So this past week in class, we were discussing subsections of sociology, and 'gender issues' was brought up. A point was made about the fact that 'gender issues' classes do not address what they are advocating -- gender equality -- and that classes under the title of 'gender issues' should deal fairly with both men and women's issues. While I am all for learning about and wanting to help deal with everyone's gender issues, the fact of the matter is that women have had significantly more issues throughout history than men. So, when trying to educate people towards the idea of equality, it would just make sense to deal with the facts, which include dealing more with what has happened to women more so than what happens with men. Not to mention, our entire schooling system up until university (and, debatably, university, as well) is taught through mostly men's perspectives and informs us of men's accomplishments. So doesn't having a class that has a heavier discussion on the history of women and their experiences effectively equalize the playing field? Just a thought.
I thought man babies would be a fitting image to include, since it deals so blatantly with men's possible issues of feeling inadequate in an overly-masculinized society. A topic equally as important as the fact that women are more likely to be impoverished because of the sex gap in pay.
Great post, and I agree. And when you talk about the social issues men have in society, it stems from the patriarchy, anyway, because it's about the man not being 'feminized' into a pussy, a bitch, a girl. so by validating the contribution and existence of women, you can then eradicate what's used so constantly to make men feel bad about themselves.
ReplyDeleteEx. Homophobia can directly stem from the fact that the male homosexual is not 'acting' like a man correctly, thus he then is 'female', making him less and a subject of hatred, for his perceived inferior femininity, and how it breaks gender norms.
call it what you will - and be sure to discuss matters such as the emotional balance in a household where the woman works and the man does not, where the woman earns more than the man, where the man's training to be the provider is absent, where the man does not drive as often as the woman, where the man does the housework and the woman looks on - just be sure to recognize that these changes implicate two people, not one. And then what happens to the woman (typically or stereotypically) preferring "the bad boy" type? Does that go away? Does she now prefer the "saint"? So the madonna-whore thing-y goes over to the opposite sex? Just sayin' . . .
ReplyDeleteHow is it balanced, though, if a woman earns less, and is the one to stay home? And how is a man's absent training to be the sole provider a bad thing for society? Gender binaries are constricting and limiting, imo. I don't think anyone's being or has to be 'implicated', the structure of how people in relationships relate to each other is, though, and more likely, for the better, because it doesn't assign jobs and tasks according to gender, when there's no good reason to.
ReplyDelete