Class this morning made me fairly uncomfortable about the future of women in this country. We were discussing distribution of power among the genders in our society. Our class is made up of 18 women and 2 men.
The general consensus was that even if women don't have power so much in the workplace, we rule the home, and by extrapolation, the power evens out. If women want to seek more power in the workplace, more power to them, but they're generally content with how things are. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but hey- that's a valid way to look at things if that's the way you want to slice it. It smacks of "a woman's place is in the home," so basically, if you're not interested in a monogamous marriage or children, you won't really be able to achieve your full power in our society. Uh. Right-o, brainiacs.
My problem began when one girl, who I usually respect greatly, talked about how even though she's extremely proud of the strong women in her area, she's okay with letting men handle most of the leadership roles because "men and women are different. Women are more emotional, and men are more rational." Um, THE HELL? Contradictory, much? So, why was I the only person in the class that felt the need give a rebuttal??
I asked how many women in the class take birth control. Because without women in leadership positions? No birth control. No control over your own bodies. No one to voice your opinions in the government, no matter how strong a woman you are. Have you met our government? The one that's becoming increasingly fundamentalist and chipping steadily away at reproductive rights? Yeah. And furthermore, the whole "men are the breadwinners" thing is so stupid, but not for the reasons that you think I'm getting at.
I think that men should not be placed under the pressure of being expected to be the leaders, the breadwinners. All of this "men are not nurturing" stuff is bullshit. Young boys are just as nurturing as young girls, it's just that they're taught not to be emotional or expressive in preparation for the competition that they'll face as a result of our society's expectations on men. God forbid a guy be softer or emotional- he's called a fag. God forbid a woman be a go-getter in the workplace- she's called a bitch. The "men as powerful breadwinners" viewpoint marginalizes men just as much as the "women belong in the home" viewpoint does. It makes the most sense to have men and women share all responsibilities equally- both in the home and in the workplace. I'm tired of the traditional stigmas.
And one of the guys... you know, the idiot who took all of the books for our last paper? He thinks that women marching for reproductive rights is inherently "anti-maternal." You know what? Damn right I'll fight for my ability to take birth control. I'm not ready to be a mommy yet-- I'm still very young myself. I'm not emotionally ready to take care of a small life yet. So, by making sure that I'm not pregnant before I'm ready, I'm being anti-maternal? Fuck you. I'm protecting the institution of motherhood. Um, from myself.
And if you want to make that out to be about abortion? Well, I couldn't have one myself, and I know that. I wouldn't emotionally be able to deal with that. But I'd rather a woman who is not ready/inclined to be a mother opt to have an abortion rather than let the fetus become a child whom she is unwilling or unable to care for, making herself completely miserable in the process. You shouldn't force someone who is not compatible with motherhood to be a mother. It's a selective thing- some are, some aren't, neither is more correct. The whole "abortion as birth control" objection can bite me. I've never had an abortion, but I've known someone who has. She thinks about it every single day, and it was agonizing for her. A woman who has an abortion is not trivializing motherhood, she's making a very difficult decision that she feels is best for her situation, and that decision will change her life forever.
The general consensus was that even if women don't have power so much in the workplace, we rule the home, and by extrapolation, the power evens out. If women want to seek more power in the workplace, more power to them, but they're generally content with how things are. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but hey- that's a valid way to look at things if that's the way you want to slice it. It smacks of "a woman's place is in the home," so basically, if you're not interested in a monogamous marriage or children, you won't really be able to achieve your full power in our society. Uh. Right-o, brainiacs.
My problem began when one girl, who I usually respect greatly, talked about how even though she's extremely proud of the strong women in her area, she's okay with letting men handle most of the leadership roles because "men and women are different. Women are more emotional, and men are more rational." Um, THE HELL? Contradictory, much? So, why was I the only person in the class that felt the need give a rebuttal??
I asked how many women in the class take birth control. Because without women in leadership positions? No birth control. No control over your own bodies. No one to voice your opinions in the government, no matter how strong a woman you are. Have you met our government? The one that's becoming increasingly fundamentalist and chipping steadily away at reproductive rights? Yeah. And furthermore, the whole "men are the breadwinners" thing is so stupid, but not for the reasons that you think I'm getting at.
I think that men should not be placed under the pressure of being expected to be the leaders, the breadwinners. All of this "men are not nurturing" stuff is bullshit. Young boys are just as nurturing as young girls, it's just that they're taught not to be emotional or expressive in preparation for the competition that they'll face as a result of our society's expectations on men. God forbid a guy be softer or emotional- he's called a fag. God forbid a woman be a go-getter in the workplace- she's called a bitch. The "men as powerful breadwinners" viewpoint marginalizes men just as much as the "women belong in the home" viewpoint does. It makes the most sense to have men and women share all responsibilities equally- both in the home and in the workplace. I'm tired of the traditional stigmas.
And one of the guys... you know, the idiot who took all of the books for our last paper? He thinks that women marching for reproductive rights is inherently "anti-maternal." You know what? Damn right I'll fight for my ability to take birth control. I'm not ready to be a mommy yet-- I'm still very young myself. I'm not emotionally ready to take care of a small life yet. So, by making sure that I'm not pregnant before I'm ready, I'm being anti-maternal? Fuck you. I'm protecting the institution of motherhood. Um, from myself.
And if you want to make that out to be about abortion? Well, I couldn't have one myself, and I know that. I wouldn't emotionally be able to deal with that. But I'd rather a woman who is not ready/inclined to be a mother opt to have an abortion rather than let the fetus become a child whom she is unwilling or unable to care for, making herself completely miserable in the process. You shouldn't force someone who is not compatible with motherhood to be a mother. It's a selective thing- some are, some aren't, neither is more correct. The whole "abortion as birth control" objection can bite me. I've never had an abortion, but I've known someone who has. She thinks about it every single day, and it was agonizing for her. A woman who has an abortion is not trivializing motherhood, she's making a very difficult decision that she feels is best for her situation, and that decision will change her life forever.
Current Mood: 
uncomfortable
uncomfortable9 comments | Leave a comment