Has the Study of Gender Illuminated Men’s Lives As Much as Women’s?

Gender studies have become prevalent in studying society’s regard for men and women. Changing times bring about changing roles to meet changing expectations. Over the course of history, men and women have lived through the whole gamut of gender stereotypes that stem from society’s expectations. They have been put under the microscope to study how they think, feel, perceive their place in society and behave in response to various and sometimes conflicting expectations from the people around them.

Men have been burdened as well as glorified by the roles bestowed upon them. John Tosh[1] chronicled how manliness and masculinity have thrived in the eyes of society in various times in history. He says that in the prudent Victorian era, gentlemen were expected to be more cerebral than physical. The times called for a “mingling of the ethical and the physiological”, however, manliness was heavily influenced by conscience than by animal instincts that may sometimes overcome a man. Victorian code dictated manliness to emphasize self-control, hard work and independence. Tosh claims that boys were prepared for more competitive and demanding roles as husband, father and breadwinner. Men were expected to provide for their families a comfortable home and food on the table. Inability to do so earns him a lowly place in society.

Women, on the other hand, had to struggle to be recognized as being contributory to society. A woman is romantically viewed as the heart of the home, the primary nurturer of the family, the source of emotional support, however, she has evolved into something much more than a homemaker. Traditionally, women have been assigned to care for her family and home while men were tasked to go out to seek livelihood for his family.

The mother’s role in the family is a powerful one for women even if men insist that they are the heads of their households. Tosh explains that although fathers talk to their sons about the challenges of adult life and gives them advise accordingly, it is the mothers who had control over a large area of moral education, which, odd as it may seem, include the area of ‘manliness’. [2]

The seemingly stronger influence of the woman over the raising of the family may be unsettling for men, hence such is underplayed. John Stuart Mill became intensely unpopular due to his statement divulged in conservative circles truths that people wittingly repress in polite society. He announced that “the generality of the male sex cannot yet tolerate the idea of living with an equal”[3] and this statement was met with much fury, defensiveness, as well as quiet illumination. Tosh contends that middle class men in late Victorian Britain faced a difficult dilemma regarding their own masculinity. They realized that their own manliness has been filtered through the feminine sensibility of their own mothers.[4]

Joan Scott analyzes how gender studies explain the roles of men and women. She claims that gender is a way of denoting “cultural constructions” of subjective identities of men and women.[5] Weisstein contends that gender is a most complex and intricate phenomenon, but at the interpersonal level, a good portion of the oppressiveness of gender arises from the fact that one person has enormous power over the other[6]. No other time has such conflict of power been more felt than during the previous world wars. Men felt power in being called out to defend their families and their country while the women they left behind felt empowered being given the responsibility for their families and home while the men were away.

Historically, the trend of women joining the work force was felt more strongly during war time. Historians have differing views of the changes women have undergone in the two world wars. Arthur Marwick’s stand is that the wars brought about women’s realizations of their rights and innate potentials that were put to the test when they were called out of their home duties and into the workforce[7]. The opportunities available to women to experience an alternative role to the traditional one she has always been accustomed to broadened her horizons. This adventure outside her limited world opened her to options that were never considered in her traditional roles as wife, mother and homemaker. Marwick sees this as a positive development that benefited women. He sees it as emancipation from stereotypical views, perceptions and roles of women.

Harold Smith, a revisionist historian begs to disagree. The changes brought about by war were mere disruptions in the flow of things. Experiencing work outside the home was a temporary and imperative diversion called for in the name of survival.[8] It is indisputable that women’s roles had to be modified to cover a wider scope of responsibility, and with it may be some learning experiences and changes in attitude towards traditional sex roles. However, he believes that societal expectations of conforming to tradition held more power over the decision-making processes of women. Smith claims that a woman preferred to stay home to resume the performance of her home duties, which was a natural disposition for her. [9]

Penny Summerfield is another historian open to the views of both Marwick and Smith. Hers are likewise agreeable to them as she has tempered her beliefs to focus on the transformation of women. True, war may have shaken a woman up to the reality that she is capable of things beyond her imagination when she steps out of her comfort zone and foray into employment. She may feel thrilled at having survived the viciousness of war with her formidable spirit. However, she is also conscientious enough to know her limits and responsibilities. Top priority is still her duty to spouse and children. Such a multifaceted role is not to be undermined.[10]

