What’s a canyon going to do– jump around to make you fall into it?Īlso, the whole “women are in danger of abduction and rape” thing? It’s based on the idea that the man in your life, the man you trust, is not going to be responsible for raping you. And, really? Women have to be protected from a “high precipice” and a “deep canyon”? This just makes me believe that Helen thinks all women are morons. I’ve known men who had a paralyzing fear of spiders. And snakes? Pretty sure I’ve seen men go weak in the knees and pass out in a reptile house at the zoo. Wild beasts– men are no more capable of fending off a bear than a woman is. women are afraid of such things as strange noises, spiders, mice, and even dark shadows.Īside from the horrible racism, the stereotypes here are absolutely ridiculous. Lesser dangers are vicious dogs, snakes, a high precipice, a deep canyon. Women are in danger of abduction and rape, sometimes followed by brutality and murder. Today dangers are different, but just as real. Savage Indians, wild beasts, and snakes created situations which called for masculine courage, strength, and ability. But that’s not how it works in Helen’s world. There are things I shield him from– things that I am quite capable of handling but he is not. I make sure to do what I can to take care of him the way he takes care of me. However, I also protect my husband– in a very different way, because I’m a different person. He wraps me up in his arms when I have night terrors, and I instantly feel sheltered, and it helps me. I can’t explain how huge and wonderful that is. Because of my background, finding someone who is strongly motivated to make me feel safe is. My husband is an INFJ– the Myers-Briggs personality type sometimes referred to as “ The Protector.” Taking care of the people he cares about is one of his fundamental motivators, and it’s a quality that I love and deeply appreciate. Helen moves on to describe the sorts of things women need to be protected from, including “dangers, strenuous work, and difficulties.” Western and American traditional gender roles have never been the universal truth– and treating Western middle-class gender roles (and yes, class and economics has always been a part of gender roles, with the middle class becoming the ideal after the Industrial Revolution) as if they are some sort of biblical absolute? That is a wholly inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts.
The sorts of traits, qualities, behaviors, etc., that are attributed to the biological sexes (and there is not just two, by the way) change across civilizations, cultures, and times.
My identity is not rooted in the fact that I have a vagina. My biological sex is not the sum total of who I am as a person. Not totally independent, I’m not arguing that, but biological sex is not the magic wand patriarchal and complementarian teachings make it out to be. People are people, and who they are, while sex is absolutely a part of that, is independent of sex. However, biological differences are not an argument for gender identities. Is the average man much stronger than the average woman? Most likely. Do their hips tend to be narrower, making them, in general, faster runners? Sure. Are their muscles attached to their bones differently? Yes. I don’t think “physical endurance” is something that men have a huge advantage in. There’s two basic problems with this idea, First off, I’d like to see any man push a seven pound baby out of a space not even four inches across. Women are more fragile, weaker, created for more delicate tasks.
Men are larger, have stronger muscles, and greater physical endurance than women. She opens her argument with an appeal to biological differences: This chapter is where Helen crosses the line from benevolent to hostile sexism– and she stays in hostile sexist territory for the majority of the book. Hostile sexism, which is the active belief that women actually are inferior or less capable than men, is less common in American culture (although still present)– but it is very much alive in Helen’s book. It differs from hostile sexism in that it usually presents as attempting to be beneficial for women: women are told to stay within patriarchal boundaries, but in return, they will receive benefits, such as protection. This attitude is actually called benevolent sexism. It appears in a variety of ways, some more subtle than others. This chapter is devoted to the second “masculine need”: “a man needs to function, feel needed, and excel women as a protector.”Ī man being a protector is probably one of the more foundational concepts about men in conservative religious environments– it is most especially true where patriarchy and complementarianism are fiercely held.
0 kommentar(er)
