#61430- Singleton responses

[vorpal blade]

Everyone I know believes that women are just as deserving as men to have the jobs and careers of their choice. As far as I can see this is a non issue. I think even Doyle Hobbs, a character created to put forth the view that a woman's place is in the home, would agree. I think the issue here is whether in the divine design are fathers to preside over their families in love and righteousness and be responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families, while mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children?

I was talking about this exact point with a very intelligent woman today. She confirmed something that I have believed for years: the only difference between men and women is that women can physically bear children. I strongly feel that all other traits are the result of nurture and personal wiring. Perhaps on a bell curve, more women fall into the "nurture" category but I certainly don't. Does that mean I'm defective? Do I have a man's mind in a woman's body? No. There is no gender to love, nurture, intelligence, or willingness to provide. These are all qualities that an individual chooses to adapt based on nurture and personal preference.

The idea that there are differences between the proper roles of men and women, and that mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children, comes from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." This difference between men and women, which is more than physically bearing children, is said to be by divine design. Just to be clear, are you saying that you believe the Proclamation to be wrong?

[melbabi]

It is a shame to see someone self-identify with Feminism because they have been presented with lies about an earlier period of time.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Vorpal so if I am please feel free to correct me. But are you saying that people who are feminist now are feminist due to lies being fed to them about what has happened in the before they were around? Because for me, I claim to be feminist due to my own experiences. Of course the past influences me, but I don't think it does as much as it seems you think it does. If anything, usually it solidifies my beliefs. However, even if I was fed lies about what has happened in the past, I would still consider myself feminist.

[vorpal blade]

Also, maybe I've totally missed the point of this argument....Is Vorpal Blade honestly spending so much time arguing about a fictional character? I just assumed that this character was brought up as a front to argue personal opinions but...hey...if those dudes want to spend time arguing that they have the same opinion...far be it from me to stop them!

The origin of this discussion on the episode "Betty, Girl Engineer," comes from Waldorf and Sauron's

Also, if anyone is interested in seeing how prevalent first- and second-wave feminist thought has become, it's interesting to look at the pre-feminism culture of the 50s. If you have $2 to spend, I suggest watching this episode of Father Knows Best from 1956 on Amazon Video On Demand. You will be shocked—SHOCKED—at the cultural attitudes toward women on display in this episode. After watching this, you'll surely realize that early feminists had a point.

After watching this episode I came to the conclusion that there were virtually no negative attitudes toward women displayed in this episode. Those Feminists who have seen something shocking, or evil, or incorrect in this episode were not interpreting correctly the episode. This episode provides no valid point to the early feminists. Feminists have distorted what they saw in order to push forward their Feminist agenda. So, lately the discussion has been about whether I, as a person who lived through the 1950s and was imbued with the culture, have the correct interpretation of what was meant by certain characters in that episode, or do the Feminists have the correct view?

[melbabi]

I just read Vorpal's latest comment to two ladies in my class (who also lived through the 50's) and they said that 'Father Knows Best' was imbedded with values of negative attitudes towards women. Granted, they couldn't speak to this one specific episode but they did talk about the show in general. They said that the women always wore dresses, had dinner ready, did all of the housework, and so on. They also said that there were negative attitudes towards women in the 50's and cited birth control as an example. Birth control, they said, was limited and in order to avoid pregnancies, or to stop current pregnancies, women used to do terrible things to themselves. (And then class started again so I couldn't ask for examples.) Anyways, the point that I'm getting at is that even though Vorpal lived through the 50's and may have an idea of how feminism was viewed, two women's views who also lived through that time, is different. Oh, and they said to ask you if Gloria Steinmen would agree with you.

[vorpal blade]

It is a shame to see someone self-identify with Feminism because they have been presented with lies about an earlier period of time.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Vorpal so if I am please feel free to correct me. But are you saying that people who are feminist now are feminist due to lies being fed to them about what has happened in the before they were around? Because for me, I claim to be feminist due to my own experiences. Of course the past influences me, but I don't think it does as much as it seems you think it does. If anything, usually it solidifies my beliefs. However, even if I was fed lies about what has happened in the past, I would still consider myself feminist.

