How feminism has become chauvanism
May. 12th, 2009 02:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matrilWhile I'm biting my nails over what will happen in that writing contest ;) I'm going to wax long-winded about something I've been mulling over for a while, but which was sparked particularly by this book. I found a reference to it somewhere, checked out the amazon.com link and thought, "Yes, I would probably agree with about 75% of this book, and I will never read it." Because where we differ is in our view of sexuality, and I'm pretty certain the book would be far too explicit for me. However, I can believe her thesis that women have gotten the bizarre and unfortunate idea that it's liberating and empowering to treat others of their gender and even themselves in the same way that a piggish man would treat them. I have a particular hate for the references to male anatomy as a metaphor for courage or strength. No, I do not need to grow a pair, thank you. My two X chromosomes serve me quite nicely; I don't need a stinking Y. The implication is profoundly insulting - that a woman must essentially become a man to develop any strong qualities. I spit in the face of that argument. (Perhaps I also kick it in its crotch, although that may be taking it a bit far.)
Is this where the women's movement has brought us? Blech. I'm fairly certain that wasn't the intent of any of the original group of women who fought for better rights.
Here's my totally uneducated, undocumented assessment of the way feminism has evolved. For pretty much most of recorded history, men have asserted that women are inferior. This stemmed, I believe, from a number of factors. Women are on average physically weaker than men. This is because their bodies are designed to endure the single enormous task of childbearing, leaving fewer resources for other physical labor. It seems an arbitrary leap to assume that physical inferiority extends to all other areas, but people like to make arbitrary leaps. :P Another factor was a gross misinterpretation of Adam's relationship to Eve ("helpmeet" doesn't mean servant; it means equal partner) and the notion that if Eve ate the apple, then all women are sinful and such and such. I'm sure there were lots of other factors or excuses that led to an assumption of women's inferiority, but for whatever reason, it pervaded and became a long established, accepted fact. By extension, what the men did was more important, more significant and more enviable than what the women did.
During this time, something else was happening, particularly when the economy became diversified. When the average family was no longer relying on a farm or some sort of cottage industry to support themselves, someone had to go out and earn money. There was always division of labor between genders, of course, if nothing else because men can't get pregnant and women can't lift as many heavy things. But when supporting the family meant going out, the division became considerably more pronounced. And more and more, men began to define themselves first by the way they supported their family, and then perhaps as a father and husband. Their job said who they were. Their job was their purpose, their life. I'm speaking generally, of course, but I don't think any other era in history has had so much emphasis placed on the way we earn our keep, probably because there are simply so many different ways to do it. And I think a lot of it is tied to a typical male issue of performance-based self esteem. This is the tendency to only feel worthwhile if you've accomplished something, if you've reached an arbitrary (sometimes unattainable) goal. If you ever fail, your esteem crumbles and you have to start all over. It can be found in both genders, certainly, but it's particularly prevalent with men. (For women I think the typical equivalent is appearance-based esteem.)
So what does all of this mean? Well, sometime during the last century or so, women began to resist being preemptively dismissed as inferior. And good for them. They refused to be put in boxes that men had made for them. Good for them! Just one problem....they stepped out of their box only to end up in the box that men had made for themselves. Here's what I mean. Men had told women for centuries that what men did was the really valuable work, and women couldn't do it. Women began to fight the notion that they couldn't do it, but in my view, they didn't go far enough. They didn't fight the notion that it was the really valuable work. They swallowed that notion completely.
Here's my opinion. Men who throw themselves completely into the pursuit of money, who see that as the point of life, the best way to be happy and fulfilled and content, are generally miserable. Maybe not in the short term. But how many people lie in their deathbeds and murmur, "I wish I had more money." Or "I wish I had worked more and spent less time being with my family."? Happiness, fulfillment, and contentedness are abundant in one pursuit: parenting. Maybe not in the short term. Maybe you have to give up a lot of luxuries, the trips around the world, the free time, even the sanity. ;) But caring for someone unselfishly, and watching them develop and grow into their own complete, independent person...I can't think of any other pursuits that top that.
Unfortunately, the misery of men who live for their jobs is now being shared by women who have bought into their misconception. I'm not saying that women who slaved thanklessly in their homes for centuries were infinitely happier than the women who are being recognized in the workplace. I'm not calling for a complete reversal of the women's movement, not by any means. (And good grief, if I called for that, who would listen? I wouldn't.) What I am saying is that too many men have had their priorities thrown awry, and now the same thing is happening to women. Men have told women that taking care of children is demeaning, and too many women have believed them.
