Their motto is "extolling femininity, blasting feminism," and this group of conservative Christians is pretty angry at women, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, who serve in leadership roles. Their also angry at women who work outside the home, choose to have no children (or maybe only just one), and serve in the military. Check out the trailer for their recent documentary on the subject. It will make your toes curl.
Here's just a clip about women in politics:
Of course, the documentary was directed and produced by two men, although there was one female writer on staff. She wrote with her husband, though, which means she was likely under his creative dominion.
I understand the draw of this perspective. It is comforting to organize the world in categories, easy to say that everything is black and white. If you are male, you have one set of characteristics. If you are female, you have another set entirely. If you stick to the script, you've got it made.
The problem is that a lot of us can't stick to the script and don't want to. I know many women with the gift of leadership, courage, boldness, and self-sufficiency, all attributes that are typically ascribed to men. I also know plenty of men who are emotional, humble, empathetic, and relational, all attributes that are typically ascribed to women.
When we deny ourselves half of the characteristics available to us, we deny ourselves a fuller humanity. So while I understand where this worldview comes from, I have to opt for a more uncomfortable perspective of humanity, one that says that men and women are quite complex beings, created with incredible potential but without a clear prescription of roles or behaviors.
Of course, this means that I don't always have the quick, easy, black and white answer. That's why I keep a blog...to write my way into meaning, to explore the paradox of our lives, to embrace the gray.
Posts
En İyi Kaçak Bahis Siteleri
9 months ago
3 comments:
If it weren't so scary it'd almost be funny... all I have time for today is; England seems to have done pretty well with female rulers... Elizabeths one and two havent seemed to destroy Great Britain.
I agree. And like the person above says, the most peaceful and well-to-do countries thrive on having women leaders and generally do not look down upon it.
I am reading an article from 2001 entitled “Place and Gender: Applying Gender Theory to the Documentation and Management of Cultural Landscapes”, by Jill Cowley. It is the telling of how more and more historic sites are relaying the female side of history. Here is an excerpt:”Traditional western history includes the stereotypes of Anglo-American women – the refined lady, the long-suffering wife, and the prostitute. In reality, women homesteaders do not fit these stereotypes. . . . Using sources such as diaries and letters that show how these women defined themselves. . .we can include them accurately in the picture. Another stereotype about Anglo-American women in the West is that they wanted to remake their eastern domestic environments. . . Research has found that many women – farmers, ranchers, artist and tourists – found the vast open spaces liberating . . . .”
I have found in my own research on women during the Civil War that this was so. Most women relished the independence that being away from family and society norms gave them. Why have we gotten the impression in the past that women did not want these responsibilities? Because most history is written by men. As the expression goes – History is written by the winners – they get to tell the story, often to the detriment of full truth. So it goes with women’s history – it was interpreted by those who saw history from their own myopic viewpoints. Women couldn’t possibly want the same things that men wanted, so that part of the story was never told. We learned about women from a male point of view. How much was lost, we will never fully know. How much better would this world be if we could just accept each other’s viewpoints and not worry about what is male and what is female?
Post a Comment