This is a post about gender equality.
So I know of quite a few people out there who give tons of extra attention to women throughout history who have accomplished great things, and these are the role models they tout to their little daughters.
I don't think that's fair. To anyone. And I think it may actually help to perpetuate gender inequality.
Switch gears with me a moment: Why do we honor Albert Einstein? Because he was a man, or because he was a brilliant scientist?
Why do we admire William Shakespeare? Because he was an man, or because he was an excellent writer?
But then, why do we revere Marie Curie? Because she was a famous woman, or because she was a great scientist? Why do we admire Amelia Erhart--because she was a woman, or because she was a daring aviatress?
Yes, your little girls do need female role models. But so do your little boys. And your little boys and little girls also need male role models. I think the gender of those who accomplished great things in history is less important than the fact that they were human, and they accomplished great things. It doesn't matter the gender of your child's role models--I mean, who would have a problem with their daughter working to become as great an artist as Van Gogh, or their son aspiring to be as charitable as Mother Teresa?
Putting only female role models up for little girls is doing everyone a disservice--the little girls who could aspire to be something different (and who would be led in these aspirations by male role models from history), the little boys who could aspire to be like a female role model from history, and society in general, which has a disgusting tendency to take innocent things like an emphasis on female historical figures and turn it into nasty things like gender inequality.
So I know of quite a few people out there who give tons of extra attention to women throughout history who have accomplished great things, and these are the role models they tout to their little daughters.
I don't think that's fair. To anyone. And I think it may actually help to perpetuate gender inequality.
Switch gears with me a moment: Why do we honor Albert Einstein? Because he was a man, or because he was a brilliant scientist?
Why do we admire William Shakespeare? Because he was an man, or because he was an excellent writer?
But then, why do we revere Marie Curie? Because she was a famous woman, or because she was a great scientist? Why do we admire Amelia Erhart--because she was a woman, or because she was a daring aviatress?
Yes, your little girls do need female role models. But so do your little boys. And your little boys and little girls also need male role models. I think the gender of those who accomplished great things in history is less important than the fact that they were human, and they accomplished great things. It doesn't matter the gender of your child's role models--I mean, who would have a problem with their daughter working to become as great an artist as Van Gogh, or their son aspiring to be as charitable as Mother Teresa?
Putting only female role models up for little girls is doing everyone a disservice--the little girls who could aspire to be something different (and who would be led in these aspirations by male role models from history), the little boys who could aspire to be like a female role model from history, and society in general, which has a disgusting tendency to take innocent things like an emphasis on female historical figures and turn it into nasty things like gender inequality.
Comments
Post a Comment