There are times when I feel like as a society we are getting on a more enlightened track about gender issues. That there is a broader range available to people about what is tolerated or even acceptable when it comes to personal expression of gender and it makes me glad.
Then a media story will spark the debate anew and people, even people I like and respect, will start writing reactions that I don't agree with or even fully understand. The most recent example to catch my attention was back at the end of last year when there was
a story on Fox about how men aren't as interested in marriage currently because women essentially do too much for themselves, and
a blogger I admire agreed, saying it made sense to her since, "Women aren't women anymore."
I think about gender issues a lot. I find them fascinating. There are so many variables that impact how we think about gender including culture, history, technology, tradition, fashion, science, religion, sexual orientation, biology, parenting.... Some elements seem fixed, others fluid. The questions about what is masculine and feminine, and what is male and female, are so obvious on the surface, until you start to break it all down. Under close examination very little is obvious, and all of it is interesting.
When I was in high school I had a biology teacher who gave us an assignment to write down two lists: one of characteristics that were masculine and one of characteristics that were feminine. The catch was we were not allowed to include any characteristics that were physical. It seems like an easy assignment until you really start to think about it. To this day I am still thinking about it. (Now that's a good high school biology teacher.)
If physical strength is discounted as a defining characteristic, as is anything delicate in appearance, where do you go next? I suppose I would say at this point in my life that I see boys and men as generally more reckless, but is a cautious and sensible man less of a man? No. And whether or not a woman is more of a risk taker has little to do with if she's perceived as feminine in my opinion. (I suppose it depends on what kind of risks.)
Men as protectors comes up a lot. And yet, if you need the ultimate example of ferocity in the service of being protective isn't it always of a mother bear defending her cubs? The most basic view of a good mother, which by definition is the most feminine role one can hold, is of a woman who will protect her children at any cost. Is she stepping over into masculine territory at that point, or is that fundamentally feminine because it is so basic?
Women as nurturing also comes up. And yet I personally don't know any man who when given the opportunity to be involved in the life of a child finds himself incapable of caring for one. Just because traditionally men may not have often been as involved with child rearing does not mean they aren't up to the task. My children are lucky to have a stay at home parent as kind and patient as my husband. And no way in hell is he less of a man for being there for them.
Here is where I think the real problem with the discussion lies:
