I'll keep my frailty, thanks!

Recently I've been thinking about the differences between men and women (AGAIN!), specifically within the context of strengths and weaknesses. We all know the story of women's liberation and how feminist activists have fought long and hard to establish that objectifying women is wrong, and women deserve every opportunity that men have. The goal here has been equality, as far as I see it. Some activists in my opinion have become so obsessed by injustice that they have proclaimed that not only is the woman capable and self-sufficient, but she really doesn't even need men at all.

Now, I have to admit, I am late in posting this because I was doing my research on the scholarly stance to this idea, and I came across some of the most personally and generally offensive garble that I have ever had the misfortune of reading. I didn't know people were still putting this kind of sexist garbage into print. Anyway, if that wasn't a sufficient delay, two nights ago I slipped on some moisture on the floor and I landed directly on my injured leg. I've spent all day yesterday running tests and having consultations with various doctors, and the result is that while the fall didn't cause any permanent damage as far as we can tell, I am probably going to end up back in surgery in a week or so because my general progress, 8 months post-opp has been insufficient.

I don't wish to repeat all that I uncovered in my gender equality research, but I would like to acknowledge that there is a consensus of increased tension since the women's movement of the 50's and 60's. Men are saying that Women are increasingly becoming dragon ladies who belittle and emasculate them while the law has not been sufficiently altered to reflect the supposed equality (re: custody battles and alimony), and Women are saying that men no longer "step-up" in the sense of responsibility, and the level of emotional engagement is not what they would like. In the worst cases, this has been my impression of what both sides are saying: I don't need wo/men.

Both my Undergraduate dissertation and my Master's thesis were on racial identity, and one of the arguments in the papers was the socially protective value of a Humanist approach to race relations (where all people are equal), over a Separatist one (where the people from your own subgroup trump people of a different race or group). As I was preparing this post, though, I came to this question: what is the value of being more humanist in race relations or minority groups in general (LGBT, refugee, immigrant, etc)? The social value of viewing people from differing subgroups as equal is valuing everyone, not discriminating, and coming to the point of levelling the playing field, as it were. Equal opportunities are a value to society because the diversity of input from people with differing experiences enriches society. Now, I ask myself, is the value of levelling the playing field between men and women the same as this? One of the reasons we accept discrimination of groups as bad is because each of those groups can perform the same roles, it has been proven. Depriving one group of the opportunity to function in a particular social role is based on discrimination rather than an inability.

With men and women, there are physical and even emotional differences. Even if we control for one minority group argument in terms of culture differences (between men and women), the physical difference argument remains. Now, let me be clear: I favour equal opportunities in the workplace, especially where it is proven and clear that a woman in the role does the same or better work than a man in the role. I do not agree that the workplace should cap the woman's pay because there is the potential for her becoming pregnant and the requirement for company expense comes as a result. Here is a portion of my physical difference argument: women giving birth is a social value. Facilitating the process of re-population is pro-social. The second part of the argument is this: women have a role in mothering and even sorority that is uniquely feminine. Now, I understand myself to be dancing very closely to a can of worms where gender fluidity and changing labels and roles for gender are concerned, but understand this: my blog begins with me.

I am a strong, independent woman. I grew up in a Christian home with an interesting mixture of open-minded and conservative viewpoints. I am the career woman, a driven and opinionated leader in environments I find myself in, and let me tell you my experience. There is a requirement to be more like a man in this environment. I have called my best friend after a particularly trying day when men hit on me because I look twenty-something and they feel they don't have to maintain propriety in a corporate environment because of that and I said that sometimes I forget that I am not the same as my colleague, a man in his 50's. I am a woman, and men view women differently unless they assume more and more of a male identity. This is my issue, and something that I am still struggling to formulate: I greatly, greatly value equality, and actually thought that gender equality was my ideal.

Lately though, I've been having a hard time with assuming that men and women are the same. I've even run into emotional drama as a result of pressing for this equality. Men and women are not the same, which is at least on the surface, an essentialist position, but before I say many things that have already been said, read this excerpt from Dr. Clancy Ratliff, associate professor of English at the University of Louisiana Lafayette.

The implications of an essentialist view of gender are far-reaching. Traditional gender roles are to an extent based on an underlying biological determinism, or the view that "biology is destiny." As a result, women have long had primary responsibility for parenting and housework, and men have been the breadwinners. Even today, men outnumber women in positions of prestige in business and government, and girls and women are not as strongly encouraged to pursue careers in math, science, and technology as boys and men (Lay "Computer Culture").

