Back in 1966 I got into a discussion with my wise old grandmother about why she didn’t work. That was the wrong discussion to have with her. She worked. A lot.
She cleaned the house, including the bathtubs, sinks, and toilets; made the beds; vacuumed the carpets; mopped the kitchen and bathroom floors; dusted and Lemon-Pledge-d the furniture; removed, cleaned, and re-hung the curtains; cleaned the windows, both inside and outside; washed the clothes; hung the clothes out to dry; watered the lawn and the gardens; mowed the lawn; fertilized the lawn and flowers; removed crabgrass and weeds from the lawn and flowerbeds; pruned the trees and bushes; shopped for groceries; took me shopping for clothes and school supplies; replaced burned out light bulbs; washed, dried, and waxed the car; did oil changes for the car; cleaned the garage.
Probably more stuff that I’m forgetting.
Of course, once I arrived on the scene, I got to do a lot of that stuff. There’s a reason why I’m into xeriscape, succulent, and cactus landscaping. I never enjoyed mowing the lawn, pruning the trees, or removing crabgrass and weeds.
I also have discovered that there are people who enjoy doing the stuff that I don’t, so I don’t do oil changes, don’t rotate tires, don’t wash/dry/wax the car. That stuff gets done, just not by me.
My discussion with my wise old grandmother that day got me interested in gender-specific roles in our households and how one gender was seen as the breadwinner and the other gender seemed to be taken for granted.
My wise old grandmother never complained. She had only a first-grade education because, when her dad died, she had to drop out of school and help in the fields and around the house. She brought the crop in from the fields; fed the cattle, pigs, and chickens; gathered the eggs; milked the cows. That was the era she lived in, but she realized that what she did around the house had value to the family even if she was not directly paid for her work.
Things have changed some in the past hundred years, and even though women have joined the work force and can be doctors, managers, politicians, and so much more, there still is a gender pay gap in society. That doesn’t mean that every woman is paid less than every man, but that the average woman is paid less than the average man doing the same job.
I submit that there is an inherent, unrecognized psychological reason for that. Moms’ gender seems to be a subset of the men. To wit:
Man – Woman
Male – Female
When the two genders get married, the man gets to keep his last name while the woman gives up her last name and takes the last name of the man. What’s with that?
I even know two gay couples—one male couple and one female couple—who, when they got married, one gave up the last name and took the last name of the other. Jim & I got married on October 30, 2008. Neither of us considered taking the other’s last name. We were simply two guys who got married. Giving up your last name just because you signed a contract to take care of each other till death do you part makes no sense to me, especially with the prevalence of divorce in today’s world.
When it comes to the collective, there isn’t any pretense.
Humanity, not huwomanity.
Mankind, not huwomankind.
Son and daughter seems to be the only place where the two genders are recognized as being separate, but if the gender is not known, then it becomes person, not perdaughter.
I think that the gender pay gap will always exist as long as society sees women as less then men, and society will see that as long as the words we use indicate that women are, indeed, less then men, and as long as religion teaches that women are less then men.
So maybe women as a collective should come up with a new word to describe themselves. Perhaps feperwo? Sounds too weird, too strange, too different, but maybe that’s exactly what’s needed to make a clean break.
I also anticipate that there will be about half the feperwos who want to be seen as a subset of their man, as a possession of their man, probably due to religion, again, since it teaches that a woman should be submissive to her man, that women should not teach or speak or have authority over men
(1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Note that both books are in the New Testament which supposedly superseded the Old Testament!), etc., nothing will change.
In doing research for this blog post, I found a very disturbing site online titled “10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture.” An introduction to the list states, “Culture has never been a factor as to whether a woman must submit to her husband in the Bible. Modern times of woman’s liberation are irrelevant. God gives us His reasons why women must submit to her husband.”
- Creation order: Man was created first, woman second. “For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve.”
1 Timothy 2:13
- Creation origin: Man and all creation was created by God directly out of dust, whereas woman was created through the man’s rib. “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7
“Woman is the only creature not made from dust. Woman derives her origin from Man.”The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:22
“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man.”
1 Corinthians 11:8
- Creation purpose: Woman created for man: “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” 1 Corinthians 11:9
- Man named woman: Adam named the animals and was to rule over them. “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” Genesis 2:19
Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Genesis 1:28
When Eve was brought to Adam, he named her, showing he was to rule over woman as well. “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’ ” Genesis 2:23
- Delegation principle: God commanded directly to Adam alone. The prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was made directly by God to Adam. Adam, in turn relayed what God said to Eve. Eve had not yet been created when God told Adam about the forbidden tree. Eve never actually heard God say this direct, but had to trust Adam’s word on the matter. “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Genesis 2:16-18
- Woman sinned first: The devil tempted Eve and she, not the man, was first deceived. Because of this, man put Eve under the headship of Adam. “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:14
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [not only does the serpent talk, but it is personified with the pronoun “he”] said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?’ ” Genesis 3:1
- God rebuked Adam first after they ate the forbidden fruit: Although Eve was the logical person for God to rebuke first, God went to Adam, showing that God considered Adam the “head of the family” for both. “Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” Genesis 3:9
- Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: “For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
- Paul pointed Christians to the Mosaic Law that was 1500 [years] earlier and a different culture: 1 Corinthians 14:34
- Peter pointed Christians to Sarah, 2000 years earlier and a very different culture: 1 Peter 3:5-6.
I grew up Catholic and Mormon, but I have no religion in my life now. I have found that religion is not necessary for me to be a productive member of society; a kind and generous individual; a caring individual; a reasonable, logical, and thinking individual.
I don’t know what #9 and #10 mean, and I’m not willing to find out. I have had enough religion in this one post to last me for the rest of my life because I find it silly to worship an imaginary being in the sky who causes or doesn’t stop hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer…… on and on. If there is a God, s/he is going to have to beg me for forgiveness, or I’ll be happy to go straight to hell.