Here is how I characterize the two models for understanding feminism's role in society:
Model 1 - Pro Traditional Sex Roles (Conservative in nature)
I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as traditionalists.
I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as feminists.
- While the traits of both sexes are certainly deeply rooted in the male and female psyche, or perhaps in the fabric of society, it isn't obvious to me that they are necessarily innate or eternal. The obvious difficulties that feminism has introduced could be symptoms of a species trying to bend against its nature, but they could just as well be growing pains on the path towards a better state of affairs.
- Traditionalists can make a strong argument that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women, and that these differences have far-reaching consequences, making men and women very different. But it is at least thinkable that we could shed these differences through evolution over the coming thousands of years, especially if we begin to conceive children outside of the womb - which technology will almost certainly allow us to do within the next 100 years.
- There is no question that men are less masculine than they were tens or hundreds of years ago, and women less feminine. But can this trend continue without a backlash or reaction? We are arguably seeing the inklings of this reaction the blogs that I referred to at the start of this post. This reaction could swing things back in the direction of extreme sexual polarity, which could persist, or else cause another reaction reinstating androgyny (at which point the cycle would likely continue ad infinitum).
- It certainly is difficult to imagine an androgynous society, but it isn't impossible. There is no doubt in my mind that the human race has evolved as quickly as it has due to the intense pleasure of sexual intercourse. But who says sexual intercourse is a permanent fixture in society? As we learn more about the brain and continue to discover mind altering substances (which are being legalized by the places that lead social and political trends worldwide), is it so difficult to envision a scenario in which sexual pleasure is usurped by some other experience? Even if the sexual organs never evolve off of the body, they could simply become insignificant - relics of a previous stage of human development (like the appendix).
To summarize: is isn't clear to me that the feminist "utopia" is impossible or undesirable. Even if it would be arguably a worse situation than the one that the we are in now (or were in traditionally), I don't see why that would mean we couldn't end up there as a species. As far as I can tell, feminism could conceivably achieve its goals.
Now, all that being said, I think there is one important point left to make. It is a point that underlies every word written on this blog: regardless of where feminism may be taking us, there are certain ways that a woman can behave to take advantage of the current social-sexual climate. Changes in social norms occur very gradually, so that you don't need to be concerned about the opposite sex suddenly being unattracted to the things it finds attractive now. Given this, women have two options
- Support feminism (and ultimately androgyny) by aligning yourself with its goals: suppress your feminine qualities and emphasize your masculine ones, in an effort to further your career and the feminist cause.
- Take advantage of the male-female polarity that (still) exists by allowing your feminine qualities to shine through, since this (still) attracts men.
1. "The Difference Between" and "The Difference Among"
2. Katy Perry Is Brainwashing Women
3. The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty