Just because we can does not mean we should. Just because things previously could be deemed “bad” does not imply we cannot seek for too much change. Just because progress is good does not imply we cannot push for too much change at too fast a pace.
Companies growing at a very rapid rate which end up crashing? Too much growth at too rapid a pace.
In a world within which men love their wives, a world within which men choose leaders whose policies favor wives, women safely could allow husbands vote in their behalf. Chauvinistic? Absolutely not. Many shareholders of companies — male or female — allow others vote their shares by proxy for the simple reason they trust their proxies. The same argument could be made for daughters allowing fathers vote in their behalf.
In a world within which men truly love their wives and daughters, love women as their own bodies, women need not desire to vote.
Whenever women desperately seek separate identity from husbands, it is largely because trust is broken down in society. In past, some men have mistreated wives, leaving them high and dry in contexts within which such women reposed trust in husbands via choice of economic dependence. Economic dependence of course is essentially a tying together of identity of husband and wife. While rarer, women also have in past mistreated husbands who invested heavily in them for attainment of financial independence; mistreatment evident in abandonment of said men and associated marriages on arrival at financial independence.
When men and women become stringent about maintenance of separate identities, it is because trust is broken down in society.
But can separation of identities, to whatever extremes heal and restore trust between men and women, between fathers and daughters, between mothers and sons? The answer of course is a resounding “No”. The more men and women seek to stretch out separation of identities, the more we find ourselves in a fragmented, gratuitous, transactional society in which nobody cares for anyone else. But if nobody cares for anyone else, marriage always is on shaky foundations. Marriage more likely as not ends up in divorce or consists of couples living under the same roof yet totally disconnected one from another.
I am a feminist in the sense I believe women have exactly the same dignity as men. I believe women are equal to men in intrinsic worth. I am pragmatic, however, to acknowledge that the assertion “men are different from women” is not discrimination, not chauvinism, merely practical reality.
Suppose a woman chooses to be a full time mother. Suppose this woman helps her children develop healthy self esteem, confidence, and willingness to engage with society with a wholesome attitude. Is this woman worth less than a male or female banker? Is this woman worth less than a male or female nurse? Worth less than a male or female teacher? If such a woman is protected in a divorce such that her husband must share family assets with her in event of a divorce, more women perhaps would be willing to choose to be stay at home moms until their children head off to High School or College. Education still would be necessary — only an educated mother can raise truly educated children. Literacy in of itself is not equivalent of a well rounded education. The choice to be a stay at home mom does nothing then to negate demand for formal education from girls or young women. Educated women can at their own choice and in their own way, and to their own intensity choose to participate in the work force at timing of their own choosing.
If in the drive for their voice to be heard women push for full separation from men, trust will not be healed, society will remain divisive, marriages will continue to fail, children will continue to be brought up in dysfunctional situations, and a fragmented society produces leaders who perhaps sub-consciously induce further deterioration in relations between men and women, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons.
The real question is:
How do we restore trust between men and women, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons?
If we are able to restore trust, feminism will cease to be push for separation. Feminism will become push for dignity and recognition of worth of motherhood, push for worth of female intuition as counterpart to, as opposed to substitute for male rationality. This after all is essence of diversity in the workplace. That two investment managers with degrees say, one male the other female can complement their knowledge or expertise with their differences — rational arguments vis-a-vis rational intuition — and arrive at better outcomes. Is this not essence of beneficence of diversity for performance of corporations who value and invest in diversity?
Is it separation from men for which women seek, or is it dignity and full recognition of worth of their difference from men?