When I was in my senior year of high school and trying to decide where I wanted to go to college, my mother thought that a women's college was a good idea, because it would teach me how to be a responsible, pro-active woman, in a way that a co-educational environment wouldn't. I don't know if she's right, because I don't have any data to compare. However, Mount Holyoke has certainly raised my awareness of women's presence and involvement in various spheres.
It took about a year for the first change in my consciousness to take place. I went to MHC thinking of myself as a girl, but I left as a woman, intelligent, courageous, launching my small boat on the seas of gender politics. Anyone who refers to MHC as a girl's school
receives, at the very least, an icy glare. Use of the word girl
for a female above high-school age provokes pointed throat-clearing. (I have recently been twitted by my father and by Jeff about my use of the word boy;
I maintain that it is not the same but acknowledge their right to twit me about it.)
This week my little blogosphere has been going wild about AccordionGuy's creepy girlfriend. Obviously New Girl has problems, but I'm not sure exactly what kind. Dorothea, in thinking about New Girl, remembers Miss Wannabe, her own female creep. No one knows what's wrong with these people, but Dorothea has an interesting theory about Miss Wannabe:
I do want to suggest a third possibility, however: Miss Wannabe is a not-so-closeted sexist. The wife cannot matter, because she does not exist except as an adjunct of the husband. (Though how anyone can maintain such an idea after visiting these two I am sure I cannot fathom.) Perfectly fine to ignore this woman, stab her in the back; only he matters. Certainly none of Miss Wannabe's religious inclinations would have given her much in the way of tools for gender equality.
What a sad thing, though, if I am right. How can Miss Wannabe ever put together a real long-term relationship, if that is what she thinks of women and marriage?
Scarily, that explanation makes perfect sense to me. Not perfect sense as in I could think that way,
but it fits the data, for her and for other women who pursue relationships with men already committed to someone else. It explains why someone like that can accept (or ignore) the idea that if a man is unfaithful to someone else, he will surely be unfaithful to her as well. It is further argument that the greatest enemy to equality for women is not men who won't give it, but women who won't accept it.
Burningbird hits the nail on the head as well, with her discussion of women's roles at scientific and technical conferences and in the military. I don't believe that women should be treated differently from men. I have to admit to using my femaleness against men who have qualms about attacking women, or at least to being conscious of that psychological advantage (most recently, during hurling practice). However, I don't think it's fair to do so. I most certainly don't think it's fair to exclude women from opportunities for promotion, for no reason other than sexism. I don't think it's fair to draft men but not women. (In fact, I don't think it's fair to draft anyone, but it's even less fair to draft only men.)
I am in a life-long battle for responsible equality. Equality means not just equal rights but equal responsibilities. The right to vote carries with it the responsibility to vote, to serve my country, and to defend it if need be. As I refuse senseless discrimination, I also refuse to tolerate senseless favoritism. Fair's fair, kids. Let's all treat each other right.
Post a comment