Although Miss Christina and I would most likely disagree about the level to which sexism "screws up" women, we both agree on one thing: sexism hurts men.
And one of the biggest ways it hurts them, in my opinion, is masterfully demonstrated by these two memes below:
If you don't immediately see what is inherently wrong with the difference in these memes, let me explain it to you.
Whilst growing up in LDS church, in Young Men's we are taught "find a woman who makes you better". This implies change. This implies working to make yourself better for someone else.
In Young Women's, as I am told, they are taught "find a man who loves you just the way you are". This implies stagnation. It doesn't teach growth or change or betterment. It promotes stubbornly holding on to who you are at this moment, no matter what vices you may have. And that is wrong.
There's a famous quote by Marilyn Monroe: "If you can't handle me at my worst, then you don't deserve me at my best". Wrong again. If your "worst" is "total brat", then I don't care how good your "best" is, you should change, because no one "deserves" to put up with that, and frankly, no one should.
Marilyn Monroe is constantly praised for "empowering" women. She is not a symbol of feminism or "empowering" women. She smoked, slept around, was arrogant, had a filthy mouth, and was the first celebrity actor to pose for nude photographs. If that is an "empowered" woman, then I sure hope that not a single women besides her is ever "empowered". She most definitely is not the type of woman I would like my daughters to take on as a role model.
Now to be fair, I understand what these memes and the things taught in Young Men's and Young Women's are trying to say. "A woman can't change a man because she loves him, a man changes himself because he loves her". This is trying to say that if he truly loves her, he'll be willing to set aside any vice that he has in order to keep their relationship strong. It is even trying to encourage being chivalrous, and being a gentleman. Which is something I believe in. I hold the door open for my wife, and pull the chair out for her at supper.
And "girls, don't change for any man; if they don't want like you as you are, they don't deserve you." This is trying to say that women need not throw away good and precious parts of their personality in order to get a man's attention.
Yes, I understand that. And i don't have a problem with what they're trying to say. I have a problem that the message is lost in the nuances of what is being said. I have a problem with the fact that different things are being taught, different things are being heard, and different expectations are being set; and the psychological and social implications of that.
What implications you say? I have experienced it in many of my past relationships. If the man does something the girl doesn't like, he is expected to change it, and if he refuses to change it, he is a jerk. But the moment that the man points out something that he doesn't like in the girl, he is a jerk. So the man is a jerk, when really, in either of these instances, he is merely vying for consistency of expectations.
This is a double standard, and I have heard some of the best men I know express to me frustration with it. It is a destructive standard in the Provo dating culture. Men are expected to change themselves, and women are expecting to be accepted without changing a darn thing.
Then there's the apology double standard. In every relationship I have ever been in before I met my wife, I have been expected to apologize first after a disagreement. And ask for forgiveness. No matter what happened.
In my experience, in most interpersonal conflicts, both parties are at fault to a degree. Both could have handled it better, could have been kinder, and therefore both need to apologize. But not in 2016. And definitely not in Provo. Only the man need apologize, because only he did anything wrong.
But the double standards don't end there.
In the 1950s, it was said, "the man is always right". But now that is considered sexist.
In 2016, it is said (often in joking yes, but--as Shakespeare reminds us--the deepest truths are oft said in jest) "the woman is always right". And that's considered respectful.
In the early 20th century, if a women didn't listen to her husband, she didn't respect his authority. That is now considered a sexist mentality.
In 2016, if a man doesn't listen to his wife, he is a jerk. And that is now considered a progressive mentality.
You have your classic 90's family movie: the husband works too much, and the wife is frustrated. And he needs to prioritize, and understand her frustration, and make more time for her. She isn't selfish for wanting him home, she is right.
Versus the 2016 TV show: the woman, (or girlfriend), works so much that her male counterpart never sees her. But his frustration is misplaced, he is wrong for feeling that way. He doesn't support her as an "empowered woman in the workforce". He needs to quit being so selfish and think about her career and her feelings and "progress".
In the prior case, the possibility that the husband does care about his family, and spends plenty of time with them, and the wife is just being irrational, is not even considered. Conversely, in the latter, it never even crosses our minds that the woman is placing her career above her significant other.
Even the apostles and prophets of the LDS Church seem to unintentionally promote this double standard.
In the Oct 2010, Dieter F. Utchdorf, when speaking of pride, said "When I told my wife that this would be the topic of my talk, she smiled and said, 'It is so good that you talk about things you know so much about'."
And everyone laughed. But think about it for a second. What if the roles had been reversed? What if he had said the same thing to his wife that she said to him? Everyone probably would have thought he was a jerk. Even an apostle of God, unintentionally and unknowingly, subtlety promoted this double standard. And I could cite several instances of apostles and prophets making similar statements as this one made by President Utchdorf.
So in 2016, we haven't moved away from sexism. We have only reversed it.
Misandry has replaced misogyny. And the scariest part is we don't even realize it.
As I said before, I understand what is trying to be taught to young men and young women, in society and inside the church. I understand where it comes from. Men have a tendency to be stubborn and set it there ways: so let's teach them that it is important to be willing to change. Women have a tendency to put themselves down, and to change beautiful parts of their personality in order to please guys: so let's teach them they are of value, and they don't need to change.
But it inadvertently has caused more problems. The subliminal message is "men must change, women don't have to". Misandrous subtlety prevails.
So what should be taught instead?
Mutual change. Mutual acceptance.
Mutual change: both parties, male and female, are willing to change those parts of their character that are damaging to their relationship. Neither is expected to change that which would be unfair to ask the individual to change. Both parties make each other better.
Mutual acceptance: both parties, male and female, accept the idiosyncrasies, flaws, and faults of the other. They realize that nobody is perfect, including their significant other, and they are willing to be patient with those imperfections. They realize it takes time to change those vices that they have both agreed on to change, and they support each other in working to fix these flaws.
This requires a balance. The balance of what to change, and what to accept. This is difficult. Perhaps that's why "the woman is always right" argument has prevailed. Because it is easier. But it is not more correct.
Let's get out of this destructive mindset. Let us teach our youth about the balance between mutual change and mutual acceptance in a relationship. This will lead to stronger and long-lasting relationships of love and devotion.
Sources:
Dieter F. Utchdorf. "Pride and the Priesthood". October 2010 General Conference.
Greta Christinia, "5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist Things Expected of Men". Alternet. July 24, 2010.
http://www.alternet.org/story/147626/5_stupid,_unfair_and_sexist_things_expected_of_men
No comments:
Post a Comment