Found this today while cleaning up my hard drive
Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever
By James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity have been battered and
ridiculed for more than 20 years, creating confusion for both men and women.
These revisions of age-old behavior patterns have produced awkwardness in
the relationships between the sexes. Should a man stand when a woman enters
the room? Will he please her by opening the door for her? Should he give her
his seat on a crowded bus or subway? Have all the rules changed? Is there
anything predictable and certain in the new order?
While these questions of social etiquette may seem superficial at first,
they are hardly trivial. They reflect much deeper attitudes that have
far-reaching implications. We are, after all, sexual beings. Everything we
do is influenced by our gender assignment. The first element of
self-identity as toddlers comes from our identification as boys and girls.
Any confusion at that point-or in the relationship between the sexes-must be
seen as threatening to the stability of society itself.
Dr. Charles Winick at City University of New York studied more than 2,000
cultures that have existed in world history. He found only 55 where
masculinity and femininity blurred. Not one of those unisexual societies
survived for more than a few years.
Why not? Because a society can be no stronger than the vitality of its
families, and its families are a function of the way the sexes relate to
each other. Maleness and femaleness are not merely social niceties that have
evolved through time. While customs vary from one culture to another, the
linkage between the sexes is a function of powerful forces deep within the
human spirit. That attraction must not be tampered with by social engineers
with an agenda of their own.
Social engineers love to tamper, however, and they've been tinkering with
sex-role definitions since at least 1968. Everything understood to identify
womanhood for thousands of years has been held up to ridicule and disdain.
It was remarkable, in fact, how effectively a very small number of radical
feminists (remember the early bra burners?) were able to redefine the role
of women and reorder the relationship between the sexes. These firebrands
have long since been discredited, but never underestimate the changes in
social attitude that they inspired. In a single decade, for example, the
term housewife became a symbol of exploitation, oppression, and-pardon the
insult-stupidity. How strange!
No Apology Needed
Since the beginning of human existence, women in most cultures have
identified themselves with child-rearing responsibilities. It was an
honorable occupation that required no apology. How has it happened, then,
that homemaking has fallen on such lean times in the Western world? Why do
women who remain at home in the company of little children feel such
disrespect from the society in which they live?
A partial answer can be found in the incessant bombardment by the media on
all traditional Judeo-Christian values. Radio, television, the press and the
entertainment industry have literally (and deliberately) changed the way
America thinks.
Many years have passed since Barbara Walters and Tom Snyder hosted a
three-hour television special on the subject of women. I refer to it now
because the program was so typical of the fare served up to the public in
that day. The broadcast was aired on NBC in prime time and captured the
attention of the country for one full evening. (What fantastic power for
social change has been wrought by the tube!)
I watched Walters and Synder carefully on that occasion, and, in fact, taped
the program for future reference. Their stated purpose was to evaluate the
world of women at that time, examining the many activities and involvement
of the feminine gender. What resulted, however, was a powerful propaganda
piece for what was then the new way of thinking.
Women were depicted in numerous work situations, from business ownership to
blue-collar jobs. Not once in the three-hour program, however, was the role
of the homemaker mentioned, except to refer indirectly to this outmoded
responsibility in vaguely derogatory terms. Perhaps 14 million homemakers
lived and breathed in this country at that time, yet they were not
referenced once in a program dedicated to the world of women. I'm sure the
viewers got the message.
The effort to reorder the role of women proceeded on a broad scale, touching
every dimension of society. For example, I received a letter about that time
from a mother who was curious to learn why her local library had removed
hundreds of books from its shelves.
Upon investigation, she was shocked to discover that each volume depicting
males and females in a traditional context was eliminated. If a woman was
shown cooking dinner and a father was working in a factory, the book had to
go. Obviously, no stone was left unturned in the campaign to revolutionize
our ideas, though none dare call it censorship.
The courts also played a major role during that era. I remember receiving a
call from a physician who was consulting with a major law firm. He asked if
I would serve as an expert witness on behalf of Sav-On Drug Company in
California. I learned that a suit had been brought against the
pharmaceutical chain by a feminist attorney who represented the family of a
young girl. The suit charged Sav-On with inflicting great psychological
damage on the child because-are you ready for this?-toys in their stores
were separated by probable gender interest. Ten feet above the floor were
signs identifying "Toys for Girls," and in another place, "Toys for Boys."