Too many women have learned to feel ashamed of finding joy in motherhood. Too many people see their careers as the single defining thing in their life, while having children is practically relegated to a hobby that works for some people and doesn't work for others. Don't get me wrong - if a couple really doesn't want to have children, I don't think they should, because children should have parents who want them. I simply find it sad that so many people are missing out on the transforming experience of parenthood, or putting off so long that they have to take fertility drugs and undergo risky pregnancies, and then have none of the energy to share with their children that they would have had a decade or two earlier.
Yes, it's true. I believe that being a mother is the greatest thing a woman can do. Gasp. I also believe that being a father is the greatest thing a man can do.
Naturally, parenthood is not the only worthwhile pursuit in life. There are plenty of other great things that people can do. Not everyone has the chance to have children, and it would be ridiculous to claim that they'll never find fulfillment and happiness. I would suggest that other ways of selflessly serving and caring for others can offer similar satisfaction. And admittedly, a job that you love, that you're good at, that accomplishes useful things, is a fine thing to have in life. Just not the thing. Also, the window of time when the great bulk of parenting occurs is comparatively short, and though you're a parent for life, you will find other ways to take up your time, both during and especially after. I, for one, plan on spending my old age in a library, perhaps being the scary librarian you always hope you won't run into among the shelves.
But right now, for all my stresses and worries, I wouldn't exchange my three children for any other life. I'm just sorry that too many people don't understand what it really means to be a parent. I'm sorry to see ("totally unbiased") studies that claim to have discovered childless couples are much happier than those with children. Pfft. I'm sure they are, if you measure happiness as instantaneous pleasure and gratification. Children don't make you deliriously giddy every moment. They demand things of you. They stretch your patience, your intelligence, your resourcefulness, your every skill. They make you a better person. Women who are mothers have something that other women are missing out on, something that no high-paying job can replace. And men would do well to learn from them instead of the other way around.
Is this where the women's movement has brought us? Blech. I'm fairly certain that wasn't the intent of any of the original group of women who fought for better rights.
Here's my totally uneducated, undocumented assessment of the way feminism has evolved. For pretty much most of recorded history, men have asserted that women are inferior. This stemmed, I believe, from a number of factors. Women are on average physically weaker than men. This is because their bodies are designed to endure the single enormous task of childbearing, leaving fewer resources for other physical labor. It seems an arbitrary leap to assume that physical inferiority extends to all other areas, but people like to make arbitrary leaps. :P Another factor was a gross misinterpretation of Adam's relationship to Eve ("helpmeet" doesn't mean servant; it means equal partner) and the notion that if Eve ate the apple, then all women are sinful and such and such. I'm sure there were lots of other factors or excuses that led to an assumption of women's inferiority, but for whatever reason, it pervaded and became a long established, accepted fact. By extension, what the men did was more important, more significant and more enviable than what the women did.
During this time, something else was happening, particularly when the economy became diversified. When the average family was no longer relying on a farm or some sort of cottage industry to support themselves, someone had to go out and earn money. There was always division of labor between genders, of course, if nothing else because men can't get pregnant and women can't lift as many heavy things. But when supporting the family meant going out, the division became considerably more pronounced. And more and more, men began to define themselves first by the way they supported their family, and then perhaps as a father and husband. Their job said who they were. Their job was their purpose, their life. I'm speaking generally, of course, but I don't think any other era in history has had so much emphasis placed on the way we earn our keep, probably because there are simply so many different ways to do it. And I think a lot of it is tied to a typical male issue of performance-based self esteem. This is the tendency to only feel worthwhile if you've accomplished something, if you've reached an arbitrary (sometimes unattainable) goal. If you ever fail, your esteem crumbles and you have to start all over. It can be found in both genders, certainly, but it's particularly prevalent with men. (For women I think the typical equivalent is appearance-based esteem.)
So what does all of this mean? Well, sometime during the last century or so, women began to resist being preemptively dismissed as inferior. And good for them. They refused to be put in boxes that men had made for them. Good for them! Just one problem....they stepped out of their box only to end up in the box that men had made for themselves. Here's what I mean. Men had told women for centuries that what men did was the really valuable work, and women couldn't do it. Women began to fight the notion that they couldn't do it, but in my view, they didn't go far enough. They didn't fight the notion that it was the really valuable work. They swallowed that notion completely.
