stop people from trying their hand at the other sex's "specific" task. Men can cook, and women can fix cars, if they want--that's really just a matter of choice.

I want to emphasize that we are different, and that's a jolly good thing! Adichie's feminism is great--she wants to create a world where women are seen as capable individuals, who can support themselves and be good citizens, without having to give up their femininity. We women do not have to dress up like men to be taken seriously. We can wear a pretty dress and accessorize (like Adichie's very dignified style in the video) and be taken seriously, as a person whose opinion matters.

What I don't understand is that these days most feminists forget that our femininity is not just about wearing lipstick or floral frocks. Our femininity is in our biological makeup, too; particularly, in our ability to get pregnant.

I get really confused with this logic: feminists (particularly those who sparked the sexual revolution in the 1960's) more often than not demand that women must be like men sexually: that is to say, we must have the "right" to sleep with whomever we want without "being punished with a baby." This is the reason behind all that gab about the Pill, condoms, IUDs, and whatever-have-yous that they invented. They just want to stop women's bodies from doing the natural feminine thing.

I am reacting to this video because I found it funny for a feminist to mention that it was unfair that women are expected to be chaste, but men are not. Why would it be a bad thing for society to expect women to be chaste? What I think is really wrong with this picture is not that society expects women to be chaste, but rather that it doesn't expect men to be!

Consider this: nobody goes around saying that women should be patient but men don't have to be. Or that men should be diligent but women need not be. This is further proof that we are equal: virtue is equally demanded of both sexes.

I think the kind of feminism people should have is not one that tries to make women more like men using a convoluted concept of equality. Women's equality with men is in the fact that they have the same dignity as human beings. Beyond that, women and men are different but complimentary, and any effort to equalize them by removing femininity (or masculinity) from the picture is just pointless.

"The woman who thinks she can choose femininity, can toy with it like the social drinker toys with wine--well, she's asking for it, asking to be undone, devoured, asking to spend her life perpetrating a new fraud, manufacturing a new fake identity, only this time it's her equality that's fake."-Rachel Cusk

Peltzman effect

One of the questions thrown my way lately is related to the big RH bill debate--it came out of a discussion on why making condoms easily available (i.e., free) in health centers would not be good for society. The question is: "How about you? If somebody gave you a condom for free right now, you wouldn't go crazy-wild and use it, would you?"

Of course not. But, you see, this is exactly the kind of thinking that makes people complacent about allowing condoms or other pseudo-essential medicines to be readily available to anybody who walks in a health center: "It won't change me; so, how can it change society?" You'll be surprised.

WHO campaign for road safety, focused on
seat belt use. See the rest here.

The Peltzman Effect
Have you ever heard of the Peltzman Effect? Economist and University Professor Sam Peltzman, in his studies, noticed that regulations imposed by the government tend to fall short of their goal and even cause the opposite of the intended effect. How so? In a 2004 lecture that Peltzman gave at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, the University of Chicago professor cites a seat belt car safety regulation as an example. To quote:

"I argued that this regulation would encourage greater risk-taking.... If you are in a hurry and tempted to drive faster or more aggressively part of the price you pay for this is the extra risk of getting into an accident and then suffering injury or even death. The mandated safety devices would reduce this price by reducing the severity of the consequences you could expect if you got into an accident. If those consequences had been sufficiently severe to deter you before the regulation came along they were now less likely to do so. So simple economic logic suggested that, in the aggregate, the mandated devices would encourage more risky behavior--and this great risk taking would offset to some degree the safety benefits these devices seem to promise." (Emphasis is mine.)

It's not that condoms are ineffective (I must emphasize though, that they are not 100 percent effective), but that their mandated availability will do much in promoting risky behavior. In the recent Real Love Revolution talk given by youth speaker Chris Stefanick, a simple comparison brought to light how the Peltzman Effect could apply to RH matters, too.

Chris Stefanick, at the Real Love Revolution 2012, held at the World Trade Center, Sept 1, 2012.  

Stefanick pointed out: "In 1984 was the AIDS breakout in the Philippines and in Thailand at the same time. The response in the Philippines was to promote abstinence; the response of Thailand was to promote condoms. Twenty years later, the rate of AIDS infection in Thailand was 50 times higher than in the Philippines."

Risky behavior
In other words, it's not about the effectiveness of a certain device (or the strength of personal wisdom of individuals) but about the pervading culture of society. If people learn to be more open to risky behavior simply because they have an escape route of sorts, what will we be in 20 years? in 50 years?

"Safe sex" is a lie. Wearing that rubber latex balloon, taking the Pill, or inserting that copper coil contraption do not make the sexual act safer--because really, sex (that is, sex within marriage and with fidelity) is safe to begin with. (Aside: having a baby is a natural effect of the conjugal act and is definitely not the same as getting sick.)

What makes sex unsafe is to have multiple partners, to engage in it outside of marriage and to contracept. With side effects like allergic reactions (condoms), headaches, mood swings, higher breast cancer risk (Pills), and a perforated uterus (IUD), how can it be said that contraceptives (and the latter two, abortifacients) actually make sex safe? If you disagree, it's a good time to look up the word "safe" in the dictionary.

Is it for us?
The condom culture is not something to make light of--it's real and it's happening now: in the US, Europe, Southeast Asia... all over the world. You hear people saying (in a derogative way) that the Philippines is the only country without an RH law--but I want to point out that passing an RH law just to avoid "being left behind" is just plain thoughtless. How about first considering how such laws have changed the family culture of other countries and then deciding whether or not we want that for our country? Consider real safety; and choose a culture that preserves the true meaning of family.

"Your own safety is at stake when your neighbor's wall is ablaze."-Horace

'I thought she was smart'

Whenever I hear the words "I thought she was smart" in reference to a piece of news about someone getting pregnant out of wedlock, I always sincerely hope the speaker is referring to prudence, modesty and chastity, because if anything, those are the three things a young woman really needs in a culture that is permissive of sexual intimacy outside of marriage.

But language being what it is, I can't help noticing how such a comment can have a double meaning--doesn't "smart" sound a bit too... calculating? Something like, "Hey if this lady thought ahead and took some form of contraception, then she wouldn't be having this problem right now."

That comment actually makes me ask: would contraception have done anything good for the young woman in this situation? Sure, you could say the contraception works; she doesn't get pregnant. What then? Does the doing the deed make her happier? their relationship stronger? Does getting what she wants now build her character? Is she helping her boyfriend grow in virtue? How will a contraceptive mindset help them both when they're married?

Not to mention the many what ifs:
What if the contraception doesn't work? (No contraception method is 100% efficient)
What if the boyfriend leaves her eventually?
What if she gets sick?


Non-existent
Contraception becomes easy to accept if you only look at short term goals--and that's exactly why contraception is unacceptable. Because when it comes to finding true love, there is no such thing as a short term goal. Contraception doesn't help anyone grow in the virtues of selflessness, self mastery, temperance, and generosity--all of which a person needs in marriage. And what is a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship if not a preparation for marriage? that is, a marriage that lasts?

Forget "smart." IQ has nothing to do with having the will to save it for the person who respects you, loves you, and treats you well. What matters is having your heart in the right place, and making up your mind not to give it up at the wrong time and circumstance--for your protection, and his!

You want a love that lasts, right? So, don't calculate... wait.


"The sea does not reward those who are too anxious, too greedy, or too impatient. One should lie empty, open, choiceless as a beach--waiting for a gift from the sea."-Anne Morrow Lindbergh