CNN Blogs on sex: "Should women be more like men?

Sex: Should women be more like men? – The Chart – CNN.com Blogs

First, a disclaimer: I have always found "Sex and the City" – both the novel and the TV show – to be vapid, idiotic, unrealistic fluff that is insulting to women. Now on to a response to the question posed in the article.

Now, not all men are assholes and whores. Neither are women. So why women fixate on the less flattering qualities of men to emulate in their quest for balanced gender roles is baffling. I tend to think it's because they're not really searching for equality; rather, they're seeking to rebel from the more sensationally prominent of their existing gender role constraints.

Men are not respected by women when they are players/whores. Why would women think they'd command respect as sluts who objectify themselves, valuing their bodies as nothing more than currency in the same way some men do? Is it an "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality?

Then there are the biological variables as described in the article, and of course the fact that "Sex and the City," the TV show, was helmed and directed by men.
That said, the themes and scenarios and characters in the show did spur greater awareness and serious discourse alongside all the vapid frivolity.

People in general need to stop trying to be like someone else and start being like themselves. We can admire qualities in others, and decide to adopt and shape it as our own, but to attempt taking identities wholesale requires a level of misdirected insecurity and regard for the superficial over the nuances of human and individual identity.

On marrying young

Mark Regnerus -- "Freedom to Marry Young" -- The Washington Post

As interesting as it is insulting (not Regnerus being the insulter, but the assumption that people are choosing to push people away as opposed to just not having met anyone yet). That said, I agree with the basic four-word thesis and enjoyed the sociological analysis (I do regret not double-majoring in Sociology instead of just minoring in it), although I'd add that in granting one freedom, we must not revoke or condemn others.

Although, while the data generally supports the thesis of younger does not equal worse for long-lasting marriages, the data mentioned takes the analysis beyond that original question and into questioning of changing norms re. gender values and worth.

For example, the idea that for women, age is a debit, not a credit. Well sure, if a woman's worth is measured like the value of your bank account and value as a spouse hinges solely on how long your biological clock keeps ticking. Granted, that's a big factor for many people, but is that the only thing that has been studied re. women's worth in a marriage? I think the argument/analysis still could've been made without the tying of worth to reproductive ability.

Feminism aside, though, as one of my colleagues, Kate Schwab, notes, "it doesn't change the fact that men are hardwired to desire young, sexy, and yup, fertile beauties. Sucks, but it's the truth."

To which I'd respond with the following irreverent and playful rant:

Men have fought their supposed biological predisposition to sow their wild oats and with as many fertile and shapely women trotting out pheromones and eyeliner for a long time in order to settle down into generally monogamous relationships which are the foundation of marriages and all the lovely economic and human affection advantages brought about thereof. Given enough incentive, whether in the form of financial stability, numerous shags, societal pressure, or, hey, affection/love!, men can fight their supposed hardwiring as they choose. Otherwise, more dimwitted women would be knocked up than smart ones. Oh wait... !

On another note, men will "eventually" mature enough to catch up to their long-lasting sperm count, and their age is a credit?! Um, so women are as unsuperficial as they are super-fast to mature?

But moving on, according to Schwab, the biggest trend missing here regarding gender issues is the cougar phenomenon.

Are these women of middle age and decent wealth so rare as to make them statistical outliers? Or is it that young men tend to enjoy, um, playng with them for awhile but show little inclination toward marital commitment in that department? (In which case, a woman's age would appear to outweigh even the benefits of wealth, social advancement and intellectual knowledge.)

Then there is the human factor. Affection, love, religion, social pressures that lean in either direction. And as Sheila C., 24, of A Gift Universe, notes, reverse age-hesitance.

Many people actually do delay marriage, even when they've found a person they believe to be "the one," simply because they think they're too young. Men write off the idea -- "I'm only 28; I'm only 30" -- while the women go along with it be...cause *everyone* tells them they are too young to get married. I have seen that.

Certainly getting married young shouldn't be a goal. But if you've found the right person, waiting for some magical age or achievement isn't going to get you anywhere, in my opinion.

