What does it mean to be a Man? What does it mean to be a real Woman? This is the question we considered in Contep Political Thought, and fromt he perspective of feminism and sexism.
While there are rites of passage for both sexes(loss of virginity, first period, bar mitzvah, killing first prey), no one action can clearly define a man to be a man or a woman a woman. If any one action can define a person to be a type of person, then the word describing that type, that genre becomes meaninless. It evolves to mean simply one who has done that rite. However, to be a man clearly means more than to have had intercourse, or any of the other things listed. Indeed it’s very possible for a boy to have sex and a bar mitzvah and kill a hog and still remain just as much a boy as before.
Being a Man or Woman, as opposed to a boy or girl, signifies adulthood. It indicates that those those traits necessary for full acceptance into society are present; responsibility, maturity, experience, etc.
Is this oppressive? Why clearly not, to be a real man is no more oppressive of women than to be a boy is toward a girl. No real change has occured between the boy and the adult male’s action toward women. Their aquizition of adulthood is independent of the opposite sex. If then there is oppressive characteristics that the ‘real’ man has, it is because those are traits he has learned.
For a boy is to a girl not very different. Genitals are different, but otherwise no noteworthy differences exist between pre-pubescent children. In all sincerity, the use of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ does little to describe the child currently at hand. It does however describe their future role in society. The use of such early gender distinguinesments serves in many respects as a placeholder for gender roles. Where the strength of men has yet to devolp and the the beauty of women has yet to distinguish them from men, boys and girls learn the roles they are supposed to play. After all, if children were not told they were boys or girls, it’s logical that a great many would devolp to be more ‘male’ or ‘female’ than their sex perscribes.
Which comes to the point at hand, which is namely not much of one. Ought we abolish the concept of boys and girls? Quite clearly not. The differences which are imposed prior to puberty are in many aspects fulfilled later in life. The question, is whether these roles are oppressive, for example that women are considered weaker, passive, objects of desire rather than desirers, and so forth. This answer to this is indeed the role is oppressive. For while the mature female form is indeed weaker than that of the male, the difference is not uniform, and certianly does not extend to those other psychological traits which the role preports to be appropriate. Many women would no be as submissive as their gender role pushes them to be, they would be more sexual than society demans, they would be less sexual than society demands, they would simply be different than the mold which currently forms them.
Ought the mold then be abolished as previously asked? Why no, but it should clearly not be pressed upon everyone. For the concept of of Man and Women to exist hurts no one. It is the pressure in which others force it upon an individual which causes pain. I’d argue, do not press the molds so harshly upon others. Especially, remove those aspects of the mold which are irrelevant and of no good consequence. Remove those hills and valleys which provide undue pressue, and let individuals try the molds on for themselves. See which one fits. And possibly carve for themselves a new design.
New designs may not mesh with other more tried molds, but this is the risk those individual take. A storied mold is known to function. It may be slightly uncormfortable, but it’s utility may be worth the costs. Similarly it may not. Costs, are not to be abolished, the results of actions must always remain, but we must not force anyone into a mold of hetrosexuality or whathaveyou if they are incompatable with it.
