As a female in engineering, I’ve listened to more than my fair share of comments both for and against feminism; I’ve also experienced sexism, for better and for worse.  High school technological design classes were always male-taught and male-dominated, and unfortunately my teacher seemed to hate having girls in the class, so this was a rather negative experience of sexism.  Now, in university, I am told that some co-op placements are specifically reserved for girls to encourage their involvement in the field of engineering.  While some see this as a positive form of sexism, it is still an insult to me because I do not want to be selected for a co-op placement based on my sex – I want to be chosen based on my academics and extracurricular involvement, just like every other person applying.

After some thought, I’ve discovered that my position on feminism lies somewhere in the middle, holding nothing against men and other sexes while hoping for equal opportunity for all genders and sexes.  It is interesting to see how Maria Eugenia Echenique and Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta view feminism, because their views are so opposite and so strongly for or against it.  In fact, as I read both articles, I realized I do not truly agree with either author.

Echenique advocates for women’s rights and euqality, something I agree with.  However, she also seems to think that women should reject their creativity and sentimentality to become more like men, who are supposedly rational and scientific.  This I do not agree with so much.  First of all, she makes a broad generalization about males, ignoring the fact that not all men are the same; and she also ignores men’s creativity and sentimentality.  Secondly, she thinks that to have equal rights and roles as men, women must change the way they think and behave to be more male.  This is not true at all!  Women should keep their unique attributes and apply their different perspectives to their new (traditionally male-dominated) roles – this promotes diversity in ideas and behaviours in those roles, and it lets women stay true to who they are.  You shouldn’t have to change who you are just to take an opportunity.

I agreed even less with what Sagasta had to say.  I won’t deny that there are intrinsic differences between males and females, but this doesn’t mean that either is confined to a particular destiny, as Sagasta asserts.  All people should be allowed to reach for their dreams, no matter what these are; and all should have equal opportunity to achieve these dreams.

While the feminist movement has since brought about much positive change in terms of gaining more equal rights and more equal opportunity for women, some inequality is still present today, and some methods used to promote female involvement are still (unfair) forms of sexism.  Clearly, the process for attaining true equality is very complicated, and it doesn’t always take a turn for the better.  It is wise to always be aware of both sides of the debate when rights and equality come into question, to constantly reevaluate the supposed progress that rights movements have made, and to celebrate the successes (however small) that each movement has achieved – for it is only with these small steps and gradually-changing societal views that equality is attained.