What I was referring to was this

I actually read in depth about that episode of "Father Knows Best" for a Cold War history class I took at BYU, but I hadn't had an opportunity to watch it until now. Though it's not a complete substitute for watching the real thing, Mary Ann Watson wrote about the episode in her book "Defining Visions: Television and the American Experience Since 1945." I know the book is available in the HBLL, and I'd recommend it as a very eye-opening read. Her chapter on gender and family is especially intriguing. Honestly, that chapter is a lot of why I now self-identify as a feminist.

Is it too far of a stretch to believe that Mary Ann Watson's book is filled with lies, considering the mistaken interpretation Sharona Fleming has about the episode? Consider also the film and television historian Paul Mavis who says that criticisms of Father Knows Best are often "frankly ridiculous ... [and] are usually based more on the personal prejudices of the critics who have been steeped in the "hate anything traditional" politics of the American higher education system than anything inherently "evil" in this warm, funny show (hey - you want a job teaching film and TV history? You want to publish? Better come in through the Left door). Looking through a few of these pieces prior to watching Father Knows Best, I was vividly reminded of why I left professional academia." I take this as a polite way to say that what the critics are saying are lies about the show. And, evidently, these lies do influence people.

What experiences have you personally had that cause you to self-identify as a Feminist?

[melbabi]

I could give countless examples but I will just give you one. When I go out to have fun with my friends, I have to be cautious about my drinks so that no one will spike it or put anything in it. I've never known a man to worry about that.

[vorpal blade]

I just read Vorpal's latest comment to two ladies in my class (who also lived through the 50's) and they said that 'Father Knows Best' was imbedded with values of negative attitudes towards women. Granted, they couldn't speak to this one specific episode but they did talk about the show in general. They said that the women always wore dresses, had dinner ready, did all of the housework, and so on. They also said that there were negative attitudes towards women in the 50's and cited birth control as an example. Birth control, they said, was limited and in order to avoid pregnancies, or to stop current pregnancies, women used to do terrible things to themselves. (And then class started again so I couldn't ask for examples.) Anyways, the point that I'm getting at is that even though Vorpal lived through the 50's and may have an idea of how feminism was viewed, two women's views who also lived through that time, is different. Oh, and they said to ask you if Gloria Steinmen would agree with you.

Let me get this straight: You believe that women always wearing dresses, having dinner ready, and doing all the housework are negative attitudes toward women?

As a matter of fact, Betty in the episode in question wears her brother's manly boots. She wears rolled up jeans, and a mannish wool shirt. Her cap is mannish. Granted, you can see by the looks on their faces that her parents are not pleased with her choice of clothes, but they don't say anything about. Why should someone think wearing dresses all the time was a negative attitude?

In the episode Jim, the father, comes home for lunch and Margaret, the mother, does not have it ready for him. He doesn't scold her, he merely asks, "Can a fellow get something to eat in this house?" Margaret is in charge of the kitchen. What's wrong with expecting the wife to have lunch or dinner ready for him when he comes home?

Last night my wife and I were watching "Betty, Girl Engineer" and I noticed that in the final scenes the father is helping with the dishes. At the very end he drops a dish he has been drying when Betty asks, "Want some candy, father?" Helping with the housework seems like the norm in the series, though I would have to review other episodes to know.

So, we see from this one episode that the two ladies in your class are incorrect. They don't always wear dresses, they don't always have dinner ready, and they don't do all the housework. I'd say those ladies are unreliable as witnesses.

Obviously not everyone is going to agree with me. Especially those with an agenda, like Gloria Steinmen.

[vorpal blade]

I could give countless examples but I will just give you one. When I go out to have fun with my friends, I have to be cautious about my drinks so that no one will spike it or put anything in it. I've never known a man to worry about that.

I've been told to be very careful that no one spikes my drinks. So, I've worried about it. And I'm a man. Missionaries-Elders-worry about it. We are warned about it when we go on business trips. I've been warned about it at a hotel in Israel when I left to go out to get something to eat.

But, if you are saying that a woman has a higher risk of being raped than a man, there is no disagreement. But why would something like that cause you to be a feminist? I fail to see the connection. A rich man may be more of a target for theft than a poor man, but does this mean you should be a communist?

