I love Valenti's point that men are not born to rape or be tougher. Just because men have a testosterone and are on the most part are physically stronger than women means that in our society they must build that strength and use it to prove their "manliness" against women maintaining their power. If from birth men were taught to believe that it was okay to cry and feel emotions outwardly and have fear of bees or soak the grease off pizza (milwaukee's best commercial) would our society be totally different? How would that change things?
Will the change come from the language used to describe men? First we must look into changing the definition of men from the opposite of what a woman is to something that is more versatile, multidimensional, and allows for the expression of self and individuality.
In this article and throughout a lot of other literature there is a lot of focus on men specifically participating in self destructive behavior, drinking, doing drugs, etc. however, what about the female population participating in these activities. From my opinion I know just as many females who like to -often times more than they should- participate in all of these activities. Are these habits ignored because they are not seen as feminine? Why is beer any less of a female drink than a male one? I'm sure that "beer" in that statement could be taken out and replaced with a lot of different words or ideas but Valenti's article brings up several different instances of how men drink and are destructive. Is it just my personal situation that I experience an even amount of men and women participating in these kinds of behaviors?
overall Valenti's article is about changing the message or the lesson that you preach to boys and girls as children to change their perspectives of what it means to be a girl or a boy. The future needs to begin in the new definition of what it means to be a man or a women, a definition that is not about the opposite gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment