I struggle with gender equality issues. On the one hand, I want all people to have equal rights, equal protection, and equal opportunity - male or female. But something about how the discussion goes on gender rights makes me question if we're going about it the right way.
For example, many of the statistics that are used talk about parity in employment sectors and in public/political leadership. But why should there be an equal number of men and women in different industries and even in leadership? How come the graphs never show the number of stay-at-home dads, and focus on encouraging more men to stay at home while the women work? If we're talking about equality, shouldn't we be pushing for an equality in caretaking roles for both genders?
My guess is that this doesn't happen for two reasons: 1) It's so radical that the world isn't ready to hear it. Maybe we don't talk about it because it's just too different from what people are willing to accept. And 2) I think most people in the world don't accept that men would be as good full-time caretakers as women, because of a "mother's natural instinct". I'm not saying that exists or doesn't - but I think it's what a lot of people believe.
So, in my opinion, pushing for gender parity for adults in economic or political/leadership positions has a very negative side-effect: women are expected to be full-time caretakers AND hold a full-time job (and be perfect in every other way - as a woman, trust me, I feel that pressure. Every. Single. Day.)
In short, I think this gender parity movement is the LONG road to fairness and equity. And I think it results in fewer and fewer expectations placed on men, and women having everything heaped onto them.
A better route, in my opinion, would be a remodeling of the economic system so that at-home jobs (caretaking, housekeeping, etc.) were counted as economically beneficial, and were paid to a certain extent. Here's what I mean:
I know lots of women - lots - that are very, very good caretakers and housekeepers for their families, and that are raising incredible, conscientious and hard-working children, and they live in poverty because they don't have a second adult in their families to earn income. And I know lots of people make zillions of dollars trading financial assets back and forth, that amount to no value added whatsoever to society. Who is contributing more to society? Who is more noble? And should we really be encouraging these women who work as mothers contributing to society to "get a job" doing something that *doesn't* contribute to society, so we can say we have gender parity?!? It doesn't make any sense.
And that's here in a developed nation. My concern is that our "developed" notions are very screwed up, and we are pushing them on developing nations. We're encouraging and fighting for a broken system to be perpetuated, and become the foundation for other nations.
Women should get an education. Women should be safe. Women should have employment opportunities - I agree with all of that. But fighting to get parity between women in men in different industries is a superficial cover-up of the real problem, which is that we measure value by economic indicators, and place no economic value on women's traditional role. (Unless you count babysitting/daycare, which DO contribute to the economy, but are not as beneficial for children as being cared for by their parent ... arg!)
Yep. Gotcha there. As I've delved quite deeply into the perspective of feminism these last few months, I initially found myself enraged at the Patriarchy and Inequality of it all. Everything, it seems, is geared towards making things very good for men... and most often at the expense of, and through the exploitation of women. (And children - think sweat shops - but that's another post).
ReplyDeleteI also have felt very discouraged at the obvious double-heaping of responsibilities of the women who have dared to live their life in challenge of the status quo ... ie: those whom have decided to pursue higher education, a high-paying/power-inviting career, etc. It seems that they are doing more to HURT the parity of genders than to help it: Not only are they literally inundated with responsibilities from all spheres of life, they ACCEPT that as their role ... and yet they're still condemned ... called cute pseudonyms like "Feminazis" or "Bitches" or "Ball Busters" or "Angry and Thankless" etc etc - and, often, unfortunately, then they embrace those titles and become those things - in hopes to become more competitive with Men. (And, really, with the way they're treated, who can blame them for being a little angry and antagonistic?) In short, they sell out and play along.
As I've progressed in my research and readings, I've distilled that it's not so much about women being equal - but rather a recognition of the traditionally-feminine ROLES as being equally valuable. I lament regularly, as you have done here, that - according to America's GNP-based value system - a woman isn't considered "valuable" if she cares for her own children ... only if she raises those of other people in exchange for money. She isn't considered a contributor when she grows, preps and cooks healthy meals for her family ... only when she does it for other people and can therefore charge some dollars for it. A PTA mother is seen as a hobbyist, but an under-educated School Administrator (statistically, the education of School Administrators on the whole is shockingly lacking) can make wretched decisions while collecting a disgustingly-high salary and be praised as "having a job".
The system is screwed. Women's traditional roles are critical and extremely valuable ... indeed, if they were to discontinue doing them, the entire world would fall apart. Civilizations over and over again have survived -nay, thrived- without money. NOT ONE has made it without women. Beyond bearing children, the woman plays a *critical* role in our species' survival.
The fact that something is "missing" due to our disregard for the inherent value of the traditional female role is glaringly apparent in America's social woes: violence, illiteracy, obesity, adult-onset diseases (ex: type 2 diabetes), bullying, etc are rampant today. It is my opinion that these crises are a result of not having a full-time mother (or mother-figure) who is empowered in her honorable position and *required* to be nothing more than One Hell Of A Mother.
Am I saying that a woman MUST perform those traditionally-female roles? No. Each woman, just like each man, can do whatever she wants. The ROLE, however, DOES get to be filled by someone who is APPRECIATED for doing it in the same way any other ROLE (ie: money-trader, politician, 'bread-winner') is.
Bravo dRM! I thought my post was perfect (he he he) until you added to it. God, what a mess! What a sad, cruel mess.
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note...isn't is simply AWE-INSPIRING that women still choose to be good mothers and homemakers, even though society counts it for nothing? That's the essence of humanity right there - that's the only evidence we need that people are not only motivated by economic incentives. Families. Pure miracles.
My hat's off to the mothers in my life who set the example of simple, pure, dedication to giving people and society the care they need to thrive (you know who you are... :)