Earlier today I read a post from CNN Opinion writer Stephanie Coontz and it was in regard to Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. As many of you probably already know, I am not usually a fan of this candidate, and typically I can't bear to listen to his rhetoric. Today however, that in ability to bear his rhetoric turned into a very passionate anger over comments he has made recently with regards to women in the military and those at which he has made in the past in his book titled: "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good" that addressed education policy for women. Typically, I try to shy away from gender roles in America, not because I am afraid of stating my opinion, but really I just see one path that should be taken, that being the recognition of women and men being equal in social status, capability, intellect, deserving respect, and among other things. I also recognize the natural tendencies for men and women to have certain traits that are inherently different, and further the need to recognize these and appreciate them for what they are. So comments made by Rick Santorum really deviate from this view, and it bothers me tremendously that a man who is vying for the presidency has such support and possibility to be such that, President of the United States.
With what I have already said, I still want to remain objective in my writing, and that is why the rest of what I am going to talk about hopefully will be doing so. Upon discussing this with my girlfriend, Megan, I thought of some rationale as to why men have this need to dominate society, much of the way Santorum would envision American society being. Of course, I also thought of this through the lens of an economist, and this is where I have come to my conclusion (as always, room for debate on this).
The most simple way I can explain gender roles in American society is through property rights. Men have had the luxury throughout history to enjoy patriarchal societies that allow them to comfort of chores taken care of in the home and children being raised. In the past fifty some odd years in the United States, this has taken a rather dramatic turn. Women today in the United States enjoy far more rights and benefits because of this movement than many of their mothers and grandmothers did. This progress is a showing of the progression of society and nothing but further progression is needed. Given all of this, men still have a control on society. Such is the case that women represent nearly 50% of the world's population, but control less that 2% of the world's wealth. This is where my property rights theory comes into play. Men have a perceived ownership of society and its rules, and with property rights comes the incentive to preserve that resource and to protect it from intrusion. In layman's terms, men don't want to give up what we have had for millennia. Of course this is not the case for all men. I personally have no issue with women choosing a lifestyle that is best fitting for themselves upon their own decision, but nevertheless, men like Santorum do.
To me, I think back to grade school and remember the days of the boys and I playing sports, being wound up on things, all the while girls studied, read books and focused on much more calm things. Generally that carried on throughout my education, and I noticed that in general, many girls are just simply better students than boys through their development. Of course this is a generalization, there are always outliers, but I think for the most part, we can all agree this is pretty much the case.
I think that men inherently recognize that. Some men really recognize it and fear creeps in to the mindset. As human beings, we react to fear quite strongly. We do everything in our power to prevent ourselves from being harmed. Given that, men have this essential property right to society if you will, the men with lower competency I believe do everything in their power to prevent women from showing them up, beating them at their own game. Further, I think these men are just dumb, they don't recognize the potential women have to improve situations in society, leadership, and in the workplace. Further, to those who are worried of being seduced by a "sexy" woman in the work place, are they that incapable of self control? For me, I know that when I work with women in groups, I have no problem because I have self control and I know that I already have a lovely lady by my side.
So when it comes down to it, I think men who stop at nothing to regress women's rights, men like Santorum, I think they are simply scared, unconfident, and lacking self-control individuals. Come on guys, are we really that nervous that a girl could beat you at a man's game? This may be shocking to see this come from a 250 pound, 6 foot 2 inch, hairy man, but really, come on guys...
I know this is not a strong subject of mine, I don't study gender roles for a profession nor plan to, but I do love debate and sharing new ideas, especially when I can incorporate economics into them.
Do you agree or disagree? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.
This is the opinion piece mentioned above:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Traditionally men have had the controlling interest in property, money, and political power. My whole life though, I've seen things a little differently. I see modern america as the birthplace of modern gender interactions. We are light years ahead of the rest of the world in terms of gender equality. However, I see both genders as inherently suppressed by the other. Albeit, in vastly different ways.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, men universally share the stereotype that sports and physical things are best left for men. While, biologically, men have better proprioception and strength control, this is nonetheless a negative view to have. It undermines a female's right to be active and express herself.
On the flip side, from day one, men are not allowed to cry, or they are a baby, they cannot smile too big, or they are considered a homosexual slur [i will not mention here]. They cannot giggle, or express ANY strong emotion. Consequences: loss of friends and or loss of mating possibilities.
These two contrasting examples are only a single example from both sides of the gender inequality war. The glass ceiling is something that affects only a certain percentage of women. Not every woman wants to be a business owner, a ceo, a president. Thus, using the idea that women are suppressed by the glass ceiling ideology is not a valid argument (most websites will mention how women have less opportunities to succeed in business and politics.) However, the suppression of natural emotion effects 95% of men. So, here are two more examples of gender inequalities. However, this example affects men much stronger than women. Men see its affects every day of their lives.
If you look around on a sunny day, and look very very close, you'll notice a disturbing fact. We, as a 'man' or 'woman' do not shape our lives by the way we CAN act. But rather, we shape our lives around how we're NOT ALLOWED to act. A box, one for women. One for men. I dont see women being any more suppressed in western societies than men are. Just my two cents.