Of course, it isn't all just about fertility. Since men reach their sexual peak at 17 and women don't hit theirs till about 30, perhaps it's less about sperm count and more about money. Or, instinct, as Sheila adds.

We are shaped by our instincts, for better or worse. From an evolutionary perspective, 50-year-old husbands with half a dozen 14-year-old wives would be fine, whereas our culture has (thank goodness) progressed past that!

Often more conservative/religious people tend to get married younger, and their divorce rate can be predicted to be lower. On the other hand, marriages decided hastily because of pregnancy obviously aren't likely to last long. One thing I never see discussed when people play the divorce-statistics game is what it takes for a couple to get divorced. I mean to say, a very conservative, religious couple might be miserable and choose not to divorce, but a couple that's played the field a lot before marriage and is looking for "the perfect mate" might get divorced even if their problems are solvable, simply because they're expecting something closer to perfection. A big factor in whether a couple gets divorced is whether they believe in divorce in the first place. Another is whether they have kids.

INT'L: HEALTH: POLITICS: The Implications Of China's One-Child Policy

(previously published here as part of the special On Human Life edition of www.thebulletin.us)

By: Heather Chin, The Bulletin

07/25/2008

The People's Republic of China's one-child policy has impacted two generations, simultaneously strengthening the economy and challenging long-held social and cultural norms.

It was introduced as a short-term measure in 1979 to improve living standards and economic performance by controlling population growth. In this, it has been successful.

Between 1970 and 1979, when families were simply encouraged to think small, the fertility rate dropped from 5.93 to 2.66 children per woman.

After the policy took effect, the rate was reported as 1.94, even lower for women under 35. In 2003 the UN Population Fund explained these results through the near universal - 83 percent - use of contraception.

Compliance has been encouraged by the establishment of state-run Family Planning Centers throughout China. Eighty percent of villages have a family planning clinic and 99.3 percent have at least one professional family planning worker. In addition, economic incentives are given for compliance, and punishments, for having additional children.

The most notorious mechanism for the reduction in births is coerced abortion, but long-term contraceptive methods such as IUDs (intrauterine devices) and sterilization are most common. Another constraint is legally mandated minimum ages for marriage, 23 for women and 25 for men.

A 1993 article by Dr. R.E.J. Ryder in the British Medical Journal describes Natural Family Planning as a possible alternative to such measures. "Indeed a study of 19,843 poor women in [Calcutta] India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero. Natural family planning is cheap, efficient, without side effects and may be particularly acceptable to and efficacious among people in areas of poverty." The women in this study were mostly illiterate, but they had been trained in Natural Family Planning by Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.

In the PRC, the one-child policy is strictly enforced in cities and for government employees, but there are exceptions. A second child is sometimes allowed in rural or less populated areas, if the first child has a disability, or if both parents work in high-risk jobs such as mining.

Still, the ability of parents to choose the sex of their child through selective abortion has resulted in a gender gap. The male to female ratio has increased, from 1.06 in 1979 to 1.17 in 2001, a universal phenomenon exacerbated by underreported female births and unreported adoptions of baby girls.

China's economic empowerment is indisputable, and those girls who survive the cultural preference for sons may net particular advantages in parental attention, education and marriage. However, the overall social costs have been tremendous.

While Americans are familiar with the practice of foreign adoptions, a heartbreaking trade in children has emerged within China itself.

Every year over 70,000 Chinese children are kidnapped, or sold by parents who cannot afford to care for them or cannot afford to pay the fines incurred by their "illegal" births.

Even if the one-child policy is ended, there may still only be moderate growth since most women asked by the Family Planning Commission say they want small families.

China's current population is 1.3 billion. Whatever hopes anyone may have for the policy to end immediately, the Chinese government has stated that the One-Child Policy will continue in effect for at least a decade to accommodate a "surge in births" expected among the 200 million people who will reach child-bearing age.


Heather Chin can be reached at hchin@thebulletin.us

©The Evening Bulletin 2008