The Deconstruction of Rigid Gender Roles Next Door.

Something I see a lot of when I come across videos, articles, Internet comments, or even just talking to certain men when discussing the ideals behind feminism, is that a lot of men (and, unless I specify otherwise, "men," or any variants thereof, in this blog, will refer to those who are heterosexual, cisgendered men) seem to separate the world into two groups of people: straight women, and straight men. It's literally as if everyone else does not exist.

The reason I say that is because there are a few issues that come up, almost without fail, when you're discussing feminism with a man who does not identify as a feminist; children, marriage, and the "family unit." And, more often than not, when men bring these things up in the middle of a discussion about feminism, it's generally to blame feminists for the destruction of those things.

I once had a man tell me that feminists should not be encouraging women not to have children, because, as he so eloquently put it, "Bearing a child is one of the few life-experiences that is completely unique to being a woman."

Yeah. Stop right there, Sparky.

Barring the known fact that there are countless children out there already who are, for all intents and purposes, orphans, whose parents either abandoned them, couldn't care for them, or flat-out didn't want them, or what have you, there is just so much wrong with that statement, my head wants to implode. Effective immediately.

First and foremost, by making a blanket statement like that, you're placing all women into a tidy little box of heterosexuality and heteronormativity. As much as you'd like to believe it's so, there are many, many women out there whose lives don't revolve around dick, who don't date men, who are homosexual and homoromantic, who have no intentions of marrying a man, and who certainly don't want to go through the process of having sex with one, for the purpose of poppin' out a kid. Of course, I'm fully aware that there are options if you are a lesbian and you do want children (artificial insemination, surrogacy, et cetera), and if you are a lesbian and you do want to have a child, I'm very glad those options are available to you. However, the fact is this: A very decent percentage of women out there are - in fact - big, fat dykes. There are also many individuals in the world who were born biologically female, but are not female-identified. There are many individuals in the world who were born biologically male, and are not male-identified. And - this may come as a shock, so get a firm hold on your armrests for this one - there are actually women out there who don't identify as feminists, are heterosexual, and still have no interest in motherhood, or even marriage.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that not all women are physically able to have children, even if they want to. I'm of the belief that I have endometriosis. If I do, there's a very good chance that I'm infertile. So you're fucking telling me that, since I can't have a baby, even if I actually wanted to, I'm not a woman? There are alarming numbers of women who are infertile, for various reasons. There are men who are infertile, too, for various reasons.

By claiming that women need to have children in order to accrue an integral portion of our womanhood that we'd otherwise be missing forever, you're essentially invalidating the womanhood of women who can't bear children. You're telling any woman who can't have a child that she is no longer a woman. You're insisting that any woman who is in favor of adopting one (or more) of those countless parentless children we mentioned earlier, rather than bearing them, isn't a real woman. You're invalidating the womanhood of, and adding to the marginalization of women who simply have never had any intentions of being a parent, or a mother-figure, or a wife, and you're perpetuating the belief that feminism is the reason for all of this.

And that is just not. fucking. cool. It's okay that you have/want to have kids. It's okay that you're married/want to get married. It's even okay if your wife wants to have kids with you. But it is not okay to say that everyone has to follow the same paths you have in order to "earn" their humanity, or that all women need to follow the same life-outline that your wife has in order to "earn" some part of their womanhood.

Because I've already discussed marriage and my feelings on it, we'll just stick a pin in that for now (though I'm SURE it'll come up again, some time), and move onto the "destruction of the family unit."

One of the most prevalent methods of debate when it comes to feminism is that there is a massive plight on the families of our culture, and a destruction of "the family unit," and that there are more single mothers now than there ever have been before; that children are so screwed up because they're being raised in fatherless homes.

I'd like to know where this bizarre definition of "family" came from.

Why is it that there seems to now be this widespread belief that a family is not a real family if there is no father-figure? As far as I've always known, a family is a close-knit group of individuals who share a tight bond and a sense of love. Your friends can be family. Some of us are closer to our friends than those in our bloodline. And as someone who spent her teen years in a fatherless home, I find it beyond insulting that my brother and I are considered "broken," because we lost our father when we were young, and thus, are "products of a fatherless home" out of shitty circumstance. My mom had priorities other than running out and getting re-married, so does that make her a bad person? An unfit mother? Someone who has contributed to this so-called "destruction" of the "family unit?" Because I fail to see how that is. Her husband died. She had no control over it. She had no intentions of finding a "replacement" because she never felt like there could ever be one. But the details, those aren't important; she's just a single mother to the world. One person shoved into the myriads of statistics about fatherless homes and single mothers.

Not to mention, once again, not everyone is straight. Not all mothers are straight mothers, and lesbian mothers have no place in their "family-unit" for a man. So I suppose they're bad people, too. I suppose their children will be violent, lawless, fucked-up, obstinate drains on society because, obviously, there's no dick in the equation, and thus, your family is not a real family, and women can't properly raise children to be decent human beings without a some sort of male involvement or influence.

And let's not forget that there are a LOT of men who fuck women, get them pregnant, and leave them to deal with it on their own. If a woman doesn't want to get an abortion, and doesn't necessarily want to give her child up for adoption, she isn't left with much choice, is she? Because if a woman has a baby and is out all the time trolling for men, she'll be a bad mother. But if she raises her kid without a father, she's a bad mother. That situation is pretty much a no-win for a woman. And what gets me about that? A man who raises a child on his own is NEVER a bad father. He's a great father, even! A noble human being who is doing something so courageous and beautiful and commendable. His children will never be considered abusive, emotionally-void, disturbed people because they didn't have the sense of nurturing that mothers are famous for giving. No, their father is a brilliant, altruistic, selfless, amazing parent!

What a crock of shit.

Also, I'd like to point out that the same people who argue that "fatherless homes" are the reason for the destruction of families, and that our upcoming generations are destined for failure because of that, are the same people who believe women should be stay-at-home mothers, housewives, and the primary caregivers to the children. So... you argue that children need fathers, and then turn around and say that the women need to be the ones to actually take care of the children, and do most of the work raising the children, while you're out being the breadwinner, and, occasionally, the disciplinary? Because women can't work, AND raise their children to be decent people, AND discipline them properly when they need it? I know it's certainly easier to share the workload, and I am, by no means, saying it's easy to be a parent, even in a family with two parents, but that certainly doesn't mean women are incapable of being good parents, even on their own.

What is this? What the fuck, people? Why is everything in this culture subjected to rigid, unrealistic gender roles, and subjugated under heteronormative discourse? I can't be the only one who is tired of this.

And these are the types of attitudes that just remind me, on a daily basis, how much sexism there still is in this culture, and how much we truly do need feminism.