NP-Contemplation

Based on the advice of Gavin and the encouragement of Danielle, I’ve been reading The Great Good Place. For the most part, it’s an excellent examination of the disappearance of avenues for casual socialization from modern culture. Except for one thing. Sexism.

Oldenburg places part of the blame on the disappearance of the third place on feminism. While he doesn’t say so directly, he devotes an entire chapter (ironically titled “The Sexes and the Third Place”) to waxing loquacious about traditional male bonding rituals and men’s places, and indirectly condemning feminism and the idea that men and women should associate freely for the disappearance of “third places”. He devotes considerable time to praising the traditional institution of marriage, and men’s third places as an escape from the demands of the work of their second places and the domineering women of their first places. Women, when they’re mentioned at all, are described as “stealing” the traditional male bonding experience for their sisterhood while conspiring to keep men emotionally dependent on them to secure their marriages.

Oldenburg, unfortunately, misses several vital points here, which I’ll deal with in turn behind the fold. Overall, Oldenburg prescribes more sexism as the cure for problems caused by sexism, which is entirely hypocritical as he condemns this very approach in other domains.

First, Oldenburg comments that “heterosexual” gatherings are inherently stressful. When presented with the opposite sex, he claims that men are forced to dress better, behave better, and not shame their current romantic partners with their behaviour. Likewise, women are forced to ensure that they are “presentable”. He claims that people of both sexes self-censor more in the presence of the opposite sex, and are more reserved. Finally, he claims that the segregation of sexes is essential to a healthy sex life, by creating a sense of mystery and allowing for the sexual objectification of the other sex within same sex social groups.

Frankly, this is complete nonsense. To start with, it totally ignores homosexual, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, transgendered, androgynous, or otherwise unusually gendered individuals. It is completely dependent on traditional gender roles and identities, the universality of which modern experience and science has proven to be total bullshit. Some people are gay. Deal with it.

The stress he identifies is also a product of the same sexual objectification, segregation, and sexism he praises. Any girl who’s ever stepped into a Computer Science department can attest to the truth of this. People that regularly interact with people of the opposite sex (or appropriate gender, depending on context - Oldenburg mixes the two!) become more comfortable around them, and start treating them like actual people rather than mysterious representatives of the sexy Other. For Oldenburg’s generation, sexually segregated almost since birth, this is unthinkable. For my generation, outside of some bigoted hold-outs, it’s natural, almost second nature. We’ve been prepared all our lives for “heterosexual” workplaces, and our social encounters mix genders freely, in reflection of this casual attitude.

As for the matter of a healthy sex life, I’d like to refer him to the commentary of Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, who rigourously proves that feminists not only Get More, but Do It Better.

Secondly, he praises sexual segregation by claiming that, throughout history, men and women have had their own third places, each suited inherently to the needs of each sex. The problem here is found when he actually begins examining the third places. For example, in his picture of the historic (sexist) French village, the village men have a first place (the home), a second place (the fields and mills and other workplaces), and several third places (the fields, the comfortably cool wine cellars, the village square, the surrounding countryside, etc). The women have a first place (the home), a second place (the home), and a third place (the home, and sometimes the stables with the horses). Hm. Are we starting to see the problem yet? He attempts to downplay the importance of “heterosexual” third places, which wind up including most of the enduring successes he’s praised earlier in the book, by claiming that men and women “naturally” segregate themselves within them, with the women “naturally” taking on the responsibility for looking after any attached children and watching the time/money, while the men “naturally” have a rollicking good time.

To which I say poppycock. He’s looking for an excuse to act like a child and push all of his responsibilities outside of work off on a woman, and justify this as the only right and proper arrangement. It’s total bullshit and Puritanical fun-harshing besides. If you enjoy behaving like a child, fine. But take responsibility for stuff like watching the time and not neglecting your responsibilities yourself, don’t force someone else to do all that for you to the exclusion of their own fun!

Finally, and related to the second issue, the destruction of third places is inherently a hostile response to the patriarchy to the growing independence of women. As usual, Oldenburg even identifies the periodic connections here, but fails to realize their importance, so let’s go over them in detail. As he points out, the decline of the third place in America did not begin until after World War II, when millions of combat veterans returned home… To find that women had, oddly enough, stepped up to fill the void these soldiers had left in the work force. As is well-documented, this precipitated a patriarchal backlash against feminism, leading to the stiflingly repressive 1950s and, eventually, the mess we’ve got today.

During the 1950s, we also saw the evolution of the suburbs, which Oldenburg rightly condemns. He even identifies one of the primary effects of the suburbs: effectively permanently isolating wives from any human contact save their immediate neighbours and family. But he complete fails to connect the dots, or even recognize that there are dots.

Let’s think about this for a second. During the war, these women had made successful inroads into the traditionally-male non-domestic second places - factories, foundries, etc. Mostly those vital to the war effort, but others too. The rising influence of feminism had begun to grant feminists access to traditionally male third places, and the same organizational and social benefits stemming from those places that democratic, racial, labour, and other activists had enjoyed or would enjoy. This was immediately followed by a patriarchal backlash involving a fundamental change in urban structure. This had the effect of trapping these women in their traditional roles, and was accompanied by the destruction of the third places they’d begun to “infiltrate”. Youth-oriented third places were particularly targeted, under the cover of the fear of improper behaviour, sex, and other similar moral panics related to the presence of young men and women together.

In short, sexism appears to be a major factor in the destruction of third places. Yet instead of suggesting a more feminist and egalitarian construction of third places as a cure, Oldenburg hypocritically prescribes more sexism. Overall, he acknowledges and demonstrates the value of third places for people, but explicitly and implicitly excludes women from people, or includes them only in the role of “wife and personal domestic assistant” to men. It’s a frustrating flaw in what is otherwise an excellent book, and I really hope that it doesn’t result in me hurling it across the room in frustration while screaming “women are people too, you closed-minded conservative twit!” when trying to continue reading it.

Because I’m pretty sure that would spook the cat.