Last week, there was an op-ed column in the New York Times called "Sexism's Puzzling Stamina" (which can be read here). Now, I happen to think it was written mostly so "sex" and "stamina" could appear in the headline and provide fodder for snarky blog-post titles. And let me say up front, sexism is not a good thing. It's destructive and an area where out society has a lot of work to do. But I really don't think it's continued existence is all that puzzling.
I think issues of gender are going to be a frequent topic I post about. I think about it a lot and have since at least college, maybe earlier. So this is just a first foray into this arena. But I think this is a good place to posit my introductory thoughts on this subject.
I was born 22 years after 'The Feminine Mystique" was published. I grew up in a society that preached women could do anything they wanted. It's just something that I have accepted as given. But my entire life, discussions of gender have really been discussions of either queer identity or feminism. The entire focus is on the experience of being a female or being outside heteronormativity. But we're operating on an assumption that the male experience has been fully explored (because we lived in a patriarchy in the West for so long, weren't all those discussions of human experience basically male slanted?) And I think they were somewhat slanted, no doubt, but they weren't about being male specifically.
Look at the cultural signposts identified in the op-ed column. Leaving aside the movie argument, I find the statement
"he persistent stereotype of a woman whose career devotion is both seed and flower of a tortured private life" incredibly myopic because it's ignoring that the same thing applies to men. I mean, Don Draper's private life is so ordered and free of drama. And as if the "distant father always at work" trope operated without any basis in lived experience. When someone is career driven at the expense of family, there is a cost, regardless of sex. Because alternatives exclude and choices have consequences.
I understand the uproar about the Fox clips. It was a bunch of scared old men lamenting change. But I think that's only the surface analysis. The reason it's troubling for men that women are now the "breadwinner" in so many homes is, culturally speaking, without the role of breadwinner, what exactly is a man's role? Now, I think men need to figure this out, but I don't think the anxiety is really all that unbelievable. The opening up of cultural roles that occurred for women because of feminism didn't occur for men. If it had, engagement rings wouldn't exist (the engagement ring's sole purpose is to prove you're enough of a breadwinner to blow a paycheck or two on a shiny thing), we'd there'd be no societal qualms about adult men supervising small children or being "house husbands" and motherhood would not be as exalted so far above fatherhood in our culture.
I could go on (is it good or bad that women author's don't aggressively self-promote? does the author understand what Title IX was supposed to do?), but I think the point is, sexism persists because there is no discussion, or real forum for discussion, about the role of men in our society. The discussions taking place are framed as "women's" issues and the potential that redefining cultural gender roles could effect men profoundly never gets discussed.
Our cultural narratives never got updated. Boys are still taught to be breadwinners, to provide, above all else. I think it's the reason the Godfather films continue to resonate- men understand the tension Michael goes through and his willingness to do anything, no matter how evil, to protect and provide for his family. And, rightly or wrongly, the emphasis on female experience and, to a much lesser degree, queer experience, are discussions that seem to only take away roles or status, without offering new options. So sexism continues because it's a defense mechanism. Our society doesn't even have a recognizable vocabulary for men to talk about their issues (a holdover from the stoic, unemotional role men are taught to fulfill).
That's why I think you see sexism persisting in our culture. Until men decide to take an active role in discussions and there is a receptive audience to voicing men's concerns (or a space culturally for men to work out their issues among themselves without being accused for creating "old boy's" clubs), this is an issue that won't be resolved nearly as quickly as it should.
No comments:
Post a Comment