… that we’re asking the wrong question. It all starts out innocently enough. An aggrieved woman asks, ‘Are men and women equal?’ If you answer, ‘Yes’, then the issue becomes, ‘Why aren’t they treated equally?’ If you answer ‘No’ then you’re a male chauvinist, even if you happen to be, you know, a woman.
So just what IS a feminist? I read an insightful post on tumblr that said a feminist is a person that advocates equal rights for women. The article further explains that lots of people are feminists, even though they may not know it. I don’t ascribe to feminism, even though most people think I do. I recognize that feminists from the past have done a lot for me. They got me an education, a job, jeans, the right to vote. Without them, I’d probably be a third wife to some old lout in a village somewhere.
Yet I say I’m not a feminist, because my idea of feminism is the radical females that have taken things too far. That doesn’t stop men (and women) who meet me from declaring me a feminist, because I’m a loud single mum with an opinion about everything. So why am I not a feminist? Because feminism answers the wrong question.
Men are not equal to women. Women are not equal to men. Men are not superior to women. Women are not superior to men. Neither gender is inferior to the other, because the two genders are complementary. The fact is that men can’t thrive without women, and women can’t thrive without men. They can live, they can survive, they can even be happy. But in order to thrive, they need each other.
Let’s look at the most basic point – population. For the human race to procreate, we need both men and women. Men need a womb and egg from a female. Women need a sperm from a male. You could spend lifetimes arguing about which of those components is more crucial, but the fact is if you took out either part, there would be no children. Then the human race would become completely extinct.
What about homosexual couples? A lesbian couple still needs a sperm from a male. A gay male couple still needs an egg and a womb. Even adoptive parents need a man and woman to collaborate and produce that child. Without that connection, there’d be no baby for them to adopt.
Fine, what about after the child is born, what then? Well, somebody needs to look after the baby. Feeding, changing, bathing, playing etc. And somebody needs to pay the bills so that somebody else can look after the baby. Who does what is not the point.
A man is better endowed physically for hunting, gathering, detaching from the child during work hours, and is therefore intrinsically better suited to provide for the family. A woman can learn these skills. A woman is more nurturing and emotional, and has breasts, so she’s intrinsically better at child care. A man can learn these skills. So when it comes to child rearing, gender is a factor, but it’s not a deciding factor.
Now, let’s look at gender inequality. Because a woman’s biological make-up is better suited to raising children, some people believe that’s all she should do. Because a man’s biological make-up is better suited for provision, some people believe that’s all he should do. These two beliefs have led to both genders being institutionally locked out of certain opportunities, at school, at work, and at home.
These opportunities are related to skill, not gender, and we’ve already established that these skills can be learned. It may be slightly more difficult for a man to rear a child or for a woman to hunt a mammoth, but it can be done. So, again, gender is a stupid basis for denying anyone an opportunity.
Now, let’s look at the things a man or woman CAN’T do because of their gender. A woman can’t fertilize an egg. A man can’t gestate a child. If there’s ANYTHING else that a man or woman can’t do based on their gender, I’d love to hear about it in the comments.
So, as far as I know, the ONLY thing that can be denied based on gender is siring and bearing children. Which of the two is more important is a pointless argument, since taking any of the two out of the equation eliminates children, which means the human race is gone.
Now, based on men siring children and women bearing children, it would be insensible for a mother that is 8 months pregnant to climb the scaffolding on a construction site, or grab a gun and charge into battle. It would be equally impractical for a father to grab his hungry infant and hide in the closet without a feeding bottle.
If men and women were equal, then a couple in their eighth month of pregnancy could both climb that scaffolding I mentioned earlier. But just because the mother can’t (and shouldn’t) doesn’t make her inferior. If men and women were equal, then a couple with a two week old baby could both feed him using the liquids that flow out of their bodies. Just because the father can’t do that doesn’t make him inferior. In both situations, one parent needs to pay for the other to take care of the child, both within and outside the uterus. They complement each other so that their baby – and the human race – can survive.
Does that mean the kids of homosexual or single parents are missing out? No. It does mean they need the other gender to complement their parenting, and most kids get that through aunts, uncles, teachers, elder siblings, close friends. The point is the genders balance each other out, in all areas of life.
So, should men and women be given the same opportunities? Yes. Should they always take the same opportunities? No. Is either gender inferior to the other? No. Are the two genders equal to each other? No. Do the two genders need each other? Absolutely. Is the world doomed if we can’t make peace between men and women. Yes. Can we make this peace while one gender feels antagonized, attacked, and belittled by the other? No. And this is why I’m not a feminist.
♫ Let me be myself ♫ 3 Doors Down ♫