The question of whether war had an emancipating effect on women remains to be a constant point of debate among historians. True, the war brought out the worse and the best in everybody, including women whose strengths and potentials for a variety of skills surfaced at a time when it was so badly needed, to the surprise of everybody. However, the kind of emancipation sought is one from the imprisonment in traditional roles of women being the “weaker sex” relegated to the care and nurturance of the home and family, whose brains and brawn were not necessary in the carrying out of such roles. Society seems to ascribe a lower status on women’s roles as compared to men’s. Penelope Summerfield ponders, “Was the war’s ‘most important legacy for women’ really ‘a strengthening of traditional sex roles rather than the emergence of new roles?”[11] One can more pointedly phrase the question as “Was the effect of war on women emancipation?.....or diversion?” Did the war finally free the women from long-held stereotypes of them, or did it just give the women a taste of a different world away from home and showed them their personal possibilities before sending them back home where they truly belong? Summerfield concludes that with women who have had a bite of paid employment, and have no intentions of having it as a lifetime diet, look forward to resuming their role as full-time homemakers but admit that they will never be the same sort of housewife they were pre-war. Further, Summerfield’s analysis of the indicators of change suggest that the wars did not effect significant changes in terms of equality or difference to women categorically. Still, personal accounts of individual women prove how important the wars were to them as it transformed all other aspects of their lives.

Society seems to pull the reigns on the fast pace of change war effected on the women. Temporarily, it was alright to switch to a non-traditional role of homemaker to employee, but in terms of moral and behavioural expectations, it kept its rigid standards. Women especially mothers were seen as virtuous, with values and morals worthy of emulating. However, the atmosphere of liberality encouraged by associations with G.I.’s evoked a new spirit of independence. – “women in uniform were suspected of every kind of (contradictory) sexual transgression, including vampishness, sluttishness and lesbianism.”[12] Unmarried mothers were observed to be resistant to traditional ‘moral welfare’ messages that they should repent for their indulgence in pre- or extra-marital sex.

Smith observes that such monumental changes overwhelmed most women and in many respects they found such changes undesirable, pining for the re-establishment of an idealized version of pre-war relationships. To this, Marwick disagrees claiming that war made women less likely to accept traditional sex roles and subordination to men, having had a taste of independence. Smith retorts that if this were the case then it would be evidenced by women workers wanting to stay in employment after the war, which was not absolutely the case.

Providing a middle ground between the strong, opposing views of Marwick and Smith, Summerfield attempts to point to an agreeable direction. It was an astonishing and serendipitous revelation that women are able to combine work, marriage and motherhood without seriously undermining their expected home responsibilities. A woman’s participation in the war effort did not doom conventional sexual divisions of labour while compensating her work with much needed payment without threatening her domestic duties. This multi-faceted role also gave her a feeling of personal importance which is mostly taken for granted by the people around her.

Going beyond the acknowledgement and recognition as a worthy member of the workforce, women activists remained vigilant in fighting for what they deserve – gender equity and equal pay with men. “Marwick has presented equal pay as the Second World War’s equivalent to the vote”[13]. It will be recalled that women struggled to gain their right to suffrage in days of old. The same passion is exhibited by women activists in staking their claim.

After a decade of campaigning, women in public service were granted equal pay. Men did not agree to the idea as they felt emasculated and threatened that their jobs might be at risk, so they did not support the cause.

Employers were careful in treating the issue. They used specialized clauses in agreements and tried means to get away with not giving equal pay to their women employees. Loopholes such as women could not do equal work were exploited to their advantage. Equal pay was not the only issue women activists fought for. Eleanor Rathbone, a noted feminist, together with the Family Endowment Society proposed for the ‘endowment of motherhood’. This allowed mothers to receive state payments in recognition of the importance to the state of motherhood. “Rathbone argued that the scheme would raise the status of women in marriage by making them less dependent on their husbands, and remove the need for wives to add the burden of paid work to their primary task of homemaking”[14] Rathbone campaigned from 1917 to 1945. Mothers as well as their children instead got support in the form of family allowances to alleviate child poverty and boost the falling birthrate. “Only at Rathbone’s insistence were the allowances paid to mothers, rather than being included in fathers’ pay packets.”[15] Rathbone’s efforts provided groundwork for the women’s movement. Feminists were inspired by her courage and persistence and endeavored to keep fighting for their rights.