Feminists who have wanted to expose – and change – the social organization of gender have objected to essentialism for its oversimplified and hierarchical definition of what is manly and what is womanly, but feminists have also had to be careful not to fall into the trap of essentializing women as a group themselves. Anyone can see that women do not share a common set of attributes; women (and men) can be aggressive and logical at some times and passive and emotional at other times. Therefore, feminists have been stuck in a “difference dilemma” -- politically, feminists need to be able to make claims about women as a group, such as “women must have reproductive freedom,” or “science courses need to be redesigned to accommodate women's learning styles” (Schiebinger 3, Sorisio 146). These claims can easily be read as subscribing to essentialist assumptions, but many feminists are willing to take the intellectual risk of essentialism to critique social and economic inequities that cut along gender lines. - Essentialism: Draft of 3W Encyclopedia Entry

I would like to state my post as being particularly egocentric today. In other words, where most of the entries at Rantings are about general positions, and occasionally about what the collective could do, I just want to share some of my personal feelings and thoughts with you about this, because I see that in this, the differences in opinion and experience are too vast to ever be considered from an Essentialist viewpoint. Here is my experience: I enjoy my woman's role. To address some clichés: I get hormonal occasionally and cry at commercials and like happy endings, I believe in the great womanly role of sorority and edification - shopping trips and mani-pedi dates and speaking life into people, and talking for longer than most men can tolerate. Those are clichés that I enjoy sometimes or all the time (depending on which!). I am VERY far from a stereotypical woman, but I value these stereotypes, because I see them as functional.

My personal experience of gender equality has been me not being these "traditionally feminine" things as much as being like any other corporate man. I would never make it known that I feel ill because of my female anatomy to a male if I can avoid it, and it has been really difficult for me to consider being emotional at work - you know, unless it was anger, a more masculine emotion. Even in my social situations, I can admit that I have been less happy to admit to liking romantic story lines in a very masculine crowd because I want to keep their respect and that idea of equality, but I have begun to notice a very worrisome product to come out of that. As with minority groups, equality is not sameness. People from varying backgrounds should be given the same opportunity to produce and contribute, but there are differences between groups that remain relevant to accomplish this equality. Treating people as if they have had the same experience is also a form of oppression.

Now, my ideal "gender equality" as I have formulated it so far includes NOT necessarily equality in the sense that us women and they, men are the same, but that I value our difference. I want to unabashedly admit that I like those stereotypically female things (like I have) without the fear that men will use this as ammunition for the case of my incompetence in the workplace. Similarly, I want to be able to look across at men and appreciate that they love pursuit, that they hunt and fish because they enjoy conquest without worrying that that argument will be used to justify a sexual overture in the workplace with the pacifier that they are opportunists, and that is who they are.

I find it problematic to view men as the same as me, because I value diversity. I am miserable with the idea of living in a world where everyone I encounter is exactly like me. My favourite place to be is a place where I am challenged and educated by difference. I am not only strong and independent, I am also not aware of everything and not as strong as my six foot three brother. In some ways, my femininity makes me frail because a human can potentially come out of me, and the potential for that begins at puberty and is a physical part of my month until it is not, any more. I am not as big as a man, and in my knee surgery, the doctor MUST take into account that because I am a woman, my "notch" (the cavity of my knee where the kneecap sits) is narrower than a man's. That being said, I enjoy the stereotypically male love of sports, I don't care about any kind of football or football team, but I absolutely enjoy the passion I see when a group of guys are talking about their teams. I don't want to be a central part of that, I just want to say that I like that they like that and they can go off together and enjoy it. I want to smile at the males in my life and enjoy their enjoyment (hopefully without having to sit through it!). The point is, I want their true male identity (whatever that is) to have a real presence in our lives, just like I want my true feminine identity to have an accepted and valued presence in our lives, too.

I believe in the male role to be protective of my frailty, I believe that men should revere that role that women play; I believe that men should honour that great role us women have, that I believe also makes us frail. As the career women we now are as well, there is added pressure and a million studies that say women have at least two full-time jobs if they work even one job outside of the home with a family. In the same train, I believe that the differing male to female role is great. I see men as strong and sometimes forceful, I see them as leaders and having a great role in convincing people and driving change. I don't want to take that role away from a man, I just want him to recognise that us women are coming too, and we add our own value to the team. My social contract ideally looks like this - I will appreciate and value maleness, I will encourage and recognise strength in men and I want the very same for me. Yes, I can do the corporate job as a woman, but this isn't even a conversation about that, this is a conversation about that softer side of this woman being okay, and also celebrated for her difference, too.