Trends in Gender: Female Perspective

Trends in Gender: Female Perspective

Natalie Angier presents the realities of gender inequality in her article, “Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin.” The author argues that women are monogamous, indicating their choice of marriage partners is limited. The notion suggests that women are still disadvantaged in making decisions relating to marriage as they can only have one partner. Furthermore, the evolutionary psychological perspective implies that women are submissive as an inborn trait (Bloom and Smith 297). The evolutionary concept is misleading as it promotes the image of women as weak in essential characteristics. The message is negative, traditional, and holds a pessimistic view as it diminishes women as inferior beings.

Natalie further argues that the evolutionary psychological theory presents a wrong impression of women, which is true. The proposition passes on a traditional message which paints women, both old and young, as owing submission to men demands, even to the promiscuous ones (Bloom and Smith 297). Also, the Natalia argues from a correct and modern perspective by stating that women deserve a better image than ideas which the traditional points of view promoted. In addition, the article presents some of the conventional viewpoints, such as the women being most sexually reticent. In the same vein, women yearn for high-status men and perceive them enticing, and women alone strive for stable relationships. The perspectives are wrong and traditional since not all women have the same desires as the theory portrays.  Some women fall under the alpha female trait, who does not recognize submission and instead are intimidating.

Furthermore, the evolution proposition presents women as those who always depend on provisions from men to justify their desire for high-status males. The dependence is a signal of assurance that their children will be well tendered and a female desire that men will, in a way, have the upper hand in relationships (Bloom and Smith 298). The hypothesis argues that women’s inborn desires in a man are consistent in the modem day, even among those who have achieved high professional development and economic status. Despite accepting female empowerment in modern times, the theory is still wrong in emphasizing that women are still dependent on men despite attaining self-independence.

Regardless, the theory is wrong as it portrays women in the context of depending on men in relationships and fails to acknowledge diversity. Today, desires for women to be in an intimate relationship could go beyond having a male partner to a female one among lesbians. (Bloom and Smith 298). Therefore, the evolution theory is erroneous and traditional as it presents an obsolete point of view (Bloom and Smith 298). Also, some of the women, across most societies, prefer single parenting. Therefore, dependence on a man’s provision in a relationship is inapplicable. More recent scientific studies reveal that “For their part, lesbians posited to have somewhat masculinized brains and skills …” (Bloom and Smith 298). As a result, it is evident that the traditional reality of females has evolved, and so are their psychological structures.

Moreover, the article argues that women own a limited amount of the world’s wealth while they make up half of the world’s population. The proposition is true, but it holds women as disadvantaged since they have almost similar opportunities as the men but do not have an equal share of affluence (Bloom and Smith 299). However, the immense strides that women have taken to achieve wealth status cannot be overlooked. As an outcome, it would be wrong to assume that the women will amount to nothing on a universal wealth scale as the belief is traditional.

All in all, it is wrong to assume that women should earn lesser wages compared to men due to gender differences. For instance, it is traditional that women who have equal academic qualifications as their male counterparts earn less income in the U.S at some point in time. Natalie states that “male holders of a bachelor’s degree could receive an additional $28, 000 to their salary while women, with similar qualification, received $9, 000 as an addition” (Bloom and Smith 299). The reality is traditional since women receive less salary than men due to their gender composition even after performing equal tasks.

Natalie justifies instances where women are looking for men with better socio-economic status than them. The author argues that “Smart, professional women are smart enough to know can be tender of ego…”  (Bloom and Smith 299). Just like Natalie, one ends up wondering if husbands getting hurt from their wives earning more runs through male genes and lack among women. Furthermore, one is left wondering if the effects of wives making more than their husbands is too much to bear among men that women have to avoid the practice the best they can (Bloom and Smith 299). Other scholars have addressed the topic and implied that, indeed, when a woman earns more than her husband, then she threatens his place in the male hierarchy.

The author’s view on the women’s choice of husbands, based on economic status to some degree is accurate in conservative societies. However, women are wrong in making decisions to satisfy the male ego. From the act, the woman appears much committed to foregoing their desire for gender equality or material superiority in marriage and instead settle for pleasing the male ‘s self-importance.  By woman taking such an approach, even when they are well learned, they are wrong and promote the traditional perspective of women’s submissiveness. In equal measure, the aspect that women who get married to men whose socio-economic status is lower than theirs, “…threatens his position in the male hierarchy” is retrogressive and incorrect (Bloom and Smith 299). In modernized societies, men appreciate having wives with equal or higher earning rates than them. Just as the author suggests, it is crucial to convince women who hold the belief that is inaccurate since men take little or no consideration on the women’s socio-economic status.

