Feminism is the best thing for blokes
I was listening to Maureen Dowd talking to Kim Hill on Saturday morning (4 March). Audio here. Maureen Dowd is a rather well known feminist columnist in the US.
Her comments, especially saying that women are competing to have the same slutty look, caused me to think something. Feminism has been much better for guys than it's been for women.
First two disclaimers: this is a thought I'm only just developing and I do generally believe in feminism - or rather the greater point that people should have the opportunity to live the life their talents allow.
In the much romanticised 1950s we had a fairly simple contract - marriage was for life. This contract led to a whole set of subsequent decisions. Essentially women could have children with the security that their husband would help support them - at least that was the claim. Marriage was taken a bit more seriously and, I believe (maybe foolishly), that more was considered than just looks.
However, nowadays, love appears to be far more facile, and far more desired. Women are competing to dress more revealingly because that is what they need to do to get guys. They need to do this because commitment is optional and temporary. A man can always go out and get another woman.
Women, however, have the worst end of the stick. Now they have uncertain marriages, generally keep the children, often have diminished earning prospects because of time spent working in the home and, if they are have children they attempt to be supermom - mother, wife and worker.
Her comments, especially saying that women are competing to have the same slutty look, caused me to think something. Feminism has been much better for guys than it's been for women.
First two disclaimers: this is a thought I'm only just developing and I do generally believe in feminism - or rather the greater point that people should have the opportunity to live the life their talents allow.
In the much romanticised 1950s we had a fairly simple contract - marriage was for life. This contract led to a whole set of subsequent decisions. Essentially women could have children with the security that their husband would help support them - at least that was the claim. Marriage was taken a bit more seriously and, I believe (maybe foolishly), that more was considered than just looks.
However, nowadays, love appears to be far more facile, and far more desired. Women are competing to dress more revealingly because that is what they need to do to get guys. They need to do this because commitment is optional and temporary. A man can always go out and get another woman.
Women, however, have the worst end of the stick. Now they have uncertain marriages, generally keep the children, often have diminished earning prospects because of time spent working in the home and, if they are have children they attempt to be supermom - mother, wife and worker.
posted by Edward Sargisson at 9:26 pm
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I was going to respond to Cat's comment but she's decided to delete it.
Well I'll respond anyway.
Yes, life was rough for women in the past. They were also rough for men as well who generally faced very rough work and violence on a regular basis.
I would suggest that the social structures that were around then did not survive they way they did because of men's dominance of women (as the feminists claim) but because the structures worked for both men and women in uncertain times.
The system of payments (if that is the word) sounds like a fairly sensible solution to the prevailing conditions.
Mash, to answer you. Yes I've read some feminist literature. Some of it is clearly way off the deep end (the ones that Stephen Pinker characterises as gender feminists). However, the equality feminists, are to my mind largely correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home