Suzanne Venker……..a woman.
Noted in the article “feminism kicked women off the pedestal they
already had”. Had feminism not done so,
Suzanne Venker would have no pedestal from which to speak publicly. She’d still be tapping her husband on his
back so that he could speak on her behalf in church! Let’s remember that had first wave feminism
not done its duty, women still would not have the right to vote.
I would argue that today’s men are fortunate in having
equal, intelligent, educated partners that are true partners in every sense of the
word (rather than the little “mrs” who defers to her much smarter husband in
all important matters, except perhaps what to have for dinner). In writing books at all this woman has contradicted her own point and made thorough use of a platform established by feminism.
Opinions such as hers are a huge proponent to the concept that woman are ESSENTIALLY unequal, when in reality it's a commonly held belief among academics that gender, along with race, are mainly social constructs. Again, if social constructs didn't change, no one would have published this woman's beliefs. Let's also remember that in pitching a return to femininity she's nullifying centuries of advocacy and dedication not only of women, but men as well.
Two thirds of University students are women in 2012. At Laurier Brantford, there are 7 females to every one male on campus. If women want to marry as bad as Venker seems to believe they do, and men only want women deeply in touch with their femininity, why don't they do something really crazy and enroll in University? I know, I know, you don't believe men can still get in since women are snatching up all the opportunities, but they can, and I guarantee at least one in seven women likes to wear skirts. On top of the skirt thing, from what I've seen, most women in Universities have no problem with the bearing children thing either...
Women have continued to
evolve to meet the changes in our society – now mainly for a two parent working
income. Women have adapted into a world
ready to accommodate their change. At
least Ms. Venker is right in one point – men have not changed. Men have not adapted. The men to which she refers would prefer that
we go back about 50 years. Not likely to
happen. Perhaps the solution is not that
Ms. Venker replaces her bonnet and gets off her soapbox – perhaps the solution
is that men should also adapt and catch up themselves.
Let's consider what our world would look like if social construction did not change. The black professor at the front of my class would not be allowed off his field, never mind anywhere close to a University. Chinese immigrants would be required to pay what would now amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars to enter Canada. Native Americans would be systematically assimilated. We would live in a monarchy. Someday, when our great great grand children stand up against the central inequalities of their generation, they'll look back in comparison at the archaic gender constructions such as the above with relief and thanksgiving for the opposing view.