The attorney claimed, apparently with a straight face, that the girl had
been emotionally damaged by being "denied access" to toys designated for
males. A psychiatrist actually submitted a statement to the court,
indicating the great degree to which the child had been wounded by Sav-On
Drug Company. That's how far the nonsense went.
This campaign to revolutionize our thinking has lost most of its fire today,
and the world has moved on. But make no mistake. The case against
traditional womanhood has been heard, and it will never be the same.
The female students at Wellesley College in Massachusetts may not be
familiar with the history I have described, since some of them were not yet
born when the movement began. Nevertheless, they are recipients of its
legacy. When they voted not to invite the First Lady, Barbara Bush, to speak
at their commencement in 1990 because she hadn't done anything but raise a
family and support her husband, they demonstrated how effectively feminist
ideology has been ingrained in the attitudes of the young-especially those
under the influence of liberal professors on university campuses.
The Role of Men
Not only has there been a revolution in female sex-role identity, but
maleness has been turned upside down, too. Apart from the elements of social
etiquette mentioned earlier, much deeper questions have been raised. What
does it really mean to be a man today? We know it is unacceptable to be
"macho," whatever that is, but we're not sure how we're expected to perform.
Consider how a young husband might look upon his new role at the beginning
of married life. Is he supposed to earn a living for his wife? Well,
probably not. She may bring in more money than he. Is he expected to provide
benevolent leadership for his family in the major decisions?
Even raising that issue in some circles is a sure way to start an argument.
Is he supposed to be stoic and strong or tender, sensitive and emotional?
Alas, is there anything that distinguishes his role from that of his wife,
and where can he go to find out what is expected of him?
Historically, married men were not so uncertain; they understood intuitively
that two family responsibilities exceeded all others in significance. They
were expected to protect and provide for their wives and children. You can
be sure they felt strongly about that obligation.
Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever
By James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity have been battered and
ridiculed for more than 20 years, creating confusion for both men and women.
These revisions of age-old behavior patterns have produced awkwardness in
the relationships between the sexes. Should a man stand when a woman enters
the room? Will he please her by opening the door for her? Should he give her
his seat on a crowded bus or subway? Have all the rules changed? Is there
anything predictable and certain in the new order?
While these questions of social etiquette may seem superficial at first,
they are hardly trivial. They reflect much deeper attitudes that have
far-reaching implications. We are, after all, sexual beings. Everything we
do is influenced by our gender assignment. The first element of
self-identity as toddlers comes from our identification as boys and girls.
Any confusion at that point-or in the relationship between the sexes-must be
seen as threatening to the stability of society itself.
Dr. Charles Winick at City University of New York studied more than 2,000
cultures that have existed in world history. He found only 55 where
masculinity and femininity blurred. Not one of those unisexual societies
survived for more than a few years.
Why not? Because a society can be no stronger than the vitality of its
families, and its families are a function of the way the sexes relate to
each other. Maleness and femaleness are not merely social niceties that have
evolved through time. While customs vary from one culture to another, the
linkage between the sexes is a function of powerful forces deep within the
human spirit. That attraction must not be tampered with by social engineers
with an agenda of their own.
Social engineers love to tamper, however, and they've been tinkering with
sex-role definitions since at least 1968. Everything understood to identify
womanhood for thousands of years has been held up to ridicule and disdain.
It was remarkable, in fact, how effectively a very small number of radical
feminists (remember the early bra burners?) were able to redefine the role
of women and reorder the relationship between the sexes. These firebrands
have long since been discredited, but never underestimate the changes in
social attitude that they inspired. In a single decade, for example, the
term housewife became a symbol of exploitation, oppression, and-pardon the
insult-stupidity. How strange!
No Apology Needed
Since the beginning of human existence, women in most cultures have
identified themselves with child-rearing responsibilities. It was an
honorable occupation that required no apology. How has it happened, then,
that homemaking has fallen on such lean times in the Western world? Why do
women who remain at home in the company of little children feel such
disrespect from the society in which they live?
