I’m a big fan of simplicity. If an important insight or a complex set of circumstances can be explained in a simple and elegant way then I am all for it. Far too many people try to make things complicated, when a certain scenario could be explained in a more simple manner. On the other hand, idiot simplicity is not a good thing. Simplicity that paints a picture in black and white, while leaving out important details, can even be dangerous and lead to movements such as fascism or communism.
For some reason, a disproportionate amount of the major oversimplifications in the world today seem to occur where feminism and the not-so-gifted meet. Having a preset notion of men being bad and responsible, with women being good and victimized, can lead to all kinds of weird theories on how certain issues are a feminist issues, even though they quite obviously are not.
One such issue is climate change. For now, let’s leave aside the whole discussion about the severity of climate change or whether it even exists. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the issue. However, I do recognize idiot simplicity when I see it. The first argument of people who argue that climate change is a feminist issue goes something like this:
Men own more cars and men use airplanes more, therefore men are more responsible for climate change.
The complexity of this observation is that of a four-year-old. Now, I don’t want to insult four-year-olds, because at that age it is quite an astute observation. But when it comes from an adult it leaves a lot to be desired.
Why do men drive cars and travel in airplanes more than women? Well, the traditional division of labor between the sexes is that the man is responsible for producing resources and the woman is responsible for taking care of the children and the home. That division of labor is far less rigid these days, but it is still very much present. So is it any surprise that men need to travel more? In order to support their families, and to keep society running, men (and women) need to travel as part of their work. Proceeding to blame men for this is not very well thought through, since we all benefit from the work these men do, not only the men themselves.
Pointing fingers at one sex for performing its gender role could be done in the other direction as well. I could claim that men should be allowed to use more electricity than women since men have invented and built wind turbines, hydropower and solar power. But then I’m punishing women for performing the gender role that they have traditionally been expected to fulfill, which is just as silly as the less-than-gifted feminists who claim that men are to blame for climate change.
A whole different argument that tries to connect feminism and climate change is that women need to be empowered so that birth rates fall in underdeveloped countries. Now I am all for empowering women in poor countries, just like I am all for empowering men in poor countries. However, do birth rates decrease from only empowering women?
To understand the situation better we need to ask ourselves why people in underdeveloped countries have more children in developed countries. The most obvious explanation-and one that has consistently been demonstrated to be true-is that people continue to have lots of children as long as they will need those children to be supported in old age. Therefore, the best way to decrease birth rates is to encourage the process of industrialization and modernization in poor countries, so that less children are needed per family, and so that contraceptives are freely available for all couples. You can empower women all you want, but if you deny a country its continued development (which requires empowered men), then you are likely having a weak impact at best.
You know that a political theory, such as feminism, has gone past its expiration date when it is desperately trying to find a problem that actually needs its solution.
Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.
