A recent article from the New York Times examines data from a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center which seems to confirm the perpetuation of stereotypical perceptions about gender differences. The article begins with the thesis that: "Men are tough; women are in touch with their feelings. Men are providers; women are nurturers. Men should punch back when provoked; women should be physically attractive" and goes on to investigate the effects of sexism in society, concluding that, even in the current climate of shifting gender identity, roles and expectations, masculinity is still a more desirable quality than femininity.
It's not true that men lack the capacity to be in touch with their feelings the way women do. From an early age, boys are trained to believe that expressing their softer emotions makes them weaker and less masculine, unless those emotions are expressed to their female partners, who look for emotional intimacy.
Punching back when provoked is certain to get anyone in trouble with the law but the offenders are more often male than female; there are of course women who are just as physically aggressive as males and some will use that fact to their advantage if they get into a physical confrontation with their male partners, knowing that except for those men who are conditioned to be physically abusive, the rest will not retaliate by hitting back.
Men ARE visually oriented and that comes from their early roles as hunters. They needed to be able to locate their prey quickly in the environment and figure out the most effective way of bringing it down without harm to themselves. A woman's physical attractiveness appeals to that primitive hunting instinct. Men are programmed to see women as another type of "prey" and conquering the prey means that the man is successful in his task. That may account for the recent rise in reported incidents of sexual harassment by powerful men. Motivated by power and social influence, "dominating" an attractive woman adds to their prestige, as does joining in when other men talked about women in a sexual way. That's why they are successfully able to compartmentalize the physical and emotional aspects of a relationship. Emotions weaken a man, in society's eyes and make him more vulnerable to be defeated by his "prey", so he will reserve his emotional self for a woman who meets his criteria for an acceptable match, which includes looks,chemistry, intelligence, nurturing ability, independence, social acceptance and probably a bunch of other intangible factors. Emotional intimacy is a long term investment and if, again, the man is programmed by that primitive need to spread his genes as widely as possible through multiple "encounters", it's easy to see why he would separate the physical from the emotional. Being committed to one individual limits a man's genetic potential and that's not a viable option for spreading his genes. All that's needed to establish a physical connection is looks and chemistry, aided by artful flirtation and a stimulant like alcohol which dulls the more logical portion of the brain that raises the cautionary red flags about whether that potential partner is really a good match in the long run. The more powerful or financially successful the man is, the more he is admired by society and, ironically, the more it increases a man's chances of expanding his genetic potential, again because he has a large pool of available female partners through whom to spread his genes, although the availability of birth control in the 20th century puts a restriction on his success as well.
Yes, it is very true that many women are expected to present their best selves physically in public and that has been the case since the beginning of history. Unfortunately that has often come at the expense of the training they need to be effective leaders. They are evaluated by men as prospective partners and both envied and emulated by other women according to their level of physical attractiveness. Millions of dollars are spent on advertising in the beauty and fashion industry and there is greater scope for innovation in female fashion than for their male counterparts. I'm pretty sure many women would not go through many of the rituals they undergo were it not for their need to be perceived as physically attractive, and in a youth oriented culture, the efforts only intensify. Could both skills (practical and aesthetic) be taught simultaneously? Yes, but it requires the involvement of both parents working together and supporting each other's efforts to provide the combined benefit of their individual experiences. Women are automatically expected to be involved parents, as an extension of the physical function of pregnancy and childbirth. Fathers who spend time with their children are appreciated for "helping their wife or partner" while the woman gets no such appreciation because it is seen as an expectation. The fact that Zuckerberg opted to take extended paternity leave after the birth of his second child made the news but a woman who takes maternity leave gets routinely ignored because that is simply part of her job as a mother.
Men and women are equally competent in the workplace. They have the same education for the same job, have been trained in the "technical" skills required to do the job equally and are compensated equally when they have the same track record of work history. However, they differ in their emotional responses and that is a fact of biology. Men are hardwired to look for concrete solutions to problems; merely talking about the problem without finding a resolution just isn't efficient. Women, on the other hand, find comfort in brainstorming and evaluating the various factors that may impact different approaches before finding an acceptable solution, because of their need for emotional connection. That's probably why most women tend to prefer a female physician for gynecological issues because they both share the same anatomy and another woman may understand the psychological effects of a physical problem and the way it would affect other areas of a woman's life better than a man can.
I strongly believe that girls should be encouraged to participate in the same activities as the boys if they express an interest. More importantly, they should be trained the skills that help them become self reliant, like financial and computer literacy, simple repairs and a general knowledge of the world and current events. Since girls and women are already recognized for their emotional skills, they should be appreciated for their mastery of practical skills and their intellectual aptitude rather than their physical appearance and taught how to assert themselves diplomatically and effectively through the application of reason rather than emotion because those are the skills that enable them to survive in the world like the men do. As boys are typically appreciated for their practical abilities, I also think that they should be taught effective ways of expressing their emotions which helps them become better communicators and teaches them empathy, which enhances their personal lives. An empathetic male who is intelligent, capable and confident without being brash or arrogant is just as valuable and essential to the strength of society as an empathetic, intelligent, capable and confident woman. Is it important to look your best physically? Yes, for both men and women, but it should become an adjunct for a woman, as it is for the majority of men, not the primary focus of attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment