My frustration has been building with the moralisms that I frequently find on the opinion page of The Eagle. Rather than allow these antifeminist comments to go unnoticed, I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the assumptions used and conclusions reached that are offensive and damaging to men and women. This is not an attack on Timothy Meyer, the local author who brings these ideas to The Eagle, but rather to the entire antiquated framework within which such ideas are constructed. To address this, however, I will pull from Meyer's most recent editorial, "Men must understand their responsibilities" in the Feb. 16 edition of The Eagle.
I will begin with the first lines of this editorial, which read, "There are a few inevitable thoughts in every man's life. Work, sports, where to go for a guy's night out, and, of course, females." While this may seem a strange place to start a feminist critique of this article, it perpetuates just the sort of stereotypes that are damaging to individuals in society by confining them to particular gendered descriptions. In this statement men are defined as persons who maintain these priorities. Where does this leave men who choose not to conform to this statement? By using these old-fashioned constructions of gender, men who do not self-identify with such ideas are defined as less than men. This includes the GLTBQ community, but also any male whose priorities are simply outside those described.
I begin with men because I think it is important to recognize that opposition to the description of the world posited in this editorial does not merely critique the way that women are portrayed, but that this is a framework which marginalizes many people.
This brings me to the portrayal of women. In this editorial, the woman's primary role is in relation to man. Her value seems to be constructed in her usefulness to the man. Particularly offensive is the statement, "The second moment of great importance in a man's life is not so much a moment in life as it is a phase, the fatherhood of his children. Of course, the miracle of birth cannot happen without a woman's efforts." In this statement the children are described as the man's (through the use of the word "his" rather than "their"), and the woman is only described as a vehicle to these ends (her "efforts"). This is demeaning to women who chose to marry and have children, as they are objectified as a means to an end, with her stake marginalized.
The editorial continues to note the importance of mothers as well as fathers in the moral upbringing of the children. However, only the mother is expected to deal with "crying and night feeding." This concept is surprising coming from one who, like me, grew up in an era where the question of child-rearing is one addressed by parents in new ways, from a more equal distribution of household labor to stay-at-home dads. For what is proposed, a wife would deserve more than thanks - she deserves a partner that will treat her with compassion and aid.
While this classic notion of relationships might seem little more than harmless romanticism even to many who would identify themselves with many of the tenets of the women's movement, it is important to realize that this conceptual framework is damaging. If we continue to see females in the woman-as-mother role as the ideal, we are missing out on the potential and actual possibilities of the role of woman in society.
While Meyer might continue to wait for star-crossed moments when "angels and princesses" enter his life, I am working for the day when we are beyond these stereotypes. When, in order to be accepted, respected, desired, one does not have to conform to the angel/princess model (a model that has been damaging for men and women by providing an impossible measure upon which relationships should be built). It is the day when all people can determine their own identity. A day when it is not only through her role as wife and mother that a woman is respected and given thanks, but also for her role in whatever job, relationship, performance that she excels in. Fortunately, I believe this day has already begun.
As a society we have learned to recognize men and women in a variety of roles outside those historically defined as acceptable. It is the broadening, rather than constricting of these roles, which will lead to a society in which we are all more free.
Elizabeth Falcon is a junior in the School of International Service.