A partial answer can be found in the incessant bombardment by the media on
all traditional Judeo-Christian values. Radio, television, the press and the
entertainment industry have literally (and deliberately) changed the way
America thinks.
Many years have passed since Barbara Walters and Tom Snyder hosted a
three-hour television special on the subject of women. I refer to it now
because the program was so typical of the fare served up to the public in
that day. The broadcast was aired on NBC in prime time and captured the
attention of the country for one full evening. (What fantastic power for
social change has been wrought by the tube!)
I watched Walters and Synder carefully on that occasion, and, in fact, taped
the program for future reference. Their stated purpose was to evaluate the
world of women at that time, examining the many activities and involvement
of the feminine gender. What resulted, however, was a powerful propaganda
piece for what was then the new way of thinking.
Women were depicted in numerous work situations, from business ownership to
blue-collar jobs. Not once in the three-hour program, however, was the role
of the homemaker mentioned, except to refer indirectly to this outmoded
responsibility in vaguely derogatory terms. Perhaps 14 million homemakers
lived and breathed in this country at that time, yet they were not
referenced once in a program dedicated to the world of women. I'm sure the
viewers got the message.
The effort to reorder the role of women proceeded on a broad scale, touching
every dimension of society. For example, I received a letter about that time
from a mother who was curious to learn why her local library had removed
hundreds of books from its shelves.
Upon investigation, she was shocked to discover that each volume depicting
males and females in a traditional context was eliminated. If a woman was
shown cooking dinner and a father was working in a factory, the book had to
go. Obviously, no stone was left unturned in the campaign to revolutionize
our ideas, though none dare call it censorship.
The courts also played a major role during that era. I remember receiving a
call from a physician who was consulting with a major law firm. He asked if
I would serve as an expert witness on behalf of Sav-On Drug Company in
California. I learned that a suit had been brought against the
pharmaceutical chain by a feminist attorney who represented the family of a
young girl. The suit charged Sav-On with inflicting great psychological
damage on the child because-are you ready for this?-toys in their stores
were separated by probable gender interest. Ten feet above the floor were
signs identifying "Toys for Girls," and in another place, "Toys for Boys."
The attorney claimed, apparently with a straight face, that the girl had
been emotionally damaged by being "denied access" to toys designated for
males. A psychiatrist actually submitted a statement to the court,
indicating the great degree to which the child had been wounded by Sav-On
Drug Company. That's how far the nonsense went.
This campaign to revolutionize our thinking has lost most of its fire today,
and the world has moved on. But make no mistake. The case against
traditional womanhood has been heard, and it will never be the same.
The female students at Wellesley College in Massachusetts may not be
familiar with the history I have described, since some of them were not yet
born when the movement began. Nevertheless, they are recipients of its
legacy. When they voted not to invite the First Lady, Barbara Bush, to speak
at their commencement in 1990 because she hadn't done anything but raise a
family and support her husband, they demonstrated how effectively feminist
ideology has been ingrained in the attitudes of the young-especially those
under the influence of liberal professors on university campuses.
The Role of Men
Not only has there been a revolution in female sex-role identity, but
maleness has been turned upside down, too. Apart from the elements of social
etiquette mentioned earlier, much deeper questions have been raised. What
does it really mean to be a man today? We know it is unacceptable to be
"macho," whatever that is, but we're not sure how we're expected to perform.
Consider how a young husband might look upon his new role at the beginning
of married life. Is he supposed to earn a living for his wife? Well,
probably not. She may bring in more money than he. Is he expected to provide
benevolent leadership for his family in the major decisions?
Even raising that issue in some circles is a sure way to start an argument.
Is he supposed to be stoic and strong or tender, sensitive and emotional?
Alas, is there anything that distinguishes his role from that of his wife,
and where can he go to find out what is expected of him?
Historically, married men were not so uncertain; they understood intuitively
that two family responsibilities exceeded all others in significance. They
were expected to protect and provide for their wives and children. You can
be sure they felt strongly about that obligation.
