In November, Maureen Dowd, a renowned New York Times op-ed writer and notorious feminist, published a book on the degree to which men are necessary in today's society. Dowd argues that males' checklist of purposes is decreasing rapidly in our society. I was mulling over Dowd's thoughts as I read the cover story of a recent Times magazine, a piece on the growing number of women who are turning to sperm banks and artificial insemination in order to have children in the absence of an "acceptable" male partner or husband.
With reproductive science progressing as rapidly as it has in recent decades, it may soon be possible to maintain the human race with only a population of women and donated vials of sperm. Does that mean that men have become not only unnecessary, but that their roles in society are now considered out of date, even disposable?
It was on the deck of my grandparents' vacation house in Maine this past summer that I dared to take a position on these controversial topics. My mother was making a comment on an old hobby of mine, collecting pictures out of wedding magazines in a scrapbook of sorts, in the context of mulling over the innate desire of women to have children. She asked, "What if you don't find the right man, or choose never to marry?"
My reply came quickly and was backed with full confidence, "It doesn't matter if I don't get married, I'll have kids on my own." "You mean, you'll adopt?" she asked. "No, I want my own kids; I'll just go to a sperm bank," I answered. She seemed taken aback for a moment, then, remembering the personality of the daughter she had raised, seemed to quickly make peace with the idea. You see, it's not that I don't think men are necessary, it's just that I perceive men's roles as more about providing a balance in society than in terms of biological necessity.
My mother, and the mothers of many of those reading this column, came of age in an era of liberation, free love and revolution.
My mother always used her career, her education and her supposedly enlightened ideas on gender roles as important elements of her identity as a female and a feminist.
But as I've grown more educated and more curious, I've come to realize that her definitions of feminism are quite different than mine.
This becomes especially apparent to me when my mother speaks of men. To her, men are a gender to be dealt with and controlled, to be monitored and kept in their place, even to be conquered. And no matter how hard I've tried, in efforts to align my philosophy with that of an ex-hippie and true liberal, I just can't agree.
Now don't get me wrong. Sexism is alive, and it's a problem. The statistics of the difference between men's and women's pay, as well as the hiring rates of women versus men in executive positions, are all we need to bring up to prove the presence of sexism in this day and age.
However, I still can't see eye to eye with my mother and many of her contemporaries on our feminist philosophies.
I have resisted calling myself, and being referred to as, a feminist for several years now. To me, a feminist is any man or woman who believes in the importance of achieving equal rights, pay, opportunity, acceptance rates, etc. as men.
However, feminism has earned an ugly name. Too often, the word feminist triggers images of militant, man-hating women. I have no interest in being associated with this group.
Call me old-fashioned, but I want men around. They are my friends, my teachers and my leaders. They are my father, my brother and maybe someday will be my children.
Yes, we may have reached a time in which women who want to have children can do so without the pressure to marry. But men are more than biological contributors to the propagation of the human race.
In terms of societal roles, men are not only necessary, but deserve be treasured equally as much as women strive to be.
I do believe there are both biological and emotional differences between most men and women. Men and women create a yin and yang of the human race, a sort of balance.
And yes, in many societies, women have traditionally been, and still are, denied equal treatment in the eyes of the law, the workplace, and the home. But still, it is beyond me that Dowd and so many of today's prominent feminists can suggest that the world could do without men.
Without men, where would our identity as women come from? How would we be able to contemplate, and philosophize about, concepts of motherhood, femininity, equality, and justice, components of any empowered woman's self-identity, if we had no counterparts to plot our setbacks, oppression, and advances against?
I have often felt guilty for going astray from my mother's ideas of feminism. She raised me to believe that women were a hair above men in intellect, emotional capacity, resourcefulness, and ability as parents and partners.
But I just can't see eye to eye with her. We may be advanced enough in our scientific discoveries to be free from the ties and complications of heterosexual intercourse in order to procreate, but that does not excuse the proposition that men may be disposable.
In living in a world of men and women, I have found sources of empowerment and confidences as well as encountered insults and challenges that have taught me immeasurable lessons about what it means to be a woman.
Whether I end up having a go at the world on my own or proudly walking alongside a man as a partner or husband, I will continue to believe that men are necessary, and believe it or not, Ms. Dowd, I even want to keep them around.
