I used to have a very negative connotation about feminism. In high school, my English teacher claimed to be a feminist, yet she damned anyone with a "Y" chromosome to hell. I never did understand her idea of feminism.
Society still clings to precedents set forth by the caveman of so many years ago. And as a male, I have throughly reaped the benefits of its bias, though, not as much as the heterosexual white male (he is indeed the most privileged). Human societies have continued to grow, and as they have grown, the laws of nature have taken a sidebench to the laws of man. Given the male's inherent physical abilities over the female's, it may have once been appropriate for them to be the hunters and their wives to stay back and tend to their children. However, modern societies require a different skill set for survival. This skill set is not bound by the dispositions of one's sex, and as a result, society no longer needs to hold on to outdated gender roles. Since that English class five years ago, I've come to accept a different form of feminism.
I reject any brand that does not strive for true equality through neutrality. Humanity does not grow without either sex, so support of one over the other does not bode well with me. Ideally, I would like to see gender roles become reversible. The ideas of "gentlemen" and "ladies" would be dissolved and new ones created with only minimum consideration given to characteristics of one's sex.
This is a nice post - I think I addressed this issue on the Discussion Board, but it's important to remember that neutrality doesn't necessarily mean equality, particularly when talking about legal definitions of equality. I'm looking forward to reading about your "vision" for changing gender roles over the course of the semester. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete