Just as we have come to acknowledge the gifts that women bring to the work place, we too should acknowledge the gifts that men bring back home. While we have this discussion, we must be careful not to accept women's or men's talents as inherent. We do not know how much of these traits are inherent and how much of these traits are learned because the overwhelming societal pressures put on us from infancy through until the day that we die. However, by acknowledging gender traits (be they nature, nurture or more likely a combination of both), we can have a discussion about which gender traits are a benefit for care giving and housekeeping. After all, the most important thing we will ever do in our lives is raise a child, and housekeeping is a part of all of our lives.
Since I became a father, I have noticed that some traits that I have associated with masculinity have helped me be a better caregiver. While, traditional masculinity often keeps men alienated from their role as a father, by examining masculinity and masculinization, I have been able to break from the harmful parts of masculinity, while attempting to keep those parts of masculinity that are helpful to care giving. The next few blogs will include discussions of some of those traits that are traditionally associated with masculinity, how they can help dads become better dads, and how they can hurt dads deeply by alienating them from their children if they go unexamined.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Who is We The People?
Lately, I have been trying not to let this blog become party political. However, I will comment here on a Tee-Shirt that I witnessed several Tea Party Members wearing because it is the kind of thing that might go unnoticed if you didn't think particularly on the gender and race implications, and that is what this blog is for.
The shirt said, "I Am, We the People." This is one of two possible kinds of claims. It could be an historical claim. As such, it is accurate, but not exactly surprising. Clearly our founders meant older wealthy white males. According to a New York Times poll recently taken, the Tea Party is mostly exactly that. Note that if this were a woman of color making the claim that she was "we the people," it could also be seen as historical, but as recognition of how far the U.S. has come since 1982.
The shirt could also be a political statement. This is more likely what the wearers meant, because it is a more assertive and less obvious meaning. However, it has an equally racist and sexist meaning. The wearer is saying "I am, we the people" as opposed to you or they whoever you or they are. This divisive statement seems to reflect the position of Glen Beck that those who disagree with him are socialist, which is a scary and strange foreign political philosophy and therefore unAmerican. This defines the tee shirt wearer as a real American in exactly the same way as the historical meaning does, by holding as a positive example a political system that deliberately excluded those who were foreign and strange, namely black Americans, and those who were drawn to philosophies that resembled modern socialism, namely the Mechanics and the Guilds of New England. Those people were deliberately excluded in 1782 because to include them would be to diminish the power of the rich white male almost completely, a fear clearly expressed by the tee-shirt wearers even today. The insidious racial and sex question that lies below the surface is "Who then is a real American." I think we know what the wearers answer would be.
The shirt said, "I Am, We the People." This is one of two possible kinds of claims. It could be an historical claim. As such, it is accurate, but not exactly surprising. Clearly our founders meant older wealthy white males. According to a New York Times poll recently taken, the Tea Party is mostly exactly that. Note that if this were a woman of color making the claim that she was "we the people," it could also be seen as historical, but as recognition of how far the U.S. has come since 1982.
The shirt could also be a political statement. This is more likely what the wearers meant, because it is a more assertive and less obvious meaning. However, it has an equally racist and sexist meaning. The wearer is saying "I am, we the people" as opposed to you or they whoever you or they are. This divisive statement seems to reflect the position of Glen Beck that those who disagree with him are socialist, which is a scary and strange foreign political philosophy and therefore unAmerican. This defines the tee shirt wearer as a real American in exactly the same way as the historical meaning does, by holding as a positive example a political system that deliberately excluded those who were foreign and strange, namely black Americans, and those who were drawn to philosophies that resembled modern socialism, namely the Mechanics and the Guilds of New England. Those people were deliberately excluded in 1782 because to include them would be to diminish the power of the rich white male almost completely, a fear clearly expressed by the tee-shirt wearers even today. The insidious racial and sex question that lies below the surface is "Who then is a real American." I think we know what the wearers answer would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)