To summarize, this is what I saw to be her main point: That men are harmed when women are sexualized and stereotyped beyond the point where they're not allowed to be real people. That men and women do themselves and each other an injustice when they accept their gender-roles and insist everyone around them do the same. It also seemed like she implied that while men started it, women need to end it, because "When woman is lost, so is man. The truth is, woman is the window to a man’s heart and a man’s heart is the gateway to his soul."
That last part, and some other stuff she said struck me a little the wrong way, but that's not what I want to talk about today.
Yes, men are harmed by the gender binary! (Men have to act like dudes and make money and not have emotions except for anger and pride, while women should act like ladies and should always be pretty, sexy, fun and occasionally quirky or crude but only if comic relief is needed.)
I mean testosterone has a huge effect on personality and demeanor, and studies are indicating that women act more feminine when they're most fertile. It would make sense that evolution would select for certain characteristics in men and certain characteristics in women. But this is a topic for another blog.
My point is that there probably some aggregate differences between men and women, but aggregate differences are one thing. Societal requirements that mainstream men and women act in very specific ways according to their socio-economic backgrounds are another thing all together. And while it's pretty common to see people talking about how engineering and science are being opened up to women and encouraged as career paths, you don't see a lot about how to get guys into care-giving fields like nursing, elementary-school teaching, or even babysitting (besides the rare "manny" op-ed).
Part of that is because female-dominated jobs pay terribly, and are generally ridiculously hard work. But part of it is also that in the mission to equal rights, women have traditionally insisted on sharing men's rights, but haven't given up or been relieved of many or their traditional duties or rights.
For example, most women are annoyed at best when men don't offer to pay for dates. It's pretty unpopular whenever I mention this, because it's seen as a mark of decency, of chivalry, of caregiving even, for the guy to pay. But it seems to me that my friends who don't pay for dinner then have to deal with welcome or otherwise intimations that in return, the guy will get laid eventually. That doesn't seem to me to be much of an indication of potential partner quality. It seems more like services rendered (however pleasantly and willingly) in exchange for goods. But that might just be how society and all human interaction works, or it mights just be me, so continue.
Jada made the point that the guys-pay attitude is harmful to men, too.
"There is a deep sadness when I witness a man that can’t recognize the emptiness he feels when he objectifies himself as a bank and truly believes he can buy love with things and status. It is painful to witness the betrayal when a woman takes him up on that offer."
"He doesn’t recognize that the [creation] of a half woman has contributed to his repressed anger and frustration of feeling he is not enough. He then may love no woman or keep many half women as his prize."I guess I'd never really thought about this before. In all my talking about real equality, not extra perks for chicks, I'd overlooked what it's doing to the guys. If a women doesn't make very much money, it's not usually seen as a reflection on her character. It is, for men, almost all of the time. What must that be like, to have that kind of pressure? And what are the ramifications for men, and for society as a whole? Would it be better or worse without that stress?
Even bigger, what's the solution?
Maybe chivalry needs to die.
What do you think?
