Alternatively, some of the most appalling pieces of writing I’ve ever read. My problem is that it masquerades itself as some sort of progressive, new way of thinking about its misconstrued idea of feminism by concluding, “Men and women are equal, but different. They’ve each been blessed with amazing and unique qualities that they bring to the table.”
That statement is true. No one is trying to say that women are literally the same as men (for a few very big reasons). But when your entire article concludes that women and men should stick to their gender roles in society, you’re twisting the implications of that statement. Consider this instead:
“All people are equal, but different. They’ve each been blessed with amazing and unique qualities, irregardless of gender, that they bring to the table.”
Because there are women who will want to stay at home; because there are men who will want to become secretaries; because there are women who want to be CEOs; because there are men who want to become doctors. That’s the beauty of living in a supposedly progressive world: rather than being entrenched in olden-day gender roles and neat little boxes, the plethora of opportunity that we call the future is suddenly open to everyone. But if we choose to interpret it as Suzanne Venker does, feminism is a way for women to emasculate men and destroy the American family.
“Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.”
Right — it’s not because of the fact that people spent centuries telling women that their only acceptable place in society was as a stay-at-home wife. Once again, Ms. Venker references the tired stereotype of the feminist who insists that all women want the same thing: to overthrow men and rule the world as vagina-wielding queens. I’m extremely tired of hearing people accuse feminists as “stay-at-home-mom-haters”. Why is it so difficult to conclude that not all women want the same thing, but that their goals in life, whatever they may be, are perfectly valid?
Venker cites her own book, How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage, in this article, stating that in order to be happy, women must “adopt a whole new view of men and marriage.” How this supposedly new view differs from the traditional views held not more than fifty years ago still baffles me. Men go out and make the money. Women stay home and churn out babies and delight in that and that alone.
“Those of us with children know better. We know little girls love their dolls and boys just want to kick that ball. This doesn’t mean men can’t take care of babies or women can’t play sports. It just means each gender has its own energy that flows in a specific direction. For God’s sake, let it flow.”
And once again, the article chooses to word its argument so cleverly that you almost think that what you’re reading makes sense. Especially the last sentence: “For God’s sake, let it flow.” Yes, Fox News — can you just let women and men decide for themselves what they want to do, and stop lambasting people who stray from your worn-out gender roles? By acting as if all men have the same goals, and all women have the same (separate) goals, we are limiting the possibilities of millions of people. Don’t pretend like you’re allotting people more freedom when you’re actually attempting to proselytize the general public. The first part of that quote needs no rebuttal; I’ll let it sit there and fester in its own ignorance.
So, in conclusion, not everybody is the same, and you can’t make giant sweeping generalizations about what people want in their lives. Or, what I learned in the third grade.