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I cut together a few scenes from the episode so that those who were interested can get a taste of the episode and judge for themselves. I let the last 3-4 minutes of the episode run uncut. The whole video is under 7 minutes

The first clip is at the very beginning, with the career counselor giving a girl instructions about how to sign up for job training.

The second clip is at home, when Betty argues with her parents about her interest in engineering

The third clip is Betty on the job, when her mentor Doyle tells her women shouldn't be engineers.

The fourth clip is when Doyle comes to the house. Betty hides, and Doyle explains to Jim (Betty's father) his ideas about gender roles. Jim agrees with him. Betty listens to the whole thing and, inexplicably, has a change of heart and embraces her feminine side.

So here it is. The whole episode is still available at Amazon On Demand if you want to put these clips in the context of the whole episode. Hopefully we can ground the discussion in the actual text. (I've legally copied this content for purposes of education and criticism as per fair use guidelines.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGxHDK_D0UE

[Sharona Fleming]

I have a jumble of thoughts to add to the discussion.

I feel like you’re putting words in my mouth a little bit, Vorpal. You seem to suggest that I have no basis for self-identifying as a feminist beyond a book I once read, but I never said that. I did, however, say that a chapter in a book influenced me greatly. I have other reasons for believing as I do, but I don’t hesitate to say that research from people I respect has lead me to believe the things I do about gender issues.

I think you are making some assumptions about me and my position that couldn’t be farther from the truth. You don’t have to preach to me about the good ole’ days of television. You seem to have assumed that “Betty: Girl Engineer” was my first exposure to Father Knows Best or any 1950’s television. This simply isn’t the case. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone my age who knows more about Leave It To Beaver than I do. Watching an hour or two of old television shows together was a favorite pastime of my family while I was a teen. Knowing that, don’t you think it’s a bit silly to be saying that I find Father Knows Best to be “inherently ‘evil’”? Quite the contrary, I find great enjoyment in watching older TV shows. But just because I enjoy them doesn’t mean I can’t think critically about what I see and discern that I don’t want to be viewed the way that women were viewed then.

I must confess that I don’t think it’s difficult to see what melbabi is talking about—these negative attitudes toward women that existed. I don’t think it can be denied that they cropped up in “Betty: Girl Engineer,” and I have seen it in other places in old TV shows too. For example, before Betty gets home and tells her parents her plan to pursue engineering, Jim and Margaret are discussing a dress Margaret has bought for Betty. Jim says something like, “Why do women love dresses so much? It seems so silly and simple-minded.” (Sorry I don’t have the exact quote, but I think my memory serves me well here.) Then when Betty comes in and shows no interest at all in the dress, her father acts astounded. “Betty, I’m not sure you understand,” he says. “This is a dress—D-R-E-S-S.” Don’t you think that sends a negative attitude about women? I realize it’s supposed to be somewhat humorous (and if I hadn’t the laugh-track would have clued me in), but where is the humor in a condescending attitude? Then, when Betty shares her aspirations about engineering, she is basically ignored by both of her parents: her father doesn’t look up from his newspaper and her mother fusses over the dress. I think this is the perfect example to demonstrate how Jim views the women in his life. In the first scene he calls women silly for caring about dresses, but then he completely ignores Betty when she talks about engineering. She wanted to be anything BUT simple-minded and silly, but her parents refused to take her seriously when she showed an interest outside of what they considered to be proper for a girl.

It seems to me that you are only focusing on a couple of lines from the Proclamation on Families when you say that 1950s TV sends the right message about gender. Yes, I realize that it talks about the roles of fathers and mothers, but you’re putting it in the context that all mothers must be stay-at-home-moms, and that all dads must be the sole bread-winners. My copy of the Proclamation doesn’t say how those sacred roles must be fulfilled. It never states that mothers cannot have careers or else they won’t be fulfilling their role as a nurturer. It doesn’t say that fathers must be the “one with the career,” as you put it. It does, however, say “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” Since it is never stated how those roles must be filled, I don’t think it’s right to say “the male should be the one with a career, the one who is out working to support the family…” and that’s the only right way to do it!

