I
don't know where this post will take me. I often write wanting to
explore a theme, just to learn something myself. Not to state my
opinion. I call it 'going impro'.
Today
the theme is gender roles and true emancipation.
Roughly
speaking there are two of them: male and female. The sex that gives
birth, or lays eggs, is generally designated as the female and the
other sex, the left overs, should therefore be considered male. So
far a working definition, just to avoid miscommunication. (No one
communicates with me through
my blog but that won't stop me from seeing my blog as a form of
communication.)
What's
all the hassle about men and women? Men coming from Mars and women
from Venus? I know pretty certain that both my parents are
earthlings. My father has Frisian blood, my mother's from 'Holland'
(which together with Friesland forms the Netherlands.)
My
father comes from a typical macho family, being raised with the credo
“if it's a girl we don't like it”. He felt very comfortable in
his job at the Air Force. Until the number of female military personnel
began to grow and the ladies appeared at the so called 'social
evenings', which used to be male only. That does sound a bit
outdated, doesn't it?
Especially
if I tell you about my great grandparents, mother's side. They were
born around 1885 and got married before 1910. There was a slight
traditional role pattern in their marriage: my great grandfather held
up the rule “Where there are pants, skirts won't pay”. Meaning
that when going out, his wife was not supposed to pay for anything.
But
when it came to their marriage they said there were two captains on
their boat! The man did not boss his wife, nor did the woman control
her husband.
Since
my traditional father folkloristically refrained from bothering
himself with his children, my mother raised my
brother and me single handed. In the egalitarian ways of her family. I was hardly
aware of any gender issues until I was sent to kindergarten. I don't
want to elaborate on it, there is another post for that, but I was
really surprised to find that some children expected me not to play
with cars, but with dolls. Not being gifted with a docile nature, I
refused to comply to this nonsense and became a loner. An observer
and a philosopher.
And, in trying to gain some appreciation from the misogynist at my
home, a bit of a tomboy for some time.
Most
parents can live with a daughter who is a tomboy. But oh, what if
your son is a sissy? Help! Therapy is sorely needed. This odd
phenomenon made me think twice about feminism and women's
emancipation.
What
is an indication of a culture were women and men have 'equal rights'?
That women get an education like men do. That women hold high
positions in companies like men do. That women can join the army or
become police officers. In short: that women are allowed to do the
same things as men do. Fine, I'm all for anyone having the right to
do what he or she likes most.
But
there's a little venomous snake hiding and waiting for it's poison to
take effect in this type of feminism. Women are not only allowed to
do what men do, there is special praise for these women: they are
called 'succesful'. An Example ! Being a tomboy is what such a
culture advocates for women. Female traits, female qualities, still
are not being appreciated. Not in men and not in women.
Is
this true liberation of women? Of anyone? No it's just maintaining
the status quo 'Act Like a Man'. Even if you're a woman.
The
snake has been identified by some and different forms of feminist
movements have been born out of this: difference feminism, new
feminism, Chacha-warmi, … all advocating emancipation with the
respect of female values. Gender complimentarity. Women are not like
men, but they are as valuable and deserve equal rights.
This
respect for female virtues is, in my opinion, a lot better than the
appreciation of women who prove that they can equal men in many ways.
But even in this type of 'Equal Respect for Women' there is a hidden
sting. It reinforces the traditional role patterns. For some women
-and men- a fine thing, but not for those who carry character traits,
deeply rooted in their veins, in their souls, that are not fitting
with their appointed gender role. Gendercomplimentarity will not make
them happy.
Let's
take a look at a society where the most successful men are very macho.
For this we must travel to Chile, to the foothills of the South
American Andes; where else? There lives a very interesting type of
rodent, related to the better known chinchilla's and guinea pigs: the
degus (Octodon degu). A typical degu man spends his day defending his
harem (!), his food resources and chases predators and rivals out of
his territory. One of his occupations is building piles with
pebbles, the higher the pile the stronger the other males believe him
to be. Destruction of the tower leads to loss of the harem.
In
the mean time his wives tend the nest and raise his youngsters.
The
behaviour of the male degu is purely dictated by natural pressures.
When these macho degus are in captivity, no longer pressed to defend
the territory nor the food resources, they help their women in taking
care of the young!
Maybe
that is what we should do: just let go of the idiotic idea that some
types of behaviour are reserved for men and other types of behaviour
for women only.
Character
traits, behaviour, are as they are, no matter to whom it applies.
Nurturing children, caring for sick and cleaning a house deserve the
same respect as showing strong leadership, being smart enough to make
a good deal or coming up with a new technological masterpiece.
Whether these traits are being performed by a man or a woman is
irrelevant.
I'm
not saying that men and women are the same. I'm just saying that no
two persons are alike. One has a more of this, the other a bit more
of that. There are very feminine women, never to be equaled by any
man. There are very masculine men, no woman could beat them. And there
are a lot of men and women with some overlap in their preferences and
behaviour.
Let's
respect all of them. Give them all room to grow and flourish in their
own way.
What
is respect anyway? What good is it in society? What does it mean in
a relationship, where gender plays an important role ?
The
best definitions of respect are these:
-
to pay proper
attention to; not violate
-
to show consideration for; treat courteously or kindly
Respect
can be pretty hollow, if it's not accompanied by understanding.
Within a large -cultural- group, you cannot know or understand
everybody. So a government promoting respect is good. It is useful
when you are dealing with strangers, knowing you'll be respected –
and have to show respect- without having to do the impossible:
getting to know each and everyone you meet.
But
in a one on one relationship respect is not enough. It is not enough
to show consideration, treat
courteously or pay proper attention to your partner, while believing
you don't have to understand him, or can never understand her, simply
because (s)he comes from another planet.
Or
is that just my taste, my point of view ? Maybe there really are
those who like to share their life with someone who just looks up to
them. Without ever being understood by that partner. What will be
shared in that case? Very little, only practical things I think. That
must be very lonely.
It's a choice. And I have to respect that.
On
my desk is a booklet entitled “Wellsprings of Jewish Wisdom” I
couldn't let this small book stay at its undeserved location, a
secondhand bookstore. I quote from it:
“The
woman came out of a man’s rib.
Not
from his feet to be walked on.
Not
from his head to be superior,
but
from the side to be equal.
Under
the arm to be protected,
and
next to the heart to be loved.”
[The
Talmud]
Since
she came from his side, under the arm,
I guess she is good at encouraging and comforting.
I guess she is good at encouraging and comforting.
And
coming close from the heart, she too is capable of loving.
No comments:
Post a Comment