Further studies by Porter argue that in the United States, the working conditions allow women to look after their children and, at the same time, work. Societal changes have weakened the traditional norms that barred women from having children outside marriage. Moreover, the author argues that in modern-day, there are changes in roles designated to genders (Bloom and Smith 267). For instance, women do fewer house chores and have lighter duties when rearing children than before, in modernized societies. The author’s perspective of women today in the different settings remains modern and right since a couple gets involved in house chores and child-rearing, and the duties are no longer woman-alone.

Therefore, embracing of equal gender roles has illustrated significance in societies where they apply, such as in the U.S. Women can bear more children while they are still developing their careers. However, similar advancements are impossible in societies where a woman always have to choose between their jobs and childbearing. In undeveloped communities, women cannot make impressive progress in bridging the gaps between them and the males in career advancement. It is encouraging to see societies where women, despite their biological responsibilities, still determined to achieve equality, or even outdo the males.

The social changes to allow women to have children outside marriage is also modern and right since it presents the woman as having the freedom to choose what is right for them. Traditional perspectives on women held her as a societal slave who had to conform to all the laid down norms. Moreover, females could not make decisions based on what they felt best for them. In case they chose to break the rules, they were subjects of criticism and, in some cases, the punishment would follow. Thus, recent societal changes have come as a relief to females who currently stand equal opportunities and grounds as the males.

Porter further argues that when females take up fewer household tasks, expenses tied to women childbearing and raising are minimized. Together with the practice of raising children as women work, the factors have resulted in more stable marriage bonds as the two partners in a marriage have achieved a form of stability. The author further believes that single parenthood stems from a lack of stability in marriages and affects fertility in societies as women prefer having children on their own as they take up careers (Bloom and Smith 268). Porter’s thoughts are modern, given that women now have a say in their personal lives. Contrary to the past, they can no longer put cultural institutions before their peace of mind.  The picture points out that there is a notable difference between the traditional woman and females in the present day.

Regardless of attempts to attain gender equality, there are conservative societies, yet to wake up to the reality of changing times.  Porter gives Denmark and Sweden as examples where the division of labor is unheard of as women alone have to carry out house chores.  The women maintain a matriarchal figure by refraining from providing for their households. Instead, they have to take care of their families, husbands, and children, while they maintain a conducive home environment.  Gender disparity goes to the point of leaving single women with a hard decision to make between their careers or child-rearing (Bloom and Smith 268). The perspectives are traditional and wrong as they still consider the woman as a slave of cultural practices. Also, there is no gender equality since the culture denies females an opportunity to seek rewarding financial opportunities, placing them at inferior positions to the males.

Bloom and Smith state that “… archetypal transaction has been rendered obsolete does not mean modern marriage has nothing to offer” (268). Modern marriage can still provide considerable savings for both primary and secondary expenses within a household. There is a notable difference when one compares the expenditure for married couples and single individuals. It is undeniable that singles, living alone, end up spending more than half the expenses that married individuals spend in attaining similar living standards (Bloom and Smith 268). The perspective is modern and correct since it presents married women as those who are willing to cost-share and make more reasonable decisions to achieve a given standard of living.

Moreover, Bloom and Smith argue that “Marriage is also a form of insurance” as both partners provide diversity in income sources (268). As a result, marriages are more financially secure compared to single individuals, therefore more prepared to take financial risks than the singles. Studies in Italian society illustrated that a single woman does not take chances in investment (Bloom and Smith 268). Instead, they tend to invest in assets that are less risky compared to married women who are high risk-takers in investment. In equal measure, women in marriages have a lower chance of being in debt compared to the unmarried.

The notion is correct and modern since marriages have resulted in more financial stability for women. The perspective illustrates progress from the past where women could not get involved in any financial decision in a marriage set up since men were the monetary providers in households. On the other hand, it was the wife’s duty to carry out household duties, and she lacked financial stability as she had to depend on the husband for all her financial needs. Therefore, women in the past, had their hands tied as societal norms restricted them from making financial contributions to their families.  Today, wives are stable in marriages since similar to their husbands; they provide for their families and have the confidence of taking financial risks and sound spending.

Furthermore, through Porter’s eyes, marriage is a uniform institution where partners, regardless of their genders, are equal. In the U.S today, the author illustrates, the mother work as hard as the fathers; therefore, they have responsibilities beyond taking care of their children. Among females in relationships or marriages, 57% of them earn income, and out of the rate, a quarter of the wives earn more than what the husbands make as salary (Bloom, and Smith 268). Beyond income, females now have a lot to share with men in marriages such as education level, and age. Therefore, American society’s understanding of marriage is modern and a trendsetter for others since it promotes women empowerment.

Work Cited

Bloom, Lynn, and Louise Smith. The Arlington Reader Themes for Writers. 4th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013.