Posts
So, I had an epiphany today when the "UPS Man" came to my door with lots of big boxes and he was a woman!! Actually a few times lately the FedEx or UPS deliverers have been female and it has made me have an epiphany that perhaps I was wrong that women do not want the tough, dangerous, dirty, physical hard jobs, etc that are traditionally considrered male, as expressed in my diatribe on political correctness over the conversation of "manhole covers" language and the discussion it prompted on this matter from Sharon's views on women who would want jobs working in sewers, etc. Perhaps the epiphany for me was just discovering I was wrong about something, ha ha ha. Anyway, those UPS/FedEx ladies do a darn good job at a hard job.
And to make a complete non sequitir lacking any kind of a segue, I thought maybe we could discuss the changing role of marriage (as it has come up some in class, plus with our professor being a family lawyer I would like to hear her view on this too) and how things are shifting in society in general and perhaps with women's changing roles and lives. It has only been perhaps about 150 years (and really only in westernized cultures) that the idea of marrying for oh a little thing called love or marrying for gosh, dare I say happiness, has been fashionable and prevalent, and it will be interesting to see where it goes in the future.
I just leave that out there to start a discussion...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is interesting that you brought up marriage. I found a couple of articles on the topic that I was going to share. The first article is called "I Don't: The Case Against Marriage." (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/11/i-don-t.html) This article examines why the concept of marriage is outdated. For example, the article examines the issue of women being in the workforce so they no longer need to marry for financial stability. It has also become much more acceptable to have children out of wedlock, so you don't necessarily need to be married to have children. And finally, the article talks quite a bit about the divorce rate. The article also states that by marrying men and women are forced to conform into gender specific roles such as the women cooks and cleans.
In response to "I Don't," there is another article called "I Do, Too." (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/11/i-do-too.html) This article examines why marriage is still relevant today. And while it does not disagree with the statements posed in the first article it says that now people can marry for love because they do not have to worry about all of the other stuff like financial stability.
As someone who is married, I am not sure that I see the institution of marriage as obsolete. I certainly did not marry to become more financial stable. (In fact, for me marriage is quite expensive since I am helping with my husband's medical school bills.) And we take turns with the household duties. We both enjoy to cook and we share the cleaning responsibilities. So, I think you can have a "gender neutral" marriage. It just depends on the individuals involved and what works best for them.
Post a Comment