Comments on: Billie Jean, Tara Hunt, & the Bionic Woman

By: Shannon Ehlers

Shannon Ehlers — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:51:22 +0000

Very thoughtful and thought provoking, I read this in the early morning before work then thought about it all day. My general response is that it can’t come quickly enough, but progress is usually at the hands of the young and at the expense of time. In that sense, we have to forgive our elders for retaining what they learned so long ago. We can dare to step onto the more level field, if we acknowledge it.

I agree with you: we often take the path of least resistance, utilizing “old familiar standards” with regard to gender roles. In fairness, though, it isn’t that easy to redefine what it means to be male. I presume that females find this difficult as well. Any suggestions? Maybe some type of “life experiment”? Should I give up all vestiges of male-hood for a year?

As you said in your post, I don’t really have good answers to these questions. Rather, they seem to trigger more questions.

“Level playing field”. Can the phrase itself divide people who might otherwise work together toward a common goal? Maybe we need a new, bolder metaphor?

Is our ultimate power and true expression achieved only through our jobs? Does my entire identity, beyond just gender roles but also encompassing them, depend on what I do in exchange for some coins?

Is it good or bad to be a stay at home mom? Is it good or bad to be a stay at home dad? Is it good or bad to be a dual income family? What would it be like to have a “no income” family, where both parents were at home?

By: Britt

Britt — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:01:42 +0000

I would challenge your position of the level playing field, mainly to play devil’s advocate.

If a level playing field exists, why is there still an ongoing debate about whether a woman can be elected president? In the case of men, why does society still look askance at men pursuing historically female jobs like nursing and full-time parenting?

I believe we’re still more comfortable placing men and women in the categories they’ve occupied for centuries rather than redefining what it means to be male or female.

I do agree with the notion that balance is needed. However, I don’t believe we’re at a point where we’re ready to acknowledge that there’s more than one way to balance the equation.

By: Shannon Ehlers

Shannon Ehlers — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:00:01 +0000

In some ways I think the level playing field exists now but goes unrecognized because we focus so much attention on our morphological differences. I am guilty of this, too. I think you alluded to this in your earlier post on Tags.

One of the concepts we work with all the time in my job is the balance between opposing forces (yin/yang, shade/sun, strong/weak, etc.). I think this corresponds to male and female societal functions as well.

Some think that masculine and feminine equate to action and thought, respectively. Without female thinking, our society would lack something. Without male action, something else would be lacking.