Cinderella Fantasies
There is pervasive in this culture the fantasy of Cinderella, whose Prince Charming comes out of the woodwork, sweeps her off her feet, and carries her off to Never-Never Land, to La-La Land where all her dreams are fulfilled. The Prince comes in many guises – Mr. Right, Mr. Perfect, A Good Man, etc., but always the burden of the fantasy is on a particular male who will satisfy the woman – usually financially.
The airwaves are rife with songs whose lyrics profess that men will satisfy a woman’s every wish if only the woman will give love in return, as though the men were incapable of manifesting love themselves. Women’s magazines are filled with articles such as “How To Get Him To Marry You”, “How To Get A Commitment”, “How To Find Mr. Right”, etc., as though the only purpose of life for a female was finding a mate who is a good provider (of women’s financial fantasies).
Many divorced women bitterly complain that they took care of their ex- and he dumped them financially. Their Cinderella fantasy has been crushed. The fact that they were supported maids, not mutual partners, matters little to them; the main point is that their meal-ticket unceremoniously dumped them and now they have to take a wage job in order to support themselves.
Why is there the assumption that men should have to do way employment and women should have the right to stay home if they so choose? Why is that not an option for both of them (albeit not concurrently)?
It is high time that we begin to look at the ways in which the Cinderella fantasies are frightfully oppressive to both sexes. The fantasy oppresses women by making them indentured servants in a relationship and nullifying their individuality as creative persons. The fantasy oppresses men by demanding that they alone are responsible for sweeping another person out of their financial unemployability and satisfying their economic desires. It creates intense bitterness for both sexes. (For further reading on this, see The Hearts of Men, by Barbara Ehrenreich.)
Just as women have rightfully been angered by the Madonna/whore dichotomy that has undermined the wide spectrum of sexual expression and their right to be treated in a non-sexual manner, men should begin to be righteously angered by the good provider/bum dichotomy. It has undermined the wide spectrum of talents and their fulfillment, thereby shoving men into employment situations with, though financially lucrative, are often morally and ethically degrading. Men have a right to be treated in a non-economic manner, as humans with multiple talents and interests.
In Conclusion: Sexism
All too often, sexism has been viewed [solely] as discrimination against women by men on the basis of anatomy, i.e. because this human has a vagina, she must stay in the home and bear and raise children; she should not rise to management ranks; should not enter certain professions [should remain in ‘pink collar’ positions], etc. I would suggest that, in fact, sexism is truly a two-way street, that it is also discrimination against men by women. This is also on the basis of anatomy, i.e. because this human has a penis, he must be the primary breadwinner; he must be the protector [physical]; he must make/is responsible for all the major decisions concerning a relationship and/or a family; he must make a good paycheck and be willing to place himself in dangerous occupations, if necessary, to support a family unit.
Sexism is assigning to one sex responsibilities and/or deficits that are not assigned to the other sex. It is not only discrimination because of anatomy against a person, but the demanding of certain attributes regardless of personal inclination, abilities, or willingness of that person. Sexism says that because you have a particular sexual organ, you have to play out some highly defined, suffocatingly rigid cultural roles or run the risk of being ostracized for your rebellion.
Sexism, like racism, is an institutionalized form of oppression, a culturally acquired brutality against other persons. Like racism, which limits the authenticity of persons by defining them by the color of their skin or their cultural background, sexism limits the authenticity of persons by defining them by their sexual organs: dresses/pants; blue/pink; high heels/flat shoes; body hair/shaved body hair; emphasis on strength and prowess/emphasis on weakness and toning; etc.
In almost all cases, the assigning of roles by sex makes little objective sense. (The only exception that comes to mind is that very real anatomical fact that only females can bear children.) Women become just as good managers as men and men become just as good child-raisers as women, given enough training. Women are just as able to be the primary breadwinners as men are able to be good housekeepers and cooks.
Just as women need to see themselves as valid human beings in contexts other than as sexual receptacles, men need to validate their humanity in contexts other than as money machines. Communication between the sexes and the movement toward real equality is undermined when we are objectified either financially or sexually.
Just as it is critical for the liberation of women for men to see nurturance by women in terms other than sexual, it is equally critical for the liberation of men for women to see nurturance by men in terms other than financial. Both sexes need new role models for the support of their personal definitions of gender [masculinity/femininity].
Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute was founded in 2001
to help men become emotionally healthy.
Equality of the Sexes:
Reading Between the Lines
Page 4
