Sharon Palmer’s last two Writer’s Group columns asserting, “Men should be allowed to be men and women should be allowed to be women,” is the most sexist remark I have read in context with her supporting claims as evidence - which is where I want to begin with basic definitions of sex and gender she has confused.
Sex is the designation given to an organism based on it reproduction organs and function. In the human species that in essence means if it possesses a penis, he’s a male, and if it’s got a vagina, she’s a female. It simply refers to biology and anatomy.
Gender refers to a set of qualities and behaviors expected from a female or male by society and cultural influences. Let me emphasize society and culture! That means gender roles are learned. It is affected by factors such as religion, education or economics but not an innate connection to the penis or vagina.
While an individual's sex does not change, without serious surgical intervention, gender roles are socially determined and can evolve over time.
It was the narrow branding of the past Palmer asserted as intrinsic gender characteristics that hindered the equal rights and status of women with adverse consequences - which whether she wants to admit it or not - affected life, family, socioeconomic status and health.
I find it absolutely appalling that Palmer would simply label women one way and men another. It is not “retro,” by any means. It is prehistoric, inasmuch as are claims from man’s beginnings dictating behavior. Using the caveman argument that men are simply left to the fate dealt to them by their testosterone levels, which make them “bigger, stronger and hair-ier,” to simply hunt, guard their territory an multiply is as asinine as the men who use that same defense to excuse their behavior of sleeping with multiple females. “It’s in my nature. I can’t help it.” Oh, yes, you can!
The fact is men can be incredible nurturers with unconditional compassion. Look at Jesus Christ. He’s the perfect example. The reality is that women can also be protectors and providers. Any 21st Century woman can prove that.
I am proud to be one of them and the roles I have chosen in my life that have given me great fulfillment and satisfaction. Some of those roles would probably be defined by Palmer to be geared more towards the male gender. Here’s my big question to that: So what?! How about accepting people for who they are and the choices they’ve made for a change. A traditional family with both parents fulfilling societal appropriate gender roles does not guarantee a happy, tranquil, perfect home. One size does not fit all!
I refuse to accept that working outside the home makes me less of a mother than a woman who decides to exert her work effort into being a stay-at-home mom. Both women are still working, after all. It’s because of the “revolt” Palmer sites that women now have the choice.
Choice, and respecting people’s choices whether you agree with them or not, is what the real underlying issue is. Palmer would have that cease from existence and women return to being barefoot and pregnant because that is what she defines women being “best” at. I say the more choices the better.
Palmer also said, “Men and women are so confused as to the roles that befit them best, it’s hard to keep it straight.” The confusion does not lie with people who are true to who they are, aside from their sex and what society would label them with gender. That constant state of perplexity only lies with individuals unwilling to accept people’s differences.
RSS feed