[NerdGirl]

Thanks for putting the video together, Sauron! Now that I've seen it, I'll tell you what I think. Well, maybe first some background so you know where I'm coming from since I don't think all the parties in the discussion know much about my background. I'm currently working on a PhD in astrophysics (my defense is in 6 weeks!) after which I hope to go to medical school (at the moment I want to be a pediatric oncologist). I have bachelor's and master's degrees in physics from BYU. I'm not at BYU anymore, but I'm an active and fairly orthodox member of the church, although I'm very familiar with the many issues people have with church doctrine and history. I'm a Canadian and pretty far to the left on both social and economic issues (and I'll add very pro-military, since most people assume the opposite when I say I'm on the left side of the spectrum). I don't like to use the word liberal to describe myself, because I am increasingly starting to associate that word with people who care about the trendy social issues but ignore the more difficult ones. I consider myself a feminist, but I don't like to use that term without qualification because it means something different to everyone. To me feminism is a belief that women should have the same rights as men. Women should be allowed to vote, to own property, to make their own choices about reproduction, childbirth, and marriage, etc. But to me this is only a subset of a much greater concern that I have for human rights in general. People should be free to live without discrimination or mistreatment for any reason - regardless of sex, age, race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. I am much more concerned about issues of rights than I am about using gender-inclusive language or being meticulously politically correct at all times. I think girls in developing countries should go to school. I think think we need to work to end female genital mutilation (and also routine circumcision of male infants). Things like that are important feminist issues to me. I do not think that men who act in ways that are seen as being traditionally chivalrous (opening a door for a woman because she's a woman, for example, or giving up their seat on a bus) are discriminating against women. I don't think they should be required to do those things, but if they feel that they want to treat women in those ways, I am not offended by it. I also think that gender is more than just a social construct. I take cases like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300 as evidence of that. You can't force someone who feels female to live as a male and vice versa. I am also single and childless, but I hope to have a family at some point in my life.

So, back to Father Knows Best. I am not offended by what I saw. It did not come across as being condescending towards woman or proclaiming traditional gender roles. I was actually expecting to conclude the opposite based on this discussion. But what I saw were people who live in a society in which the traditional roles of men and women are starting to be questioned and revised. The episode seems to present people's reaction to that paradigm shift. The idea of a woman becoming an engineer and that being acceptable was a new one. The parents were a bit taken aback and not sure what to make of it, because it was an idea that was very different from the ideas about men and women that they grew up with. They weren't sure if it would make their daughter happy, because it was such a radical thing. They had no reference point to compare it with. This sort of thing was all very new back then. I imagine that if had been born 40 years earlier and had seen it when it was first broadcast, it would have seemed very thought-provoking for me. It was much more thought-provoking than I would have expected from an old sitcom. I don't see the show as taking one position or the other on gender roles or whether women should become engineers. It's presenting a change that is starting to happen in society and making people aware of it and hopefully it made people think about it and talk about it. It presented what was probably a common reaction to a woman wanting to enter a very non-traditional field. Certainly if someone wrote a sitcom episode today where the same events took place in present times, it would be a bit absurd. In our society there are women engineers and there have been for some time. But I imagine that if I had been a teenage girl in the 1950s who wanted to be an engineer, I wouldn't see that episode and think that it was being critical of my choice. I would have probably thought that the writers understood the sorts of reactions I was getting from people, and I probably would have liked that. It would have made me feel that other people were struggling with the same issues and that I wasn't alone.

Also, for anyone who's really interested in modern-day thinking about 1950s sitcoms, you should watch the Gilmore Girls episode called "That Damn Donna Reed". The episode starts out with Rory and Lorelai (Rory's the daughter, Lorelai's the mother) watching and making fun of The Donna Reed show. Dean, Rory's boyfriend, happens to mention that he actually likes the show, and thinks it's nice that they have a traditional family where things are predictable and peaceful and uncomplicated, etc. Rory flips out and accuses him of being anti-feminist and whatever else and they have a big fight. Rory can't stop thinking about the argument, and she ends up dressing up as Donna Reed and attempting to make him dinner to make up with him (turns out she can't cook). Dean thinks it's cute, but he tells her she doesn't have to be Donna Reed. Then Rory shares some surprising things that she learned about Donna Reed, including the fact that she was an uncredited director and producer on the show and was actually one of the first female TV executives.

