The day I wrote the last post, I sent an email to all my female friends wishing them a glorious day. Some of them never replied –I wasn't expecting replies– and some whom I would never expect a reply from, did send me a thank-you email.One of my I-could-have-guessed-she'd-reply friends said something like "It is a pity that I am a working woman (in Spain we say Day of the Working Woman) and not a woman whose partner is paying for everything". I thought for a moment and I said that she'd to see it from the other side: that she is a super-working super-woman and she is getting paid loads. Also the fact that she is good at what she does and, thanks to use both brain hemispheres, she can cook and work at the same time.
But then I kept thinking on it.
What is it that makes apparent feminist women to be so chauvinists sometimes?
Let's see. A man (straight man) would never say "I want a woman to go work and pay for all my hobbies while I stay at home or go socializing." This is obviously a generalization, perhaps some men do say this, though, never met one. Gay men do say this –even I– but, most probably, have learnt this from women. One of my long-time dreams is to retire in a masia in Empordà or in Priorat or in a small village in the heart of Catalunya. My husband going to work in town everyday and me taking care of children and house. I'd write all day, I'd cook, I would have a kitchen garden and read books under a jasmine tree. Though, this is a dream and as a dream it will stay.
Going back to women. I don't understand this bipolar thing. So, on one side they want to be strong working women with power, and on the other, they want to live in Stepford. This, I don't understand.
I am a feminist, because I want women to have the same rights. But the worse problem is when those women do not want to fight.
The other day was the second anniversary of the arrival of PSOE into the govern of Spain after eight black years of PP. Zapatero, our Presindent (you'd say Prime Minister), said, in the celebration, that there is still something very important to do: equal women and men rights. Also, he thank all the Ministress and especially to the vice president Ms Fernández de la Vega. This was a very nice gesture to do. It was touching.
In the current govern of Spain there is parity of ministers: 8 of them are women and 8 men. We had this discussion last week about this think of the parity. Some people disagree with this. Imagine that there are 450 people who are minister-able; 300 or them are men and th
e rest are women. Imagine that you have to choose the best 16. Obviously, there will always be 16 best men and women as, even if they are bad, there will always be better than someone else (except for the number 150 or 300). So you have to chose the 8 best men and the 8 best women. The problem is to think that, perhaps, best man number 9 is better than best woman number 4. Also, it's possible to think that best woman number 16 is better than best man number 2.
I am more of the second option (perhaps is an exaggeration and it is 9-4 or 9-8). Think of it: women who are in politics and can be ministerable (or ministressable?) are successful women who are giving up their private life upon to their career –most probably they don't have children or perhaps they are not even married–. Men who are ministerable can have a normal private life: they'll arrive home and dinner will be ready, children asleep and will watch football on cable TV on weekends with their mates.
I really think that successful women are more successful than successful men as they will always combine private and working life.
But what I think (and that can be use to defend most of the laws that Zapatero has done, including gay marriage and smoke ban) is that once you do it, do it well.
Also, I think that women have to have model women (not fashion model). Women whom to look at: so far we have Margaret Thatcher, Marilin Monroe, or Penélope Cruz. The first one was called Iron Maiden... oops, I mean, Iron Lady. The second one committed suicide (or they committed it for her). And the third one is just an actress (not that is bad). What else do we have? Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Indira Gandhi, Madonna, and not to many more.
We have to find women to look at them, to have them as idols. We need them so girls can say "When I grow up, I want to be like her."
But then I kept thinking on it.
What is it that makes apparent feminist women to be so chauvinists sometimes?
Let's see. A man (straight man) would never say "I want a woman to go work and pay for all my hobbies while I stay at home or go socializing." This is obviously a generalization, perhaps some men do say this, though, never met one. Gay men do say this –even I– but, most probably, have learnt this from women. One of my long-time dreams is to retire in a masia in Empordà or in Priorat or in a small village in the heart of Catalunya. My husband going to work in town everyday and me taking care of children and house. I'd write all day, I'd cook, I would have a kitchen garden and read books under a jasmine tree. Though, this is a dream and as a dream it will stay.
Going back to women. I don't understand this bipolar thing. So, on one side they want to be strong working women with power, and on the other, they want to live in Stepford. This, I don't understand.
I am a feminist, because I want women to have the same rights. But the worse problem is when those women do not want to fight.
The other day was the second anniversary of the arrival of PSOE into the govern of Spain after eight black years of PP. Zapatero, our Presindent (you'd say Prime Minister), said, in the celebration, that there is still something very important to do: equal women and men rights. Also, he thank all the Ministress and especially to the vice president Ms Fernández de la Vega. This was a very nice gesture to do. It was touching.
In the current govern of Spain there is parity of ministers: 8 of them are women and 8 men. We had this discussion last week about this think of the parity. Some people disagree with this. Imagine that there are 450 people who are minister-able; 300 or them are men and th
e rest are women. Imagine that you have to choose the best 16. Obviously, there will always be 16 best men and women as, even if they are bad, there will always be better than someone else (except for the number 150 or 300). So you have to chose the 8 best men and the 8 best women. The problem is to think that, perhaps, best man number 9 is better than best woman number 4. Also, it's possible to think that best woman number 16 is better than best man number 2.I am more of the second option (perhaps is an exaggeration and it is 9-4 or 9-8). Think of it: women who are in politics and can be ministerable (or ministressable?) are successful women who are giving up their private life upon to their career –most probably they don't have children or perhaps they are not even married–. Men who are ministerable can have a normal private life: they'll arrive home and dinner will be ready, children asleep and will watch football on cable TV on weekends with their mates.
I really think that successful women are more successful than successful men as they will always combine private and working life.
But what I think (and that can be use to defend most of the laws that Zapatero has done, including gay marriage and smoke ban) is that once you do it, do it well.
Also, I think that women have to have model women (not fashion model). Women whom to look at: so far we have Margaret Thatcher, Marilin Monroe, or Penélope Cruz. The first one was called Iron Maiden... oops, I mean, Iron Lady. The second one committed suicide (or they committed it for her). And the third one is just an actress (not that is bad). What else do we have? Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Indira Gandhi, Madonna, and not to many more.
We have to find women to look at them, to have them as idols. We need them so girls can say "When I grow up, I want to be like her."
No comments:
Post a Comment