I was raised in a fairly prejudice-free environment -- as much as any environment can be, I suppose. It never occurred to me that different skin color or physical features had anything to do with personality or intelligence or integrity; and it never occurred to me that women and men should be treated differently with regard to authority or dignity. I had to learn about these things in history class.However, it has always been my instinct, and it remains my reasoned conclusion, that men and women are distinct manifestations of humanity, and therefore should act and be treated differently in respecting those differences. The question is, just what differences are essential to masculinity or femininity, and which are "social constructs" that exalt or oppress or set one sex against the other?
G.K. Chesterton, whom I am currently reading, posits that women and men occupy two distinct spheres of society: the men are specialists whose work and life is based on adherence to rules and whose relationships tend toward the egalitarianism he calls "camaraderie"; meanwhile, women are universalists, adept at everything, whose work and lives is based on the wisdom of an absolute ruler who has influence over every aspect of life within her realm.
That is to say, the sphere of men is narrow, but is free within the whole of public life; the sphere of women is broad, but is free within the limits of the home.
It's an interesting approach. He claims that it respects the freedom and value appropriate to each sex, and I have to say that I approve heartily of his goal. I'm not entirely convinced that his suggested means are the best way to get there. For example, regarding the Suffragettes, he says:
The question is not whether women are good enough for votes: it is whether votes are good enough for women.And he answers that voting takes away the particular dignity of women by imposing on them a public responsibility that (at best) distracts them and (at worst) denegrates them.
Based on his assumptions about the nature of men and women, his conclusion makes some sense. It is exactly those assumptions that I question.
Unfortunately, I don't have an answer of my own ... yet.
I am convinced that one distinctive feature of the sexes is their sexual difference. That is, it is clearly an essential feature of women -- the defining feature, even -- that they are able to bear and nurture children. (Indeed, if it weren't for recombinant DNA, it would be difficult to figure what the defining feature of men could be!)
I'm also convinced that the sexual difference is not the only essential difference between men and women. And this is where things get very muddy very quickly. Some social differences clearly support the sexual differences, such as the tendency in virtually every culture for women to have primary care of rearing children at least until adolescence. Other social differences seem to have little relation to the sexual difference, such as the custom in many places for men to have short hair and women to have long hair.
I suppose my current approach is similar to that of St. Augustine regarding Christian doctrine and practice: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
Posts
4 comboxers:
I love reading your blogs by the way. On this one, I agree. I do not think it is nurture. Just spending a bit of time with babies from birth till they turn about 9 months old you'll see distinct behavioral differences between boys and girls. There has to be more to our distinctiveness than just our sexual difference, I agree.
Semi related... what about homosexuals? Are they "born that way"? Are they too "distinct manifestations of humanity"?
I think sexual attractions are distinct from basic sexed-ness. In other words, e.g., one is a man; and then one is a man attracted to the opposite or to the same sex. One's attractions do not define a person's essence.
Now, those who claim to be transgendered may have a claim to something prior to their biological sex; but I have a hard time believing that one's feeling about one's gender can really trump one's actual body.
Hermaphrodites and other people of ambiguous physical or genetic sex are very much exceptions, and do not in and of themselves disprove the rule. In many cultures, such people were regarded as magical or mystical because they did not fit the normal categories. This makes a certain sense to me.
Rob -
I agree with you on the idea that gender differences are important.
To be clear, I would never go back to the days of enforced/strict gender roles. I tend to view Chesterton's comments on the subject as an attempt to "nicely" keep the status quo of the day. There are moral problems with legally forcing people to fit into neat little slots regardless of reasons.
On the other hand, as a woman, I find the public sphere confusing and draining. I dislike office politics. I'm not a fan of the pace of modern life. I've found that I've no great ambitions: high powered careers look hollow and empty to me.
I recently read an article that theorized that if women were in charge (CEOs), we would have avoided the credit crisis. First, I very much disliked giving women "more virtuous than thou" status (which also one of my dislikes for Chesterton). My real concern, however, was that I think achieving CEO in the current environment requires females take on a rigorously masculine outlook on life. In other words, all that a female CEO and I have in common is that we use rest rooms with "Women" on the door.
Because I just really want to hang out with my kids, which is really no burden to me. Keep a clean and orderly home for all us. Play games, have fun, and volunteer. Really live charity begins at home.
Right now, the living costs of VT don't allow for that. We're actually thinking of relocating (at some point) to lower our costs - it's something we need to think through carefully especially with Tom's job.
Phew! At any rate, though, what I'm saying is that as throughly modern woman, I totally understand what you are saying.
(late on the bandwagon - sorry)
well, my father primarily raised me letting mom go back to full time work, and it rather does show. i can and do keep up with the men, but i do love to come home and cook. well, and i have a lot more - shall we say - gumption than many men i know.
i do think one difference, though, is that women grow up with the understanding that life will have different stages of things (motherhood, work, grandmother, etc) while men think of growing up and working forever. i think we may have even discussed that at one point. :)
Post a Comment