[Hypatia]

NerdGirl, go check out the thread in the random chatter section.

[Tao]

Nearly every physical difference between the male and female form can be attributed to evolutionary choices based on protecting the mother's ability to perpetuate the species. Take bone structure, for example: women's hips are much different from men's as they must be wide enough for a child to pass through.

While I'll not disagree that childbirth is a major factor in sexual dimorphism, I think it is a bit extreme to posit it as the only major factor. Neither child-bearing nor personal environmental factors can readily explain sensory differences. (Women tend to have a better sense of smell, as well as finer-tuned color perception, men tend towards better motion sensation.)

While I don't think your argument that brains must also be different is far fetched, it is unsubstantiated.

mmm, not really.

Since I split my time between being in a purely male environment (at work) and being in a purely female environment (almost everywhere else) I feel I have a unique view into gender differences.

Could you elucidate on this? My work is extremely female-dominated, but I'm not sure that it offers me significant insights into gender parity that wouldn't be found by anyone willing to look.

...calling a career-oriented woman an "outlier" would be a statistical fallacy.

I'd say that the gender ratio of college graduates would also show that such a claim would be off-base. I'd say that career-oriented women are much more closer to the norm than an outlier. That said, simply being career-oriented is a far cry from gender equivalence.

I've come up with little evidence to support the opposite side: that women are designed to be nurturers.

Wait, wouldn't that fall under the "differences attributed to childbirth" category? You do know that the human gestation time is much shorter than what it 'should' be (on the scale of half or more, even). Human babies about as dependent as any mammal ever is; I'd say that throws quite a fair amount of weight behind the idea that humans are designed to be nurturers. The feral-child/wolf-boy/tarzan motifs are quite unattainable in reality. In fact, there are studies that seem to support the idea that a lack of nurturing contact can be fatal to an infant, even when all other basic necessities are met.

One thing that I will say about the more cut-and-dried gender roles of the past, whatever they may have been, (and whenever you want to look at them, 50's, 20's, or 2000 BC): the co-dependency that it created made the family unit stronger, or at the very least, more likely to occur. Without a moral obligation, I see very little reason why a modern individual would ever seek out marriage. It will be very interesting to see how things will change in the next 50 years.

[Dragon Lady]

I'll also add that during pregnancy and breastfeeding, women's hormones change to increase the desire to nurture. I'd go do more research and give you more specifics, but I'm gonna be late for the Worldwide Leadership training as is. Which, sure, is a change based on childbirth, but I'm not entirely sure how that changes anything. Women were designed to bear children. Bearing children increases the nurturing instinct. Thus can't we conclude that women were designed to be nurturers? (In a very, very simplistic argument, to be sure.)

[vorpal blade]

NerdGirl, I agree with you. Excellent analysis of the Betty, Girl Engineer episode. I totally agree with that.

[Marduk]

I agree with it as well. It is from a different time, when women were expected to act differently, and many individuals struggled to shift their world view to allow for different.

[wired]

NerdGirl FTW.

[vorpal blade]

Thanks for putting those scenes on youtube, Sauron. I noticed that you understandably only selected the portion of the scenes that support your thesis, and neglected the scenes that modify or contradict it. I realize you have to cut somewhere, since it would be in violation of the copyright laws to give the whole episode away, and the whole episode is tightly written so that everything is important.

In your first clip I would have begun a few seconds before you did to see that this particular girl really had no idea of what she wanted to do. He tells her to put “secretarial work or whatever, and in the next few seconds she in fact does not put secretarial work but “cinema usher.” Since this is not a real career option the counselor does her a favor my suggesting again that she take a traditional female occupation. If you had shown a little more after your clip you would have seen that this is the only girl to whom he makes this suggestion. All right, the only other girl shown is Betty, but he doesn’t suggest secretarial work for her.

