Why is it that a culture so taken up with embracing diversity refuses to do so with one of the most obvious places it should be done--between men and women? I agree; for too long mutual misunderstanding and, tragically, shameful ill treatment have divided man and woman. For too long our differences have made us forget the greatest thing we have in common: our humanity. And thank goodness someone noticed. But I'm not really sure we have solved the problem, not completely. Perhaps it is silly of me to expect that it ever will be solved on this planet, with the state of humanity and our tendency to make too much out of things that should be made less of, and too little of things that should be made more of. But still, I want to say my little bit.
Why is it that, for most of the women's rights movement (still, as some would say, going on today), showing equality has been done by our trying to be more like men? Why has it always been a fight to show that women are "as good as" men? Could we have an inferiority complex? I am not saying it is not with good reason we have such a complex, but in my experience, acting from an inferiority complex rarely makes the problem much better. In fact, it often even more greatly emphasizes problem than before. To lay the issue out clearer: in doing this we are perpetuating a mentality that was part-and-parcel to the demeaning attitudes toward women prevalent in so many past societies. It was commonly thought that the only way a woman could transcend her inferior, inadequate, and (to some) evil nature, was to become less like a woman and more like a man. Will we, under the misapplied name of "women's rights," continue to perpetuate this lie? I find the prospect outrageous.
True, women have gained esteem and more equal rights than perhaps ever before in history. And again, I grant that it was necessary. But my problem has been, and always will be, first and foremost with an attitude and not primarily a particular culture or set of traditional roles. Looking back at the way things were done in other times and in other cultures, I do not necessarily find them offensive in themselves, even if I would not care to live in all of them. What I do find troublesome is the attitudes that seem to have been around then and, as far as I can tell, have yet to vanish now. Oh yes, they do still exist, but in new forms apparently unrecognized by many.
The problem, as I see it, was not that men traditionally were breadwinners and women homemakers. The problem was not primarily that women did not traditionally involve themselves in politics. Neither was it that women were expected to behave differently from men (and, might I add, men from women). None of those cultural norms alone implies any sort of sense of inferiority. No, any sense of inferiority was first due to an attitude, a common misunderstanding. Even if you argue that certain cultural norms were purely a result of male bigotry (which certainly played a significant role), we have to admit that the attitude, and not the norm, came first. If, on the other hand, the cultural norms have been (as I expect) a result of a far more complex interplay of events and history, it is painfully simplistic and naive to assume that changing those same cultural norms will also get rid of a customary bigotry that is not as cleanly connected to the culture as we might like to suppose. Perhaps it might change it, but get rid of it, I doubt. No, in either case, it is the attitude, and not merely an external culture, which most badly needs changing.
Truly, wouldn't it be more expedient to target the attitude more strongly? Mere external public victories can only gain so much. True, the political gains women have made certainly sent a message; women asserted their abilities and as a result the mentality has greatly shifted towards us. I do admit that. And I cannot say whether this could have been done (on a large scale) without such external victories. Let us lay that matter aside; it is history and its harm and benefits cannot be altered as they stand now.
But let us look again at the attitude. Though it has greatly changed, it has not gone away; and worse, it has been compounded with new problems. Whereas before there were too many assumptions that women were by nature incapable of measuring up to men in certain respects, especially intellectually, now there seems to be a sort of mutual rivalry that I do not believe is helpful or should (ideally) be there. Yes, I find it offensive for a man to assume that a woman is incapable of carrying on an intellectual conversation or of thinking up good policies. I find it offensive because I feel in so believing he is doing a great injustice both to her as a fellow human and to his relationship to her as such. I do NOT find it offensive because, in some strange way, women have a special right to any sort of political or social agenda or should be seen somehow as indistinguishable from a man. That mentality is quite simply over-sensitive and unhelpful.
The fact is, our fellow humans deserve our mutual respect just for that. No more, no less. No human being has the right to use any advantage to subject his less fortunate brothers or sisters to abuse. Selfishness, pride, bigotry are common to humanity but not to be embraced by any means. Human beings, morally, are to relate to one another as brothers and sisters, at least in terms of respect. This is why it is so reprehensible to mistreat any fellow human being--and the greater an advantage you have over your brother or sister the worse the offense. Likewise, the closer the relationship, the worse is its desecration. The point here is that this is a matter of human brotherhood, and not just one group's special rights. We are different, with different strengths and weaknesses, but we are all to treat one another with equal respect and dignity.
