The issue with women rights reforms
There are many different themes in the Song of Soloman by Toni Morrison. One theme that is shown throughout the book is the theme of sexual discrimination in society. Almost every woman in Song of Soloman is treated as an object that men can just throw away when they finish using them and love when they need them. The most obvious example is when Milkman dumps Hagar and just sends her some money. This is extremely disrespectful and led to Hagar's hunt for Milkman later. For the most part, this is the history of women. Since the beginning of the human race, women are treated as being weaker than men, therefore, sort of owned by men. However, as history progresses, women have gained many rights that they didn't have before by starting reforms and protesting. These reforms gave women suffrage, property rights, and an equal opportunity in all fields of society. On the bad side though, Women's rights reforms evolved from a mild but powerful group into a radical group that gets offended by every single thing that people do. These are just my opinions about women's reforms and I am just offering a different view of the issue.
The women's rights reforms nowadays are really unfair with their conditions and results. They want equal pay for women and equal opportunites as men. But what is their bargaining chip for those rights? Virtually nothing. Women are asking for those rights when they still grasp on to their prestigious social status. If a woman hits a man in public for no reason, pretty much nothing happens. However, if a man hits a woman in public, every person will just roast the crap out of that man. How is that fair? How can men accept those conditions when they are basically 100 to 0 treaties, where one side gets all the benefits and the other side doesn't get anything?
I think that if those radical women's rights reformers really want every man to accept those terms, they need to have a better bargaining chip than pretty much nothing at all. Women need to give up their highly protected status for a truly gender-equal society. However, many of them seem to want the best of both worlds and that is just not going to happen. Here are the only choices in my opinion; first, let the society be the same as right now; second, women give up their protected status in society; or third; give the protected status to men and men will give up their dominant role in society. Of those 3 choices, only the first two look doable and fair for both sides of the conflict.
The women's rights reforms nowadays are really unfair with their conditions and results. They want equal pay for women and equal opportunites as men. But what is their bargaining chip for those rights? Virtually nothing. Women are asking for those rights when they still grasp on to their prestigious social status. If a woman hits a man in public for no reason, pretty much nothing happens. However, if a man hits a woman in public, every person will just roast the crap out of that man. How is that fair? How can men accept those conditions when they are basically 100 to 0 treaties, where one side gets all the benefits and the other side doesn't get anything?
I think that if those radical women's rights reformers really want every man to accept those terms, they need to have a better bargaining chip than pretty much nothing at all. Women need to give up their highly protected status for a truly gender-equal society. However, many of them seem to want the best of both worlds and that is just not going to happen. Here are the only choices in my opinion; first, let the society be the same as right now; second, women give up their protected status in society; or third; give the protected status to men and men will give up their dominant role in society. Of those 3 choices, only the first two look doable and fair for both sides of the conflict.
Comments
Post a Comment