by Don Wheeler
To answer my own question - some of us do. Some of us even marry them and brag about our good fortune. But many of us don't. I can speak about it from a male perspective, perhaps April can pitch in about why she thinks some women have trouble too.
I think some of this has to do with the public face most of us present to do what ever it is we need to get done and make the rest of our lives work. Men who get to know other men well come to realize that the public face of this other man may not tell one all that much about what goes on inside. It seems to me that many of these men don't make that sort of leap in reasoning to women. I think many in this group expect women should behave as though they were already friends. It sort of fits the mythic stereotype.
I kind of understand this. I find myself wishing people generally interacted on this basis. I think I might a bit more than some others. But I certainly realize that most people don't.
In April's Misogyny I won't miss, either post, she (with help from Marie Coco) notes some of the indignities heaped upon Hillary Clinton - especially recently. I couldn't agree more with the analysis. Just to pile on a bit, I've seen that nutcracker in both the Signals and Wireless catalogues - fundraisers for Public Television and Public Radio. I think that sucks.
But here's another side. I stopped watching SitComs a long, long time ago. Why? Because the successful formula seemed to require the male adult in the cast to be the butt of all the jokes. He's made to seem clueless and incompetent - the mother and daughter(s) continually trick, tease or come to his rescue. He's just happy to be there.
We don't like it (we say) that fathers aren't involved with their families, yet the ones we portray in mass media who are there aren't of any value or substance.
So...woman are bad, men are bad...What's left?
One thing that has made this "feminism thing" easier for me is that I like women - and not just for the one thing that some men do. I've also worked with strong, competent women in the past.
But it's also true that being a feminist as a man is kind of a tricky business. On the one hand, one is suspect until one has proven his bona fides. It's not always clear what that takes, and sometimes it doesn't appear possible. On the other, many men will look at one askance. The upside is limited.
Unless, of course, you want to attract a strong woman. Just ask John Edwards. Or me.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Day by day, I'd say there are two things you need to be a feminist, whether you are a woman or a man.
First, you need to believe that people ought to be treated equally. Lots of people will nod their heads at that one.
Second, you need to believe that looking at gender tells you things about society that you probably wouldn't otherwise understand.
For example, a feminist is willing to consider the possibility that Senator Clinton is treated differently because she's a woman. (By the press, for example, or by her opponents.) If we aren't willing to consider that, then we're forced to conclude that whatever happens to her only happens because of who she is as an individual -- no social patterns or pressures are involved.
And if no social patterns are involved in what happens to women, then these patterns are probably not involved in what happens to other groups either. You either make it or you don't based on who you are. Poverty, for example, turns out to be what you expect to happen to poor people -- it's who they are as individuals, after all, and no social patterns or pressures are involved.
But if you believe that social patterns are involved in the outcome of women’s lives, and if you think people ought to be treated equally, then you might be a feminist.
Ken -
I should have replied sooner. I really like your analysis.
Don
Post a Comment