Confidence, that’s all it is

Headdesk. Don’t get me wrong, confidence is an important aspect of identity development, but assuming the gender gap in success is all in our heads (read women’s heads) is pretty dismissive of, I don’t know, systemic oppression. Oh look, actually I do know, how about that? (Do I sound confident?) So who would publish such a piece? The Atlantic of course, it was written by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman.

Confidence may very well be a factor in success, but confidence isn’t innate, it is a socially conditioned response and those who are repeatedly told they aren’t good enough (i.e. less funding for their education, athletic opportunities, etc.) learn they are not good enough, resulting in less confidence.

The Kay and Shipman piece takes a difference approach. Before I go too far into their argument, maybe I should provide their framework, which is the biological binary. As those of you who have read this blog before know, I do not subscribe to this particular framework. First, there isn’t a gender binary and promoting it is dangerous and harmful. Secondly, gender isn’t biologically based, sex is. Want to talk about the sexes, that’s fine by me, but it also isn’t a binary.  Thirdly, they ignore structural oppression, which is kind of my jam.

Their piece really just reveals evidence that confidence isn’t really based on work. They go as far as to assert women (gender, as a monolith) work hard, maybe even hard than men, but are less confident than men. Men continue to get better pay and more promotions than women. They posit that confidence results in men asking for more money while women are reluctant to do so. So that gender pay gap is just because women aren’t confident enough. Pack it in fella, we’re done here. Give all girls self-esteem classes; problem solved. Of course, that isn’t true because as we know, women, people of color, and the poor are discriminated against in wages and employment opportunities, and as evidence I give you all of welfare.

But back to the biological, well the authors want to mention some of this is in fact women’s fault because motherhood, that undeniable innate instinct all women have is stronger than the need to succeed. False. I don’t want kids. I don’t have some overwhelming need to procreate. I do have an overwhelming need to fuck shit up for the patriarchy, though, so call it a win? The authors continue to point out that biological differences lead women to be in wait for potential threats, which could negatively affect their risk taking and rates of success that comes from risk (like the stock market, more risk more profits and higher losses). However, the authors don’t mention the way environment can shape biology. Maybe if we lived in a world where women weren’t disproportionately punished for deviating from the gendered path, women would be more risky? Then again maybe not. There is no way to know for sure.

Below are some key quotes from the piece:

“Compared with men, women don’t consider themselves as ready for promotion, they predict they’ll do worse on tests, and they generally underestimate their abilities.”

“In studies, men overestimate their abilities and performance, and women underestimate both. Their performances do not differ in quality.”

“Women feel confident only when they are perfect.”

“So where does all of this start? If women are competent and hardworking enough to outpace men in school, why is it so difficult to keep up later on?”

That last question can be answered: patriarchy. At no point in the piece do the authors ask a simple question, are men overconfident because they are told being men is superior to being women? They also don’t acknowledge any other form of privilege like race, do black men show overconfidence at the same rates white men do? Are white women as confident or more than black women? Being a man is valued in our society that doesn’t mean there is no value in being a man, but there isn’t an innate value either. It has value because as a society we decided it should. This is reinforced over and over throughout our educational and social development.

An example of when girls are valued more than boys is presented by our authors, but it is deeply flawed. Remember they are assuming everyone is treated the same (at least we have to assume that because they didn’t acknowledge people aren’t and their argument fails if they do). The assertion that girls’ behavior is more desirable in grade school settings because “behaving” is valued, and boys misbehave completely ignores the ways in which boys are told they are better than girls. It is the equivalent of a pat on the head of sitting on command but not for performance. This is condescending bullshit. This sort of praise does not yield the confidence you need to excel academically or professionally. It is like telling little girls they are pretty; there is nothing wrong with that unless the only thing these girls are confident about is that they are pretty.

Kay and Shipman also assert that sports could develop women’s confidence, but women quit too soon and too easily. This is another flawed example, because Title IX dictated that schools had to spend the same on men’s and women’s sports, not that these sports would be treated equally.  After college, the jobs available to female athletes are few and far between, and they don’t yield the employment outcomes. Women are told study up ladies because you’re going to have to do something else when this is all over.

Now, let’s talk perfectionism. The article kept coming back to it, as one of the quotes above points out. There is a concept called “policing” which I’ve talk about before in respect to Foucault. Gender policing is fairly common; fathers and peers stop boys from carrying My Little Pony backpacks and the like. Women keep other women from performing gender in the “wrong” way as well. For example, “good girls don’t” act aggressively, act slutty, act out, etc. I can’t speak for all women, but I know failure wasn’t an option. It wasn’t like I’d be disowned or anything, but after every sacrifice my family made I have to do well. Any indication of failure isn’t just an indication it might as well be failure. I know a lot of women who feel this way, particularly women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and women of color. Anything less than perfection might as well be failure. The standards are too high; so while we know we’ll never measure up to these standards we still try because there isn’t much by way of an alternative.

