[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Yet More about sexism and division of labor

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

Amanda:
>And it's true, too, that some of it is what you are saying, that men's and
>women's expectations differ, but I don't think it's learned at home (or
>anywhere). Women, *in general,* like to interact via cooperation and
>consensus; men, *in general,* function more competitively in a hierarchichal
>approach. I think it's hardwired. So men tend to challenge the system for
>more compensation (i.e., kick and scream), and women tend to want to feel
>there is a consensus that they deserve it (i.e., wait to be rewarded).

I guess that must mean that my hard-wiring is hopelessly flawed, then.  Or, perhaps I'm just the mannish type.

I won't try to pretend that what you've said here doesn't provoke feelings of resentment (not towards you, but towards this viewpoint, which I come across so often) in me.  Everyone *is* entitled to their opinion, however, this one has always particularly pained me.  

First, because it runs so contrary to everything that I know (i.e. observed throughout my life).  Secondly, because although *I* know you didn't mean to imply that women who act in the way you described as male are somehow abnormal, the net result of the expectations that I feel result in this viewpoint is that women who do *not* act in this way are viewed as somehow masculine (and vice versa for men).  And being viewed as having a "male" attitude about something when one is female almost inevitably leads to accusations of either being "Butch" (as in the lesbian stereotype) or bitch.  Basically, a guy can be aggressive-competitive, but a women has to make due with working hard and hoping someone notices.

And you know what?  Being aggressive-competitive *isn't* necessarily a respectable or honorable thing to be.  But in a competitive society such as our own, just because you *deserve* something doesn't mean that you're going to be handed it on a silver platter.  Mostly, you're going to have to speak up and *make* people notice your value, because in every situation there's bound to be someone else just as valuable.  And as far as I can see, society has little problem with men who understand this.  They get dubbed things like "Go-getter" or "Leader".  Women, on the other hand, who behave like this tend to be considered heartless or unfeminine or hard.

And that's what I feel is my biggest argument against your reasoning -- the fact that if a women *does* happen to buck her "hard-wiring", she gets put down for it.  She gets ahead where the more passive women wouldn't, yes -- but she loses her femininity in the process.

As far as I can see, things like being aggressive or competitive or hard-working or intelligent or friendly or funny or charismatic are all *individual* traits -- brought on in the *individual* by nature or nurture or a combination of the two.  It seems inherently wrong to me that any of them would be hardwired or gender-specific.  The tendencies you describe probably exist, but I believe that they are they product of a society with the left-over expectations and biases of the past (a VERY recent past, I might add, so no wonder) -- that feminine is defined as soft, motherly, emotional, and unassuming; while masculine is aggressive, strong, stable, and competitive.  And God help the person (male or female) who has too many of the traits attributed to the opposite sex.  How *dare* a woman fight to further herself, and any man who would rather stay home to cook and clean instead of braving the competitive business world must be either homosexual or brow-beaten by his over-bearing wife.  Most people would bristle at the suggestion that they think like this, and, indeed, most people don't.  But what I do believe is that vestiges of this thinking remain lodged in our society, and will probably do so for a long time to come.

laura  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]