Roberts begins by revealing a shocking fact about academic and economic standing among couples, “Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women.”[i] At first glance the news of higher education and earnings for females seems great; no doubt it speaks to the progress of the feminist movement and equal rights. Yet as we know too well, success for women in a patriarchal society means checking domesticity and docility at the door in order to be seen as aggressive, persistent, and competent. As men have dominated classrooms and offices for far longer than women, the average male feels a sense of entitlement to occupying the position of “breadwinner”. For some men, women who infiltrate this position are deemed threatening because they no longer fulfill the role of submissive housewife. As a man in Roberts’ article states to a woman, “You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you”?[ii]
The double bind, in which women yet again find themselves, is that the advancement of women comes at the price of emasculating the men around them. Dr. Kenji Yoshino refers to this predicament in his book, Covering, as reverse-covering demands, “demands that an individuals act according to the stereotypes associated with their group.”[iii] Yoshino goes on to explain the problems that emerge when we classify passive and nurturing as “feminine” and aggressive and powerful as “masculine”:
What makes women distinctive is that the dominant group – men – regularly imposes both covering and reverse-covering demands on them. Women are uniquely situated in this way because their subordination has more generally taken a unique form. Un-like gays and racial minorities, women have been cherished by their oppressors. Men have long valued the “feminine” traits women are supposed to hold, such as warmth, empathy, and nurture[iv]
An extremist, like Ariel Levy, might even go so far as to say that women who earn the respect of men in the workplace and, as a result, potentially lose the respect of their husbands, are taking one step forward and two steps back, “A new sort of loophole woman who is ‘not like other women,’ who is instead ‘like a man.’ Or, more precisely, like a Female Chauvinist Pig.”[v] If maintaining higher female to male ratio in universities and offices means becoming FCPs and scaring off husbands, have we really progressed? It seems the male hesitation towards role reversal is an indication of the challenges of equality that still lie ahead.
It must be noted that the degree to which successful women experience this reverse-covering demand varies greatly. Roberts makes a point of acknowledging that race, ethnicity, and religion all contribute to the cultural norms that shape our opinions of gender roles, “Particularly, African-American men who are educated want a traditional home where they are the breadwinner.”[vi] Thus, this article does not simply involve gender relations, but gender relations as they relate to individual upbringing and cultural norms.
Although this article does not begin to address all the implications of men marrying wealthier women, it does provide the reader with a foundation to ask important questions. If men continue to feel insecure about their educational status and income can we anticipate a change in dating and marriage rates? Will the breadwinning wives be able to raise children, or will that responsibility be transferred over to the husband? What about the stigma placed on working moms versus stay-at-home moms? Will women celebrate each other in this historic moment or continue to judge one another?
Ultimately, “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women” is a great advertisement for the feminist movement, but it does not tell the whole story. While women may be better educated and hold greater careers than their husbands, they are still paid less than their male counterparts. President Obama recently reminded all Americans that by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, “We are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.”[vii] It is obvious we have much work to do before women can truly hold positions of power without being ostracized or treated unfairly; yet, the message Roberts hits home about female accomplishment is a powerful one. If the reversal of gender roles continues, we might just hear the words “sugar mama”, not daddy.
[i] Sam Roberts, “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women,” The New York Times, January 19, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/19marriage.html?emc=eta1
[ii] Ibid
[iii] Kenji Yoshino, Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights (New York: Random House, 2007), 23.
[iv] Yoshino, 147.
[v] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (New York: Free Press, 2006), 96.
[vi] Roberts
[vii] Sheryl Stolberg, “Obama Signs Equal Pay Legislation,” The New York Times, January 29, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html
No comments:
Post a Comment