liberty, equality, feminity?

wait what? - well, when thinking of gender roles, and females it's rather unlikely to associate that with such thing as equality.


-  and personally i also think they have barely something to do with each other. with the growth of mankind and society the stereotypical roles developed and couldn't even been abandoned till now. yes it probably is a man's world. where man are smart, well-educated, successful, earn money, they have to be strong, athletic, confident, have an important job and a good loking wife. whereas a woman
has to be pleasant, nice, take care for her man and for their kids, shouln't be too bossy and accept that the man is the one who calls the shots. when dealing with this topic, i was fairly shocked when i found out which oldfashioned mysogynic ideas has still dominated societys minds just some decades
or only years ago and partially actually still do. the courage and the progressive state of mind of women and also men, who do not want to accept such inequality and inequity, constantly leads to changes in societys perspective on gender questions. but does fighting for equal rights for women always mean fighting for equality? and here is my opinion on something i can't really relate, something called feminism.
What i believe is, that it should not matter at all which biological sex you have, everybody should have the same rights and also have the same obligations. yes both of them. all benefits and all drawbacks.

feminism is one-sided and extreme in many cases. for example there are also inequalities for men, which feminists refuse to believe. they accuse people who claim such things of chauvinism and misogyny, because they supposedly relativize the actual issue. but it is not about relativizing something (that would mean, it's displayed to show, that the actual issue is less serious) 
that's not the intention in most cases - but just to display that they are assets and drawbacks on both sides. another factor which has to be taken into consideration is, that feminism often takes the easy way for itself. the problem of gender inequality is complex and lies deeper in society.
but with nowadays comprehension, legal situation and possibilities you cannot only put the blame for the course of the problem on "the other", the "evil menfolk". to face it, it demands self-reflexion as well as self-responsibility. women are not only worse off, for being a women, but because of their traits. if they're cautious, shy or insecure they might be worse off in business, but so are men who own that traits, compared to a loud, self promoting co-worker

if the "complaints of men" would seriously be taken to account, and discussed, it would contribute to equality: custody, family and childcare would no longer be woman's business. in the long term, employers would not have to concern hiring a woman, cause she might be busier taking care of her children. this would be a both male and female "problem" and there where an urgent need for action finding new solutions and ways. it wouldn't nessecarily lead to the fact that women give up their full time position to look for their children, if it would be socially usual to share this task inbetween both partners, regardless of gender. i'm convinced that the distribution of roles would lead to a differing result if it were socially acceptable.
but as different as people just are, there are possibly just as much of them, who consider this completly normal and right, that it simply has to be the role of the mother.
and then there are this type of women, who really appreciate to take on the motherrole (and by this i mean the actual role. not being biologically a mother, having children!) and demand all privileges in their professional career at the same time. for them, as well as for society it is immediately clear, that it's mysogynic and discriminating, when an employer might be sceptical and more likely to engage someone else. to be quite honest, i can understand this scepticism. but what i understand less is the expectation of those kind of woman. i mean: "reconciliation of family and worklife" means on the one hand that the employer should offer me familyfriendly work conditions, but on the other hand it is also my part to ensure that the circumstances won't affect my work. for example by splitting the necessary responsibilities with my partner so they are evenly distributed.
having children plus a desirable job is neither a big problem for most men, nor for the employers who hire men with family. why? because eventually it's clear that that's women's job. and as long this role tradition is still taught and lived as well by society but also by the women who put theirselves in the traditional role, it's no wonder why it might be deterring for employers to hire them.

another problem, which exists without any doubt: prejudices - women are too [nice, insecure, well-behaved, bitchy, stupid, weak  - insert a random degrading adjective]. yes definitely it's offending to hear such things. but over time i more and more actually wondered: is that right? yes? no? maybe a bit? after closer consideration about those things which really upset me i felt no longer personally insulted by that. kept in perspective; these assumptions grew out of the oldfashioned role models. it's time for them to disappear and nobody needs insulting, arrogant macho phrases. but unfortunately society supports and promotes stereotypes. and finally there are those "cliché women" who are proud of being "handsome ninnys". but i find it even more appalling, that actual self-confident, educated, intelligent women say about theirselves things like: "i am a woman, so i don't understand technology." - when it's about checking, if a cable is plugged or to install a programm on the computer. everytime i here such statements i can't believe my ears - and adopt some kind of understanding why men see women as unconfident when they seem to see theirselves this way.
does ones technical skills not correlate with their interests, their logical thinking and their apprehension instead of their biological sex? to justify the lack of know-how with being a woman is exactly what proves the assumtions chauvinists have about women. a woman with a claim for equality, who wants to be taken serious, shouldn't shout out self destructive cliché phrases in the same breath.


