Maybe I was unclear (or asleep) when I typed, because most of your post assumed I was saying a lot of things that I sure didn't mean to!
I have never believed total parity in roles was possible, or even desirable. Of course, biology dictates certain behaviors, even though we now have the ability to limit some of its control over our bodies. But your term "economic chattel" is an example of why I believe we should avoid regressive terms like "traditional morality" even as we advocate many of its ideas and values.
Traditionally, the male role was one of dominance and control, not protection- or if protection, more as one would protect one's property. For many women, when men harken back to the "good old days", that is the image that springs to mind: the "cherished", trapped wife in Chopin's 'The Awakening' or the ill, forcefed postpartum wife in Gilman's 'Yellow Wallpaper'.
Much was achieved for women in this century and when the old terms are used, it sets off alarms. Women do not want to return to The Cult of True Womanhood.
As in all movements, the pendulum had to swing farther than what seems reasonable. With these changes, the definition of roles had to be revised. Many of these changes were healthy and necessary, but some were damaging to the only structure we had for raising families.
Women do not want to be men- but they don't want to be chattel either. What they want is an equality based on their personhood. (is that a word?) When men sigh about the old traditions, it causes some women to look back, rather than forward. And that's a place most don't want to revisit. |
