Is the tern “Gender Roles” such a bad thing these days? I sometimes think that it is seeing how everyone want to be equal in all things. So call me old fashion, but I still like the idea of gender roles.

By gender roles I mean specifically the not so blurred line between men and women. I do not intend that is to subordinate women to men, but rather to endear men to women a vice versa. But to be honest, I must take it from the changing role of women in today’s society.

Increasingly women are taking on the roles and positions of men, and while I do not have a problem with this, I do have a problem with them taking the roles on in the guise of men. If a woman wants to be a doctor or a lawyer, or any career that is usually thought of as a man position, why is it she changes her persona to a more masculine demeanor. Could she not fulfill the same role as a woman, with a woman sensibilities and decorum? Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

I was recently divorced and the lawyer I retained was female. She was very good and very competent and still distinctly female and that was not a problem. She did not try to tough it out as a woman in a mans role, but rather was herself and more powerful for it. The respect for her in and around the court was duly justified because she was such a good lawyer, but yet she was still every bit a woman, and you could not forget it. Now I am not saying she used feminine wiles in the court to accomplish her goals, but her style was markedly female without undue sexual reference. It was refreshing. She even let me hold the door for her.

On the other hand, men are increasingly less masculine in demeanor due to the reverse sexism that is pervading the work place. Company’s all have a policy in terms of conduct with the goal of the policies to cut down on sexism in the work place. These codes of conduct are slanted to men discriminating against women, but not necessarily the reverse (although as written it can be applied as such.) Men, when complaining about women to not get treated the same as if a woman were to complain about a man. In the latter case it is taken quite seriously, but the former is scoffed at. Why?

Why is simple, men are supposed to be stronger, in all ways and thus should be able to take a little harassment. If a man is raped by a woman (or women) and reports it to the police it is laughed at as an aberration, after all, how can a man be raped, he is strong, he could fight it off he were so inclined. But there are documented cases where this is the case. And if he were to report it and it was picked up by the DA and prosecuted, imagine the stigmata this guys is going to endure in public life. He will be violated and will let it go to forego the public ridicule that would accompany such a case. We all of course cry for the woman, and even congratulate her if she should kill her attacker. Imagine what would happen to a guy attacked as such and he killed his female attacker(s), he would be publicly castrated.

Women are increasingly bestowed with more seeming equality, yet there is not a level of equal social responsibility to go along with it. Again, why?

And again, simple, men and women are not the same. Physically far fewer women can perform on par with an equally trained male. Mentally, while women excel in certain areas, and men excel in others, these disciplines seldom overlap. Where women excel they are dominate, and where men have an edge, then lead the way. This is not wrong, just the way it is. Crossing the dominance areas is ok as well, assuming gender identity is maintained. Where we as a society get in trouble is when gender identity is blurred. Men taking on female aspects is upsetting to most (an often considered deviant) but the reverse is not true, thus the confusion.

Personally I do not mind a blend of these roles. In the workplace if women want to excel and take on a traditionally masculine role, so be it, but please be a woman. At home, I would prefer a more traditional set of gender roles. I am not saying the woman must be the domestic, but a woman in the home as a woman, and not the man she may assume in the work place for me is preferable. By the way, this does not excuse a man from his duties at home, but these duties end up being the more traditionally masculine home roles we may be used to.

A word about the “total equality” that so many women crave; One, are you willing to fight and die in a war on the front lines? If so, then why aren’t you? Women make up the majority of voters, you could change this thinking, but you will not. Two, do you expect the simple luxuries of being a woman, having a door opened for you, a chair pulled, being brought flowers, and so on? If so and you want total equality, then why do you not do the same for a man? When was the last time you held a door for a man, pulled his chair, bought him flowers or some such thing he may like? These courtesies are expected to women, and they should not be.  Can you name the last time you bought a man a gift just because? Three, when in the workplace do NOT exclaim discrimination because you are woman. This would not work for a man, and thus should not be claimed by you. If you are qualified and passed by a man, say that, and not that you are a woman. You should not have the bar of achievement lowered for you just because your gender is different. That is not equal, that is sexist and you are then not seeking equality, but superiority based on gender, and I can not see how any argument can save you there, since you would not take that argument from a man.

I expect I will get a lot of women saying that this whole entry is sexist, but is it really? The answer again is yes, it is totally sexist. Why? Simple, because I am a man, and this expresses a man views on a subject that innately sexist and would be no matter who wrote it. It would be impossible to write a fair and balanced entry on the subject, we live in a world of two sexes, thus, sexism is bound to be prevalent, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.

“Here, let me get the door for you”, gladly.