Kay and Shipman assert that confidence can be acquired so win! Except then they note that women and men are perceived in different ways and an assertive man is respected while an assertive woman might be seen as bitchy or bossy. At least they acknowledge the consequences for men and women in similar situations are different.

I want to close with one more problematic question, Kay and Shipman never address. They assert that confidence yields action for a lack of confidence yields inaction. I question whether or not women always have the agency to act? If not then confidence doesn’t matter at all.

For me the problem with lacking confidence regardless of gender is that the individual (and by extension the community) prevents his/her/zerself from doing something out of doubt. On an individual level that sucks, not applying to colleges because girls like you don’t go to college, or not playing basketball because girls aren’t supposed to play rough. But on a macro level, this lack of confidence manifests as a paralysis. Entire groups of people stuck by the status quo because they don’t believe they can change anything. Without confidence and solidarity no one is going to say “grab our pitchforks and let’s storm the castle” or Congress demanding equal education, voting, wage, freedom, etc. opportunities. So for me, every time someone who is structurally and systematically oppressed thinks, “I can’t do that” it means we’ll have to endure the same old people who think, “yeah, I got this.” Which sucks because white, cis, hetero, upper-middle-class, Christian dudes kind of suck at running things (see the US House of Representatives if you need an example in action).

Confidence is important, but we’re going to have to create a society that values all members before we can close the “gender confidence gap” let along the racial confidence gap, or the socioeconomic confidence gap, or the…I could go on for a while.

Pedophilia may be a disease, but in most cases it is also a crime

The Atlantic ran a piece written by David Goldberg entitled, “I, Pedophile.” I suggest you read it, and while it isn’t graphic it is challenging to read. For me the worst part is that it reads as apologist bordering on pedophile rights.

Goldberg is a pedophile, and while he claims to never hurt a child he was arrested and served time (90 days in Canada) for child pornography. Briefly, pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children by adults (over 16 years old). Often, pedophile is an encompassing term that includes sexual attractions to preteens and teens, though those age groups aren’t covered by the actual definition. It is a recognized psychological disorder and often viewed as deviant behavior. As mentioned Goldberg asserts in his piece that he never hurt a child, but what he means is he never molested a child, but child pornography does hurt children.

This isn’t to say Goldberg has no points of merit, but a lot of it comes off as “well, it could be worse” *shoulder shrug*. I want to note, that Goldberg discusses the self-loathing that accompanied his sexual attraction to children. For example, he’d spend hours looking for child pornography, and then immediately feel awful about what a bad person he is. After his arrest, he decided to investigate where these feelings came from:

“What I discovered was that for every small nugget of helpful information, there was a sinkhole of unanswered questions that remained. The main query that I am convinced will always be without an answer is why I am a pedophile. It is the equivalent of trying to determine why someone is heterosexual or gay. We don’t choose our sexual orientation. If we could, believe me, no one would choose mine.”

While, I don’t dispute that pedophiles are born, but they are also made. We know children who have been sexually abused can become abusers, though not the majority. I also am very uncomfortable with equating homosexuality. Obviously, homosexuality isn’t detrimental to anyone else, and of course, male homosexuals have been plagued by allegations of sexual misconduct with children, which was frequently unfounded and just blatant homophobia. Given this history, I find it irresponsible to assert pedophilia is the same. Additionally, this sounds like a cop out to me. We are conscious people and can control our sexual impulses, which doesn’t mean we’re not attracted to someone just that we don’t break the law.   

Goldberg continues:

“Yet the majority of pedophiles do not molest, but instead spend hours looking at child pornography. And as those numbers grow, so does the number of child victims.

“I am not advocating the cross-generational lifestyle. In fact, there is never an instance when an adult should engage in sexual behavior with a child. But until we as a society learn that help for those who view child pornography is a far better alternative to incarceration, we are doomed to see the continued proliferation of this problem. Scientists don’t know for certain if there is a correlation between viewing child pornography and offending against children. Wouldn’t it be nice to get pedophiles help before we find out for certain?”

The language employed by Goldberg is troubling. Additionally, he seems to prioritize child abuse, and while there are variations to the long lasting effects. All abuse of children molestation or pornography is detrimental to children. We should as a society investigate ways to help pedophiles, but as for the correlation between pornography and violence some social scientists do believe there is a correlation. For example, studies have been done where violent images and sexual images are shown and brain patterns are examines. Additionally, pornography is shown to some members of the armed forced before combat missions as to increase aggression. This often creates a hostile environment for the women serving. All of this on top of the fact that child pornography is harmful to the children depicted.