“Tensions did not prevent women with different feminist principles working together, and the strands became intertwined at other times, particularly in the 1960’s and 70s. What is often underestimated in assessments of the women’s movement is both its own resilience, and the formidable opposition to women who dared to challenge the gendered social hierarchy.”[16]

The seemingly lopsided reports of gender studies favoring women to fight for equality with men are mainly due to feminists who take action. Men may be more complacent of their supposed position in society, knowing that the default role is that of head, leader, King. The slow emancipation of women from their assigned role as supporter of men has landed them to better positions that command more respect from their male counterparts. To answer the presenting question, “Has the Study of Gender Illuminated Men’s Lives As Much as Women’s?”. The answer is “Yes”, however, it is still subject to changes in society. So far, gender studies have explained much of why men and women in contemporary times are the way they are. History has been largely responsible for such illumination. As societal expectations

evolve, the world may just witness another sexual revolution in terms of gender roles. We hope not to wait in vain.

Bibliography

Harlan, J., Feminism. Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1998

Marwick, Arthur, War and Social Change in the Twentieth Century, 7^th edit London: Macmillan Edu ltd, 1990

Saunders, K.J., & Kashubeck-West, S., The Relations Among Feminist

Identity Development, Gender-Role Orientation, And Psychological Well-

Being In Women”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2006), 199–211.

Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

Scott, Joan, ‘Gender: a useful category of Historical Analysis’, American Historical review 91, 1986

Smith, Harold., British Feminism in the Twentieth Century. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1990

Stake, J. E., & Rose, S. The long-term impact of women’s studies on

students’ personal lives and political activism. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 18, 403– 412, 1994.

Summerfield, Penny. in Cosslett, T., Easton, A. & Summerfield, P. Women, Power and Resistance, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996

Summerfield, Penny. in Marwick, A. Total war and social change, 1^st edn, London: The Macmillan press,. 1988

Summerfield, Penny., in Purvis, J., Women’s History: Britain, 1850 – 1945, London, 2000

Tosh, John, “What should historians do with masculinity? Reflections on nineteenth-century Britain”, History Workshop Journal Issue 38, 1994

Valentine, S., Men and Women Supervisors' Job Responsibility, Job Satisfaction and Employee Monitoring’ ” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Weisstein, N., Power, Resistance, and Science: A Call for a Revitalized

Feminist Psychology, Feministezine, 1992, Retrieved on 14 Feb. 2012 from

http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/Power-Resistance-and-Science.html

[1] J. Tosh, “What should historians do with masculinity? Reflections on nineteenth-century Britain”, History Workshop Journal Issue 38 (1994)

[2] Tosh, 1994

[3] Ibid, p. 184

[4] Ibid.

[5] J. Scott, ‘Gender: a useful category of Historical Analysis’, American historical review 91 1986

[6] N. Weisstein “Power, Resistance, and Science: A Call for a Revitalized Feminist Psychology” Feministezine.com. 1992. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.

[7] A. Marwick, War and Social Change in the Twentieth Century, 7^th edit London Macmillan Edu ltd, 1990.

[8] H. Smith, British Feminism in the Twentieth Century. Aldershot: Edward Elgar,

[9] Ibid.

[10] P. Summerfield, in Cosslett, T., Easton, A. & Summerfield, P. Women, Power and Resistance, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996.

[11]P. Summerfield, in Marwick, A. Total war and social change, 1^st edn, London: The Macmillan press,. 1988, p.50

[12] P. Summerfield, in Purvis, J., Women’s History: Britain, 1850 – 1945, London, 2000,, p. 315

[13]Ibid, p.318

[14] H. Smith, British Feminism in the Twentieth Century. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1990 as mentioned in Cosslett, T., Easton, A. & Summerfield, P. Women, Power and Resistance, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996

[15] P. Summerfield,. in Cosslett, T., Easton, A. & Summerfield, P. Women, Power and Resistance, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996 p. 231

[16]Ibid, p.235

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14