Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Plain Jane
I honestly don't understand some of this. Is competition with men a masculine trait? If, let's say, Hillary Clinton is running for president versus Barak Obama is that a masculine trait, because she is running against a man? And why is it a "masculine trait" to have dominance or success in a professional or political field? That Donna Karan runs an incredibly successful clothing business is masculine? I don't see it that way. That Martha Stewart has her own conglomerate is masculine? Why can't BOTH men and women be "breadwinners" (a very outdated term on its own)? Why can't both men and women be successful in business and politics? Maybe the fact that women have different viewpoints might bring a balance to world affairs that is sorely missing. I also don't see why any such success needs to preclude feminine appearance. Certainly Donna Karan has a very feminine look, as did Margaret Thatcher, in her own way, as does, hmmm, Anna Wintour.
|
"Masculine" like "feminine" is a generalisation and therefore does not preclude exceptions to the rule; it simply means that a given trait is more commonly occurring among men than women. The reason being a breadwinner in families is a masculine occupation is because raising children has, among the majority of societies, always been a female one. The reason that seeking power and rising to the top of fields is masculine is because men have always done this even in fields that women traditionally excel in or dominate. The only way this could be seen as a problem is if people have the idea that being a breadwinner is somehow "superior" to being a full-time mother or housewife, or if people think that the drive to power and professional domination somehow is somehow "better" than stable employment. Interesting how men have never been considered "unliberated" for not spending as much time child-raising, nor has it ever been considered "oppressive" that a man's worth is often considered directly in relation to his occupational status.
I never said that women
can't be breadwinners or dominate in professional/political fields; I'm merely making reference to the fact that they usually
don't - even in societies where they have every available opportunity to do so. I'm not saying that the rights women have in those areas are gratuitous or that women in other societies shouldn't strive for the same rights, merely that we shouldn't define women's collective worth or success by how closely they imitate men in those regards. And this is what a large amount of feminists have done and still do. Women may not ever equal men in some regards, just as men will not equal women in many. The imperative should be opportunity, not competition.