You did show the clip where Betty is arguing with her parents about the advisability of her working with a bunch of men away from civilization on a “road gang.” In context you see that a lot of her parent’s objections are not so much that she has chosen engineering, but that she wants to be part of a surveying crew. That distinction may be lost on a modern audience, but I think it was important then. Anyway, at this time Betty says that she is the only girl to sign up for surveying, but that all the girls signed up for “whatever they are interested in.” I think the writer is showing that Betty knew the other girls, like her, were not “corralled” into traditional female occupations.

In the third clip I wish you had begun a few seconds before you did. It is a moment of highly charged romantic tension that had been building during the time Betty and Doyle had been working together. Betty had just put her face intimately close to Doyle’s face, presumably trying to see the vernier scale he is talking about. Doyle becomes aware that they are now cheek to cheek. We know that Doyle finds Betty very attractive, and while Betty doesn’t exactly admit it, we learn that others (especially Betty’s Mom) realize that Betty is very attracted to Doyle. Doyle is annoyed and upset about this romantic invasion of his workspace, a romantic attraction that he constantly fights as long as she is with him in the field. I think those few seconds that you did not include is the climactic moment of their romance and more than anything prompts what he does after that, including his speech that she should go home where “little girls” belong.

Doyle tells her she ought not to be in a surveying crew; he does not tell her that she ought not to be an engineer. In the last clip when he talks about an engineer he is talking about the kind that “works hard all day in the dirt and the heat” – like he does in a surveying crew. Most engineers don’t work outdoors.

I think if you show those important few seconds prior to the third clip it would go a long way to explain why Betty does not “inexplicably” have a change of heart at the end. Romance for Doyle has been in her heart all along. You also see in your last clip how Betty cleverly reminds Doyle of their shared romantic moment in the field while looking at the vernier scale. She calls it a vermouth scale, just as she did when discussing it with her mother, who guessed at that time the romantic interest. Using their vernier scale experience Betty adroitly steers Doyle over to the telephone, as Doyle had steered her over to the transit to look at the vernier scale. Mimicking at the telephone the way Doyle had talked to her about the vernier scale she gets him to ask her out on a date. No change of heart, merely a change of tactics.

You say that in the fourth clip Jim agrees with Doyle about Doyle’s ideas about gender roles. I don’t think it is clear that Jim does agree. Jim has been looking for an opportunity to tell “that young Doyle punk” “a thing or two.” Just before the part you show, Jim says upon learning that Doyle is in the living room that “This is the chance I’ve been waiting for.” Only, he doesn’t get a chance to get a word in edgewise. The overzealous and overbearing Doyle won’t let him. Finally Jim manages to deflect Doyle from him to Betty by saying “Hold it, Doyle. You’re wasting this talk on me.” Doyle replies, “Huh?” Jim adds “You don’t have to sell me.” Perhaps Doyle doesn’t need to sell Jim because Jim is already sold on Doyle’s ideas. Or perhaps, and this is the way I think of it, Jim is saying that the person who really needs to hear Doyle’s explanation of his behavior is Betty herself.

Another thing your clips don’t show are the characters who support Betty’s desire to be an engineer, such as Betty’s brother Bud and his friends. Or John Lynn, who seems delighted to have a pretty young girl (too young to be a romantic interest for him), helping him in the survey crew.

Oh well, what you have shown was sufficient for NerdGirl to draw the conclusion that the episode was not condescending towards women and it did not proclaim traditional gender roles. It was not critical of a girl’s choice of becoming an engineer. The parents just weren’t sure that the radical choice Betty had selected would make Betty happy. The show didn’t take a position on gender roles or whether women should become engineers.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Vorpal: I knew you would criticize my cutting, and tried to diffuse objections by, again, inviting people to go watch the whole episode and letting fairly long sequences play uninterrupted. I'm not going to justify my cuts because, no matter where I cut, you would still find fault with it.

[vorpal blade]

The major problem with your choice of cuts is that they don't allow the viewer to understand what motivated the remarks that you object to. In every case if you had included just a few seconds before your cut it would have put an entirely different light on what was being said and why it was said. In three out of four cases you could have left some material off at the end without doing an injustice to the episode. I don't think you realized what you were doing when you made your cuts because you were focused on examples of what you thought were bad societal attitudes that needed feminism to correct.

Hey, you could have asked me in advance where to cut. Especially knowing that I would criticize your cuts.