By all this I mean to lay out the terms on which this women's rights movement should proceed. It is not, I fear, proceeding on these terms, however. If it were, it would not seek to eliminate differences but to eliminate unjust thought and behavior. Men and women cannot be said to be identical, no matter how popular it may be to claim it. Despite how many times I have heard this claim, I have never heard any satisfactory evidence to back it up. Biologically, it is inaccurate to an appalling degree. Socially, even in a culture where men and women relate more evenly than ever, women and men have never stopped exhibiting distinct characteristics. What has become clear, as formerly rightly suspected, is that women are not inferior to men in kind. This really should not be a great surprise, and I doubt it is to most. Those who still maintain that there is a sort of inferiority are as blinded to reality as those who try to claim the two genders are indistinguishable. If either case had been true, it would have become clear by now. Not only is there no evidence to support either position; there is ample evidence to discredit both. The only way anyone will make progress toward proper relations between genders is by facing what really is rather than clinging to what the masses approve. That never has been, and never will be, the proper course to take.
I have remarked that traditional expectations of men and women, though perhaps inaccurate on certain counts, did not totally run against the nature of a man or a woman. They were not entirely unnatural but probably arose at least partly from natural tendencies and preferences. It would be odd for the inverse expectations to have been in effect instead (with women acting in men's place and vice-versa), and unlikely to ever arise without a deliberate agenda to effect such an extreme cultural transformation. This points to the fact, I believe, that although what men and women expect and are able to do in society is largely flexible (as evidenced by today's culture), it is not entirely an artificial imposition, totally unrelated to inherent temperaments, talents, and preferences. I do not see why such differences ought to be offensive unless, again, we as women have an inferiority complex. We somehow believe that by acknowledging distinct tendencies and strengths we are tacitly admitting to some sort of inferiority. Why? Are we afraid to admit that we are not omnipotent or that another can do something better than we? For this claim, remember, also says that men are weak in some areas where women are strong. I insist that this doesnot subject us to men; it only embraces our distinct diversity and our special interaction. Truly, for a culture so proud of embracing diversity, we are unnaturally afraid of it in a most obvious case! Why is this so?
If we are so certain that we are not inferior, but equal, to men, why are we not secure that our inborn characteristics as women do nothing to debase us? Why can men and women not have a mutual respect for one another, embracing and respecting differences as a beautiful thing? That a woman often has a stronger instinct to nurture children than a man is a mark of inferiority? This means she cannot engage on an equal intellectual level with a man or effectively make decisions? That she tends to approach problems from another angle than a man is a mark of a cultural bias? Why, if humans are already so diverse? Why are we afraid to be different, distinct? What is so offensive about the many-colored and many-paced dance of humanity? Is it not what make it beautiful to be human? Truly, we are a fear-imprisoned race.
Today, the raised social status of women has come at the price of a mutual tension and disrespect in certain arenas. Surely this is not the end of the fight for equality? This is a continuance of the attitude I deplored earlier. Yes, perhaps it has changed, improved in some ways. But the balm for the prejudice against women's status and abilities is not contention and disrespect in return,ending in a mutual haughtiness. The only thing that heralds the healing of such a misled prejudice is the presence of mutual respect, with no need on either side to prove "I am just as good". As long as that need is felt, something is wrong. This always points to a remaining insecurity, a problem as yet unresolved. It does not prove victory. The end of the fight should be mutual respect, mutual peace, mutual appreciation of differing strengths and weaknesses, without fear or insecurity. I do not pretend this can ever be entirely acheived, because humans cannot seem to respect one another properly, or not for long. But it should be the standard by which we measure ourselves.
It is impossible to rid society entirely of prejudice, because prejudice is an inherent human weakness in response to diversity. Because not all differences between men are good, man will always be in danger of accusing good differences of being bad or negative, because he is threatened. It is an unfortunate side-effect of the current state of humanity. Anyone that believes we will ever achieve utopia on this earth is as yet naive to an inhering weakness humanity cannot seem to rid itself of. In thousands of years of recorded history and risings and fallings of cultures, the problem has not been resolved. Modern man is not more intelligent than ancient man; our only advantage is better technology and methods of gaining and retaining knowledge. But man has never been stupid (or more so than he is still) in relation to his social problems. They cannot seem to be exterminated, for with each new birth comes new imperfections to cope with and keep at bay. Man is not inherently evil, to be sure, but neither is he inherently perfect.
Thus, the point arises: public social and political programs can only do so much to solve social problems on a grand scale. They are not useless, but neither are they a panacea, and they have the weakness of artificially imposing standards and pressures on society and causing certain problems even if they solve others. They have their benefits but also their limits. Likewise, though each of us lives in a larger society, our impact on that society has its limits. But each of us also lives in a smaller circle of friends, family, and acquaintances: this is our real world. The "great society" is more hypothetical in our direct experience than the actual men and women we encounter and live with on a daily basis. We will be most benefited by the impact we make on our closer circles. This is the most immediate place of action given to us. A prejudiced attitude against women is best tackled on the personal level; forced legislation only leads the horse to water. Our goal is not first for women's rights but for a proper understanding of our fellow human by all. Proper treatment of women is only one fruit of a much greater tree. And neither it nor anything else should seek to ignore distinctions and diversity, but to embrace the equal dignity and nature of each person through existing differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment