Don't Assume Masculine Contributions Are More Valuable

In a post titled “How
Movies Teach Our Kids about Gender” at Everyday
Theology, Marc Cortez summarizes a recent TED Talk given by Colin Stokes:

I’d never heard of
the Bechdel
Test, but it’s a way of gauging how a movie
portrays its female characters. And it’s a pretty simple test.

Are
there at least two women who actually have lines?
Do
these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
Is
there conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?...

[Q]uite a few movies
fail to achieve even this low standard. Either the movie has almost no
significant female characters, or it fails to show them interacting with other
women on issues unrelated to dating and/or marriage.

Although I always
notice when a movie fails to have a significant female character, I’d never
considered the importance of showing female characters talking meaningfully
about important issues. The male characters do it all the time, and thus
provide strong reinforcement that men can have those kinds of conversations.
Even if it’s becoming more common for female characters to engage in the same
conversations, we rarely see them having those conversations with each other,
reinforcing the notion that women don’t talk about those things. I certainly
don’t want my girls growing up thinking that they have to sit at the guys table
if they want to talk about politics, theology, and other important issues (like
football).

The problem I have
with this analysis is that he’s made an assumption that’s never challenged, and
it’s this: the macro issues are what’s really important.

Imagine if someone had
created the opposite test in order to bring attention to how rarely Hollywood
shows a group of men talking about issues relating to dating and/or marriage, chastising
Hollywood for reinforcing the notion that men don't talk about these things. Do you ever
hear concern expressed about that? No, because there’s an unspoken assumption
that of course everyone should be like men.

I appreciate that
this man thinks he’s helping women, but he’s actually devaluing them because
here’s what he’s saying: “Men are better than women because we focus on macro
issues (politics, nation, etc.—notice how he refers to these as the “important issues”) and they
focus on micro issues (relationships, family, etc.). Therefore, to help women,
we must encourage them to become more like men.”



If our culture valued micro issues, then women
would feel more free to invest themselves in them without feeling guilty
they’re not acting like men, and our society would be much better off. Just
think how different things would be if our culture valued motherhood as highly
as involvement in macro issues. Think of the sacrifices families would make to
have and care for more children. Think of how issues like abortion and low
marriage and birth rates (with all their accompanying societal problems) might
be improved. There’s a macro cost to devaluing micro strengths.



I don’t fit in well in women’s groups because I do
tend to focus more on macro issues. I don’t know how to do crafts, or create
beauty, or entertain small children, or most anything that women usually excel
at, but heaven forbid I should look down on those women and think they should
be more like me! On the contrary, I know I’m womandicapped—lacking something
truly good. I honor the unique contribution of women, and we should be
encouraged to excel in all these micro things.



And I hate to tell him, but we usually do have to “sit at the guys’ table” if
we want to talk about macro issues. If more than two women are together, we
don’t tend to gravitate towards macro topics. That’s just reality. Why not
celebrate what women have to offer rather than turn every table into a “guys’ table”?