This reading talked about how conservatism, both sociobiological and moral, opposes feminism and its objectives. This reading actually made me kind of angry. Although I was glad that the author provided criticism of the viewpoints at the end of the chapter, I found the arguments from moral and sociobiological conservatives to be frustratingly simplistic and naïve. The idea that men should be dominant over women because it has made them historically more successful seems to me like a fear of change and progression. The statement that feminism “weakens” society and makes a healthy masculinity more difficult (and unlikely) for men to achieve seems like an excuse for patriarchy. It saddens me to think that some people truly believe the most beneficial role a woman can play in society is staying in the home, thereby “controlling” men, and it upsets me even more that some conservatives would even term this the most “rewarding” role to have, so women are lucky. If the role is so rewarding, why don’t women reap material benefits and status for what they do? Is healthy masculinity really so unstable that giving some recognition or respect to women will topple it?
I probably sound a little fired up. I hope I wasn’t the only one.
No comments:
Post a Comment