the woman problem

For a long time now I've had this post writing itself in the back of my mind. It's about time I post it here. I want to discuss my thoughts about women today. While I've mentioned this before, I hope to shed some light on a subject that I am realizing I'm quite passionate about.

I recently finished a book called Sex Wars. Set in the 1860's, it goes through 4 different mini-stories that all end up connecting. These mini-stories are about Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anthony Comstock, Freydah and Victoria Woodhall. Susan and Elizabeth were (as you all hopefully know) the first ever female suffragists. They fought for women to have the right to vote. Anthony Comstock was the son of very "hellfire and brimestone" Christian parents. He is famous for enacting the Comstock Laws that essentially sought to destroy all scandalous or sexual content and people. It caused a lot of controversy because many felt that it encroached on their free-speach rights. Freydah is a fictional Jewish immigrant struggling to make ends meet after her husband is killed on the docks and she miscarries their only child. She goes into the business of making condoms. Victoria Woodhall was exploited by her father for her spiritual gifts. These spiritual gifts enabled her to become a medium for very wealthy and influential men. She eventually became the first female stock broker in the world and she even tried running for president before she was thrown in jail. She considered herself a free-thinker and was sympathetic to the recently released publication of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

I don't intend for this to be a book review, but hear me out. Although Elizabeth and Susan were united for women's rights in general, they disagreed on many points. Susan was never married, while Elizabeth was the mother of 7 children and had separated from her husband due to his opposition towards women's rights. Susan felt that women's rights did not need to extend to the right to divorce, birth control or ownership of money. She firmly believed that it was the women's duty to have children, take care of the home front and make her husband happy. Elizabeth, already having that experience, wanted women to gain the right to file for divorce, pursue her own sexual interests (just as was common for men to do) and be able to LEAVE the home if desired.

Anthony's Christian background influenced him to believe that it was a women's duty to bare children. Throughout the book he describes his wife as the perfect women because she was quiet, submissive, obedient and always had the house in perfect order. He compared his wife to his own mother who, as a righteous Christian, never refused his father and ended up pregnant 18 times, only to have 5 children. Anthony was a God-fearing man and felt that if he did not bear children, he would surely be eternally punished. He publicly attacked women who had turned to less-proper means of income. He was zealous in his attempt to cleanse the earth from impurity.

Victoria was a firm believer in free-love. She would take lovers of her own free will and choice and never submitted to do anything she didn't want to. It also gave her a very unfavorable reputation. Being the first female stock broker also enabled her to have her own money, in her own name, a rarity in that time. She funded most of Susan and Elizabeth's campaign efforts. Her success was later called into question when she was prosecuted by Anthony as a "vile and sinful woman" and was thrown into jail for a time.

Freydah did not have children of her own but she adopted two street-kids as her own. She would send monthly letters with money enclosed back to her homeland so that the rest of her family could come over. She learned quickly how much power owning your own money had and she quickly decided that it was best to remain financially independent. Even when her sister and brother-in-law came to America and lived in her home, she remained the head of the household which shocked her brother-in-law.

So what is the point in all of this?

I find myself torn; I can clearly identify my own beliefs of women and their rights in each of these situations. I believe that a woman CAN be happy raising a family and taking care of her husband. I do also believe that women have the right to vote, file for divorce, have custody of their children and own their own money. I also agree with Thomas in that we should ALL be God-fearing and that it is our duty to have children. Yes, duty. I wrestled with that for a long time. I do not think however that we should consider it a duty as much as a privilege. I do not think women should have to submit to a man's forwardness if she does not want too and I also believe that women can be the head of the household. These beliefs are not identical the popular platform of feminism though and therein lies my struggle.



There is a very common thought pattern within the sphere of feminism. The thinking is that "women can do everything men can do". This idea seems to breed the notion that women need to become manly in order to compete with them.

I do not agree with this.

It seems paradoxical to me to think that in order to compete we have to become like the competition (could we not "beat them" just as we are? Are we not good enough to do that?). Moreover, is it not belittling towards the female gender to lose the tenderness that often characterizes them in order to compete with the more "rough" men? I find it ironic that many of the groups and organizations that preach "women's rights" are just as quick to discredit, slander and subtly oppress men as they preach that men do to them. It completely discredits their position. Females and males are inherently different. It is a biological, social, psychological, religious and anatomical fact. These differences do NOT make us unequal in the least bit. Equality has never, nor will ever, mean identical. In a society that literally reveres individuality it is saddening to see that some women are giving that up in order to "compete" with the man; to become identical.



In my head I picture social problems on pendulum of sorts, with the two opposing ideas at opposite ends. Let's place men on the left of the pendulum and women on the right. During most of the course of history, the pendulum of popular thought has stayed mostly to the left: men were in charge. Period. Within a little over 100 years though, that pendulum has moved quite far to the right: women can do everything, and more, that men can do. I believe that the correct thinking lies precisely in the middle of that spectrum. An equal amount of inequalities finally makes both genders "equal". Are there inequalities between the genders though? I would have to say yes. History shows us the men have predominantly been in charge for over 2,000 years. It seems a bit ridiculous to expect that society would be able to overthrow all those years of experience and habit in just 100 years.

I've concluded that I firmly and deeply uphold that the genders should be treated equally. I recognize though that this does not mean that they will be treated identically. I also understand that equally is so differently defined that it is impossible to please everyone. I doubt that true equality will ever really being achieved to be honest. That does not mean we should give up trying to establish it though. I just don't think that the way extreme feminist groups are going about it is very beneficial for themselves. It is never beneficial to be unkind.




So there you have it. My soap-box on women's rights. If you've made it this far in the post... then I am deeply impressed!

I hope you guys have a phenomenal weekend! I'll be missing my family as I'm not home for Father's Day for the first time ever :( But hey, hubberz and I might go to 7 peaks.... :}