A Renaissance is a great revival, often of art, literature, and learning. It was the European Renaissance that marked the transition from the dark days of the medieval age into the modern world. Figures such as William Shakespeare, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo have led us into a modern world in which the idea of social submergence has become a reoccurring theme around the world, especially in the United States.
American Renaissance began with the American Revolution in which the lowly colonists re-found their sense of common identity and pride which they created in Virginia before the early settlers dispersed; a pride that would tie them to their newly acquired land. Then, when slavery, one of the most venomous institutions of American history, divided this nation, a victory by the Union Army would bring to our nation a revival of a concept alluded to by their name—unity. Continuing the radical trend, there was a movement by people of color for the Civil Rights of all people; a rebirth of the type of revolution in which the country was founded.
Yet, before the ballet or the bullet and the seeing of the mountaintop, women stood up. They told a nation they could do the same jobs, handle the same amount of responsibility, and lead the household just as men did. However, just as the African-Americans’ struggle was not wiped away with the stroke of a pen, women’s suffrage was an issue left somewhat unresolved. And, due to a conversation I recently had with a friend, I’ve decided to address this issue, and hopefully you’ll address it with me.
My friend suggested to me, “[since] you [are] all about the revolution and social change we can do this one “sista” at a time”. The Renaissance he was advocating for is the rebirth of women only taking on domestic roles. After all, do we really need women in corporate America, the academy, science, medicine, and sports? Someone who will remain nameless says, “No, women sports in general suck. They should spend that time in the kitchen learning how to cook. All [of] these non-cooking females out here is a shame”. Outlining a strategy for this Renaissance, he laments, “They should make home-economics a required class for graduation at Spelman. Every woman should have a seven dish rotation with two special-occasion dishes”. He believes, “teaching women how to cook will lead to more successful marriage rates”.
What is suggested is definitely a Renaissance—a rebirth of the traditional female role. Yet, is this a social change, or the suppression of one? Being radical enough to speak out on the development of such a movement, is this a revolution that this individual is interested in starting? Considering the characteristics of our generation—love affairs with internet social sites, constant media messaging, virtual interaction, and instant gratification, is the future of male-female relationships and unified domestic life in need of/heading towards a Renaissance? I know one person who agrees. What do you think? Be a part of the SOLUTION.
By OxyJon
Monday, November 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Did you know that the Divorce rate for first marrages is 50%. I think the house hold has been allowed to fail. The family stucture no longer holds the same clout, due to lack of gender roles. Today women are the caretakers, providers, mom's and dad's of most households. I can't say whether this is a renaissance or a retribution. but I think God put men and women in this world to balance each other out. I wouldn't go as far to say women need to take cooking classes to solidify womanhood (althoug it couldnt hurt) but they do need to have a healthy understanding of their failing male counterpart and be prepared to take necessary steps in assisting him in becoming a man. Even if that means you have to submit yourself a little just to help him feel a sense of accomplishment, or have a dinner cooked to instill that woman's comfort that only comes from a full meal. Over all a woman's role is to uplift her man while a man's role is to do the same for his woman.
ReplyDelete*Addressing the comment above me*
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? We are in a day and age in which the woman should not have to acquiesce to some fictional role of happy-go-lucky domestic slave. As mentioned in the article, the women asserted their rights to take on roles outside of cooking and other forms of domestic labor. During World War II, there was a shortage of industrial labor throughout the United States, and who stepped into the factories, offices, schools, and hospitals prepared to work while the men were sent off to fight? WOMEN! This Renaissance being proposed is a GIANT step back, in my opinion. Newsflash! WOMEN MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, and men need women just as much as women need men. So, men need to handle the same type of responsibilities! If women should be required to have a "five dish rotation", then men should have the same mandate. A rebirth of traditional domestic roles is not what is going to make relationships stronger. We need the equality of and flexibility from both men and women to make this thing work.
I am in accordance with Anonymous (#1).
ReplyDeleteYou know... something about the idea of gender equality makes my ear itch every instance I hear that. I cant help but remind myself of the many testaments as to how God (if you believe in Him) created men and women distinctly (ie. women do not pee standing upright). Now, women's rights concerning voting and speech? Yes! I support, because it is a response to oppression birthed from human pride (as is slavery, and racism), unlike this issue that deals more with divine authority and the order of creation. Fallen man has an extensive resume of practicing senseless exclusion based solely on irrelevant guidelines (ie. color and nationality). However I do not feel that this issue appears on that resume.
My very forthright friend up there is right! "They SHOULD make home-economics a required class for graduation at Spelman. Every woman should have a seven dish rotation with two special-occasion dishes." Well.... he's right in essence, because if the woman is not at Spelman, then back to square one.
Women are household savy because they're nurturing and men are hunters (or in this day workers) because they're more task-oriented and track minded. That is how we are created, I believe that. It is no wonder why the "traditional" role are what they are. Am I supporting legalism in that we should resort to forcing the roles to be played out? No! Just saying.... don't ignore the truth staring you in the face.