"nice, insecure, well-behaved, bitchy, stupid, weak" - as well as "intelligent, strong, confident, competent, objective, brave" - in my view all personal attributes which could apply to both genders equally. to not get associated with first ones, the best you can do ist to prove the "opponent" wrong.
therefore i do not approve feminism, it puts women automatically in a victim role. it suggests, that women are in need of a special treatment, because they wouldn't be able to prevail theirselves. what i think is, that instead society's total overview is in need of letting role models and stigmatizations go, to allow a gender neutral development. to reach that, inequalities in both directions has to be seen and be dealt with. the disadvantages of women in world of work as well as mens disadvantages in family policy. everybody should have under same conditions and with equal chances, the same rights and the same duties.

and that's another limitation of feminism. like i said before, argumentation patterns are often:
because men are largely privileged anyway, they shouldn't complain about their few problems.
this way of argumentation is neither constructive nor factual, nor less one-sided. also all men get lumped together by doing so. a caring husband who wishes for more father rights, to care for a mutual child the same way as a mother, gets accused of relativizing and being misogynic, as men do already have enough rights. without seeing, that father rights would change the distribution of roles in favour of women. further, there are definitely plenty of situations in which men can suffer from sexism. "you're not trained enough" , "you cry, are you gay?", "what a sissy". men, who don't fulfil the expectations of the manly rolemodel, have to deal with such superficial sayings frequently. not least from women wo call themselves feminists and actual complain about sexism. and ironically the reactions to this being adressed, are often exactly such answers. "what kind of men are they if they complain about such little sayings - go, cry into your pillow"
- what a double standard?!

lots of women demand equal rights but refuse to get equal duties. bringing money to the family, having a house built, getting your hands dirty, paying at a date, assume responsibility, driving by car? all jobs for a man. but if men say, cleaning, cooking, ironing - womens business, its discriminating.
of course also here are couples which are comfortable with that distribution of roles, cause it incidentally fits. but women who are bothered by inequality, should not only pick the benefits, when they really wish for gender neutrality.
it's quite easy to look for others to blame (who definitely can also be found), but to every problem which you want to be solved, you should reflect, on which parts you can assume responsibillity yourself, to make an actively change, instead of just denouncing.

the accusations and also the possible solutions, if applicable, often only target the symptoms of gender inequality, not the basic causes. for example; in a recent discussion was mentioned that it's disadvantaging of women, that health incurances don't take the cost for oral contraception, and women get ripped off constantly. what i really wonder instead: why does this woman assume, that birth control is solely her part? isn't it possible to share the cost for that in an enlightened, equitable partnership? if he isn't willingly to do so, maybe he is the one who disadvantages his girlfriend/wife?
- by the way, personally i do not understand why "the pill" got a symbol for emancipation anyway. women get indoctrinated to take in hormones for their whole life, beginning at early teen ages, with risk of side effects - like getting a risk score of thrombosis equivalent to smokers.
for me exactly this is a textbook example for a subtile omnipresent oppression of women. she has to do everything what society demands from her as a matter of course.
a literal horror, just like comedians making full shows at prime time about women who can't park, girls and boys kinder eggs and other extremly stereotypical prepared toys, which already put children into pigeonholes; slogans on toddlers clothing, the man as the patriarch pictured in school textbooks, and all those things too numerous to mention.

so for me it is all the small things, which happen in everyday life and affect us both concsiously and unconsciously, that leads to inequality and disadvantage. it's probably an utopian idea to believe that it's possible to get rid of this completely. but the more you reconsider certain habits and traditional behaviour and mind patterns, the more you can break stereotypes. it would be even more effective than superficial regulation mechanisms, which subserve promotion of women and therefore also pose a distinction between genders. the ascpects of disadvantages of men shouldn't be seen as threat oder offense, but as an aspect that has to be discussed instead of being tabooed.
children shouldn't be conveyed a predetermined rolemodel depending on gender, no so called  gender-specific conduct should be instilled. and everyone who does not want to spend his life within the bounds of a traditional role, should appeal to self: "what can I do myself, to escape that?"

- #beyourownsuperhero

Kommentare

Beliebte Posts