Despite making significant strides in the social, political, educational and occupational fields, women are still seriously disadvantaged in all of these categories. Women are currently making up the majority of graduating classes and also earning a higher number of Ph.D.s and M.A.s. Many women are also earning the primary income for their family, or at least acting as a co-contributor (1). Despite these facts, the glass ceiling is still in place, which prevents many women from reaching the “highest echelons of the corporate world” (1). Domestic life has become one of the major deterrents in preventing women from achieving the same level of success as men. Although our society has become one focused largely on convenience and efficiency, women are still responsible for doing twice the amount of chores than men perform (1). This notion is commonly called the double- shift, in which women perform their first shift at their place of employment and then perform their second shift when they return to their home. Such a routine is quite physically and mentally demanding on an individual.
Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, authors of Who Needs Men? We do, assert that a duel liberation is in order. As women we must acknowledge the fact that we need men to gain equality and liberation. Of course such a statement will undoubtedly make some females cringe in disbelief. The irony is obvious, we need men, who allegedly oppress us to help us gain our liberation. But if we flush their argument out a bit further, we see that there is a great deal of merit in it.
The first thing that needs to stop is the age-old battle of the sexes. For true progress and change to occur men and women need to stop viewing each other as remote and distant enemies. Instead, we must realize that working in unison is far more efficient and beneficial for both parties. For instance, they cite that numerous studies have shown a correlation between the number of female members on a corporate board and the companies overall success. Additionally, it is speculated that if the United States achieved true work equality, our Gross Domestic Product would increase by nine percent (1). Such an improvement is quite striking, considering that we are currently in the midst of what is being hailed one of the worst economic downturns in our nations history. For this to occur, men would have to play a larger role in the domestic sphere. The burden of domesticity and child rearing can no longer fall solely on the female’s shoulders. To validify and bolster their argument, the authors used Iceland as a success story. Recognizing the importance of both men and women in the work force, the prime minister mandated a three-month paternity leave. Both mother and father receive approximately eighty percent of their salary while they are taking care of their newborn. Iceland currently has the smallest wage gap, because employers no longer feel that it is a waste to invest time, resources and money into training a female employee if she is just going to get pregnant and leave. The fear and anxiety surrounding pregnant career women is greatly reduced. They know that their partner will be available to assist them and also have a piece of mind that their job is secure. Additionally, because they are receiving a large portion of their salary, finances will be less of a burden. This decreases the stereotype that men must be the primary provider, because both husband and wife are being compensated to take care of their child.
Bennett and Ellison continue their discussion of the importance of female and male cooperation. Using the London Business School as their primary resource, they state that productivity levels increase when men and women work together. When an optimal mix of female and male workers exists, there is a better flow of diverse ideas and a decrease in close- mindedness. In Enlightened Sexism, Susan Douglas stated that certain career professions, such as: “secretaries, retail and personal sales workers, managers and administrators, elementary school teachers and registered nurses” were totally female dominated (2). Bennett and Ellison also came to the same conclusion and found that these professions are going to face major expansion in the upcoming years. Thus, men need to get over the female stigma attached to many of these professions and begin to enter these fields. Incorporating men into these fields would increase productivity amongst other things. In general, these professions are underpaid. If men began to take positions in these fields, the wages would most likely increase and thus help close the wage gap. Additionally, with more men entering the field, the level of competition and prestige will increase, which will help attract higher levels of talent.
It is clear that both authors stress the importance of cooperation and unity between men and women. A major component of their argument relates to Marilyn Frye’s Oppression article. She discusses the psychological effects of oppression. When men oppress women they are also being oppressed. This can be seen in the fact that men are in their own way limited to lifestyle and occupational careers. If a man chooses to be a nurse he faces taunts and jeers from his friends. His masculinity and career success will most likely be called into question, as many will probably wonder why he is not a doctor. This is seen in popular culture and media. The box office hit Meet The Parents, featured Ben Stiller as a male nurse. He faces un-relenting criticism from his fiancées family as to the reason why he was not a doctor. His career seemed incomplete, even though nurses are crucial to the success and operation of a hospital.
Bennett and Ellison smartly laid out their argument. I found it particularly clever to begin their article with two prevalent stereotypes in American culture: the cool, masculine Marlboro Man (men) and the unattractive, also masculine Rosie the Riveter. They expose and put the stereotypes of the angry, raging, man-hating feminist in direct contrast to the womanizing, whiskey drinking male. For men and women to come together and achieve equality, we need to expose and discuss these stereotypes, in order to destroy them. As a society we need to realize that a majority of us do not fit into these ridiculous stereotypes. In fact, these stereotypes should upset us and act as a catalyst for change. Men should not want to be seen as drunken oafs, constantly in pursuit of sexual pleasure. This demeans and belittles their character and morals.
Of course men enjoy the seen and unseen benefits of a patriarchal society. But maybe it’s time to take a step back and stand side by side with their female counterparts. Why should they feel the constant strain/ constraint of years of tradition that say that they need to work all the time and be the primary monetary providers. Men should not be ridiculed by society when they choose to stay home with their children, while their wife provides for their family. A child is equally the father and mothers, so why should the male miss out on child rearing and PTA meetings. Similarly, women should not be made to feel like horrible mothers and parents because they want to pursue a fulfilling and challenging career. Patriarchy severely limits and curtails both male and female roles. Our society needs to expand its mindset and allow for un-conventional family arrangements.
With this being said, I can see how many feminists would have a problem with Bennett and Ellison’s article. Primarily because they would feel that this article relays the message that men’s liberation is equally important to female liberation. This can strike a nerve with many feminists, who would believe that men do not need any more liberation than they already have. Male privilege in our society is already so prevalent and abundant that women should focus on helping other women out, instead of men. It can also be construed that female's cannot achieve liberation without men. Personally, I really liked the arguments and examples that Bennett and Ellison laid out. I think for equality to happen, both men and women need to see that equality will benefit both parties. It is part of the human condition to want to achieve some level of benefit when helping another person. This article makes it clear that women aren’t out to take over the world and subjugate men into peasants. Instead, women want equality- which will inevitably help all involved.
(1) Who Needs Men? We Do. Jesse Ellison & Jessica Bennett. 20 September 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-the-new-macho-is-good-for-women.html?obref=obinsite
(2) Enlightened Sexism. Susan J. Douglas. First edition 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment