Has Progress Been Good For the Roles of Men and Women?
Before I begin let me state plainly that the following opinion is not one which is meant to put women down and suggest that they return to a state of "barefoot and pregnant." I believe that the strides that women have made in society is great and in our society are ones that are needed. Moreover, I believe that women are equal to men. However, I also believe that men and women are very different.
The reason that I chose the Appalachian site to address this issue is because it is in the old ways of Appalachian life that I am most familiar with the traditional roles of men and women. Now on to my observation.
Most of us will say that women have come a long way over the past century. They are competing in most traditionally male vocations and in some are in higher ratio than their male counterparts, pharmacy to name one. College enrollment reflects a female majority. So women are on the move. There are many who continue to argue that unfairness still exists towards women in the marketplace in pay and harassment. I have nothing to say about this: I must plead ignorance and it is not the point of what I am trying to say. My point is that because women have moved out of the home and into the workplace, we have lost some of our identity as men and women. Or at a minimum the identities are changing.
Women can now do what men traditionally were supposed to do. They can earn a living, support themselves, pay rent or mortgage, and raise children without needed a man for provision. I'm not saying it is easy, but single moms are common place in our society. Many women, even when married, want to work outside of the home. They want a fulfilling career. And to boot, this increases a families standard of living. In many cases it is the only way a couple can raise children in our society. The problem that I have is that men and women do not need each other any more.
There is now an overlap of identities. As women redefine the roles of what it means to be female, there is by default a simultaneous undoing what it means to be man. In some cases there is a reversal of roles, such as the stay at home dad phenomenon (I did this for a while and it is not easy). My hypothesis is that this has created gender confusion. Moreover, it has increased our tendency to be selfish. Maybe it has contributed to the rise in divorce. I am not trying to lay the blame of all of this on women wanting more than being housewives. I am saying that our society is such that we do not even want to need the opposite sex, and this bothers me.
Contrast this to how people grew up a century ago in rural Appalachia. To live life men and women needed each other to live. The roles of women were not meant to demean, they were for survival. Men worked in the fields and women worked in the home because both places needed attention. It would be very hard for me to believe that centuries ago women did the outside work and men stayed inside with the kids and made the meals. Then what happened? Was there an uprising among men who refused to do housework! Of course not, men and women worked where they did because each gender did what was best for the family to survive. They needed each other for food and to continue the species.
Now, with the advancements in technology and machinery there is an equal playing field for men and women. The one thing I see that really separates us now is that women have the capacity for being pregnant and men do not. This may always be true, but not always needed as research is now underway to create the artificial womb. I think this is a shame. We do need each other.
The reason that I chose the Appalachian site to address this issue is because it is in the old ways of Appalachian life that I am most familiar with the traditional roles of men and women. Now on to my observation.
Most of us will say that women have come a long way over the past century. They are competing in most traditionally male vocations and in some are in higher ratio than their male counterparts, pharmacy to name one. College enrollment reflects a female majority. So women are on the move. There are many who continue to argue that unfairness still exists towards women in the marketplace in pay and harassment. I have nothing to say about this: I must plead ignorance and it is not the point of what I am trying to say. My point is that because women have moved out of the home and into the workplace, we have lost some of our identity as men and women. Or at a minimum the identities are changing.
Women can now do what men traditionally were supposed to do. They can earn a living, support themselves, pay rent or mortgage, and raise children without needed a man for provision. I'm not saying it is easy, but single moms are common place in our society. Many women, even when married, want to work outside of the home. They want a fulfilling career. And to boot, this increases a families standard of living. In many cases it is the only way a couple can raise children in our society. The problem that I have is that men and women do not need each other any more.
There is now an overlap of identities. As women redefine the roles of what it means to be female, there is by default a simultaneous undoing what it means to be man. In some cases there is a reversal of roles, such as the stay at home dad phenomenon (I did this for a while and it is not easy). My hypothesis is that this has created gender confusion. Moreover, it has increased our tendency to be selfish. Maybe it has contributed to the rise in divorce. I am not trying to lay the blame of all of this on women wanting more than being housewives. I am saying that our society is such that we do not even want to need the opposite sex, and this bothers me.
Contrast this to how people grew up a century ago in rural Appalachia. To live life men and women needed each other to live. The roles of women were not meant to demean, they were for survival. Men worked in the fields and women worked in the home because both places needed attention. It would be very hard for me to believe that centuries ago women did the outside work and men stayed inside with the kids and made the meals. Then what happened? Was there an uprising among men who refused to do housework! Of course not, men and women worked where they did because each gender did what was best for the family to survive. They needed each other for food and to continue the species.
Now, with the advancements in technology and machinery there is an equal playing field for men and women. The one thing I see that really separates us now is that women have the capacity for being pregnant and men do not. This may always be true, but not always needed as research is now underway to create the artificial womb. I think this is a shame. We do need each other.
posted by David M at 2:59 PM
2 Comments:
I was thinking about something along these lines earlier today.
I was thinking about how the relationship I have with my boyfriend is much different than the relationship my parents had. Even as little as 30 years ago, the vast majority of heterosexual relationships looked alike. While the distinction between the roles was positive in some ways (e.g., covering all bases, as you pointed out), it has been my experience that that distiction also had negative ramifications.
For instance, I was thinking about how my bf and I truly communicate and deal with one another as equals. In my home and from what I saw in others, the difference between the roles left women at a disadvantage in decision-making and communication in general (e.g., the man was the head of the household).
Today, women are more capable of being on a level playing field. Consequently, no relationship looks like the next. I think that freaks a lot of people out...especially those who feel our society is going to hell in a handbasket anyway. So while the divorce rate may be higher, domestic abuse is lower as hopefully more women do not feel compelled to stay with a controlling or abusive husband and demand more from their relationship.
Sorry this was so jumpy, I really tried to keep it short.
As a response to the previous comment, I tried to make it clear that I do not advocate that women should be or should have ever been in a disadvantageous role. I therefore agree with Miranda on all accounts concerning equality.
However, there is a big difference between equality and authority. We can all be equal in the eyes of the law and yet it is necessary for there to be authority. The judicial system is a prime example of the need and use of authority. All this to say that a man and woman can be in a relationship of equality where the husband (or wife if they so choose) is the head of the household.
Sadly, people have misconstrued this concept of head of household. My interpretation is that of the St. Paul's when he says that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives as Christ laid his down for his church.
Authority does not mean mastering or lording over someone with an iron fist. In my marriage of over 13 years I have considered myself head of the household, but I do not control the money (or even earn it for that matter) or make any decision without my wife's input. And, when it comes to the kids, I usually let her opinion govern even though I often disagree. But, I feel as if I am the one who is responsible for my family in the end.
Post a Comment
<< Home