Reverend Priscilla I. Fondren, C.S.I.
December 3rd 07, 03:53 AM
occupants. Tyson's trial made us increasingly aware of men as rapists,
but the firefighters' deaths did not make us increasingly aware of men
as saviors. We were more aware of one man doing harm than of two men
saving, of one man threatening one women (who is still alive) than of
dozens of men saving hundreds of people (and that two of those men
died).
Men's expectations are about as deeply ingrained in society as women's
were in the Fifties. Women's studies have helped women question their
expectations. And this is positive. What isn't positive is the tendency
of feminists to argue against men's studies because "history is men's
studies." History books, though, do not encourage men to question their
expectations. In fact, history books sell to boys the traditional role
of hero and performer. Each history book is advertisement for the
performer role. Each lesson tells him, "If you perform, you will get
love and respect. If you fail, you will be nothing."
To a boy, history is pressure to perform, not relief from that pressure.
Feminism is relief from the pressure to be confined in the traditional
female role. To a boy, then, history is not the equivalent of women's
studies, it is the opposite of women's studies. It tells him that the
only acceptable role is the traditional one. Women's studies do more
than question the female role - they tell women they have a right to
what was once the traditional male role. Nothing tells men they have a
right to the traditional female role - an equal right to stay home
full-time or part-time with the children, for example, while his wife
supports him.
* * *
To acknowledge the full truth about sex roles - that both men and women
are burdened by and benefit from them - was considered regressive.
Worse, it didn't sell. Women bought the books and magazines, and
publishers pandered to them, just as politicians pander to interest
groups. Women became Women Who Love, and men became Men W
but the firefighters' deaths did not make us increasingly aware of men
as saviors. We were more aware of one man doing harm than of two men
saving, of one man threatening one women (who is still alive) than of
dozens of men saving hundreds of people (and that two of those men
died).
Men's expectations are about as deeply ingrained in society as women's
were in the Fifties. Women's studies have helped women question their
expectations. And this is positive. What isn't positive is the tendency
of feminists to argue against men's studies because "history is men's
studies." History books, though, do not encourage men to question their
expectations. In fact, history books sell to boys the traditional role
of hero and performer. Each history book is advertisement for the
performer role. Each lesson tells him, "If you perform, you will get
love and respect. If you fail, you will be nothing."
To a boy, history is pressure to perform, not relief from that pressure.
Feminism is relief from the pressure to be confined in the traditional
female role. To a boy, then, history is not the equivalent of women's
studies, it is the opposite of women's studies. It tells him that the
only acceptable role is the traditional one. Women's studies do more
than question the female role - they tell women they have a right to
what was once the traditional male role. Nothing tells men they have a
right to the traditional female role - an equal right to stay home
full-time or part-time with the children, for example, while his wife
supports him.
* * *
To acknowledge the full truth about sex roles - that both men and women
are burdened by and benefit from them - was considered regressive.
Worse, it didn't sell. Women bought the books and magazines, and
publishers pandered to them, just as politicians pander to interest
groups. Women became Women Who Love, and men became Men W