Here's my opinion. Men who throw themselves completely into the pursuit of money, who see that as the point of life, the best way to be happy and fulfilled and content, are generally miserable. Maybe not in the short term. But how many people lie in their deathbeds and murmur, "I wish I had more money." Or "I wish I had worked more and spent less time being with my family."? Happiness, fulfillment, and contentedness are abundant in one pursuit: parenting. Maybe not in the short term. Maybe you have to give up a lot of luxuries, the trips around the world, the free time, even the sanity. ;) But caring for someone unselfishly, and watching them develop and grow into their own complete, independent person...I can't think of any other pursuits that top that.
Unfortunately, the misery of men who live for their jobs is now being shared by women who have bought into their misconception. I'm not saying that women who slaved thanklessly in their homes for centuries were infinitely happier than the women who are being recognized in the workplace. I'm not calling for a complete reversal of the women's movement, not by any means. (And good grief, if I called for that, who would listen? I wouldn't.) What I am saying is that too many men have had their priorities thrown awry, and now the same thing is happening to women. Men have told women that taking care of children is demeaning, and too many women have believed them.
Too many women have learned to feel ashamed of finding joy in motherhood. Too many people see their careers as the single defining thing in their life, while having children is practically relegated to a hobby that works for some people and doesn't work for others. Don't get me wrong - if a couple really doesn't want to have children, I don't think they should, because children should have parents who want them. I simply find it sad that so many people are missing out on the transforming experience of parenthood, or putting off so long that they have to take fertility drugs and undergo risky pregnancies, and then have none of the energy to share with their children that they would have had a decade or two earlier.
Yes, it's true. I believe that being a mother is the greatest thing a woman can do. Gasp. I also believe that being a father is the greatest thing a man can do.
Naturally, parenthood is not the only worthwhile pursuit in life. There are plenty of other great things that people can do. Not everyone has the chance to have children, and it would be ridiculous to claim that they'll never find fulfillment and happiness. I would suggest that other ways of selflessly serving and caring for others can offer similar satisfaction. And admittedly, a job that you love, that you're good at, that accomplishes useful things, is a fine thing to have in life. Just not the thing. Also, the window of time when the great bulk of parenting occurs is comparatively short, and though you're a parent for life, you will find other ways to take up your time, both during and especially after. I, for one, plan on spending my old age in a library, perhaps being the scary librarian you always hope you won't run into among the shelves.
But right now, for all my stresses and worries, I wouldn't exchange my three children for any other life. I'm just sorry that too many people don't understand what it really means to be a parent. I'm sorry to see ("totally unbiased") studies that claim to have discovered childless couples are much happier than those with children. Pfft. I'm sure they are, if you measure happiness as instantaneous pleasure and gratification. Children don't make you deliriously giddy every moment. They demand things of you. They stretch your patience, your intelligence, your resourcefulness, your every skill. They make you a better person. Women who are mothers have something that other women are missing out on, something that no high-paying job can replace. And men would do well to learn from them instead of the other way around.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 09:50 pm (UTC)If a woman wants to pursue a professional career, fine. If they want to be a mother, fine. If they want to do both, fine. To me, real "feminism" is all about having the choice, not completely shunning one or the other. Some people would be genuinely happy without kids; there are other ways to find fulfillment. I very much want to be a mom, but I also very much want to get my Psych degree and help people, too.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 10:10 pm (UTC)Ostensibly we still have a choice, but boy, are women ever given the guilt treatment when they "just" want to be mothers. :P
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 02:35 pm (UTC)Either way, I agree, I don't think a woman should be considered an oddity because of which path (mother vs. non-mother) they chose to take.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 05:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 04:29 pm (UTC)Exactly. It's so hard to see people engage in self-destructive behaviors. :( I don't embrace a lot of the superficial woman-y things (wearing makeup, loving shoes and the color pink; shopping and over-spending as a form of stress relief) but it doesn't follow that I would turn to the superficial mannish things to liberate myself. I'm just...me.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 04:32 pm (UTC)...some days I worry that I'm one of them. (Was I always this cranky and bad-tempered? Wait, don't answer that.)