Neo-Feminists Take Heart
I was born a feminist. Really. I was born with an independent, self-starting, can-do streak that has served me well except sometimes as a partner-seeking woman, but I digress.
In general men seek women whom they can take care of (a bill I don't fit) but I don't hold that against them. It is part of their biological programming, their drive to procreate--and the more testosterone driven a man the more he seeks an estrogen driven woman--who will likely press for procreation, the ultimate biological goal of life.
Most men and women are born to breed, not challenge their biological code and it is that success of evolution (over human will and to its credit I might add) that has both kept us on the planet but also locked us into the breeding roles we have codified and labeled "family norms."
So, being born to the feminist attitude and not a product of it, I feel nary a worry about feminism when every few years the death of it is announced by a poll or op-ed piece or article or book. I know that the fight of mind over body weaves through all human endeavor. There will always be a questioning of human undertakings that pushes back against biology (e.g. the drive to protect early life hidden behind the tactic of religion).
Further, I only have to look at women like my daughter and others of her generation with kids of their own. While staying home in the first years they plot their return to the outside world; for the stimulation of the persons they grew up expecting to be and now demand to express. They don't question if they need more outside the family, they question how to get more once they are again outside.
So getting more (recognition and pay)--and the neurologically impossible task of emotionally sensitizing men--are still at the core of the feminist challenge, i.e. not much has changed.
So what's a feminist (neo or otherwise) to do? I say, soldier on, but improve your odds of getting something out of your effort:
In general men seek women whom they can take care of (a bill I don't fit) but I don't hold that against them. It is part of their biological programming, their drive to procreate--and the more testosterone driven a man the more he seeks an estrogen driven woman--who will likely press for procreation, the ultimate biological goal of life.
Most men and women are born to breed, not challenge their biological code and it is that success of evolution (over human will and to its credit I might add) that has both kept us on the planet but also locked us into the breeding roles we have codified and labeled "family norms."
So, being born to the feminist attitude and not a product of it, I feel nary a worry about feminism when every few years the death of it is announced by a poll or op-ed piece or article or book. I know that the fight of mind over body weaves through all human endeavor. There will always be a questioning of human undertakings that pushes back against biology (e.g. the drive to protect early life hidden behind the tactic of religion).
Further, I only have to look at women like my daughter and others of her generation with kids of their own. While staying home in the first years they plot their return to the outside world; for the stimulation of the persons they grew up expecting to be and now demand to express. They don't question if they need more outside the family, they question how to get more once they are again outside.
So getting more (recognition and pay)--and the neurologically impossible task of emotionally sensitizing men--are still at the core of the feminist challenge, i.e. not much has changed.
So what's a feminist (neo or otherwise) to do? I say, soldier on, but improve your odds of getting something out of your effort:
America's Stay-at-Home Feminists: "There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don't put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry."
<< Home