One of the truths held by traditional conservatives is that men and women are different, very different. They believe these differences are more than socially constructed; they believe they are rooted in nature. As a result, traditionalists often have a great difficulty separating mere human traditions from nature. This difficulty frequently makes them unable to positively embrace authentic change especially concerning the role and place of women in society. I believe this is a mistake and one which I recently fell victim to.
Some time back I wrote a column exalting the choice of several of my female friends to forsake careers and become stay at home mothers. I called the choice heroic. There was some very valid criticism of my view concerning the fact that it seemed to present an either/or approach to the role of women in society and the family -- either women should work or raise a family. In truth the view I espoused then should have been balanced by one often neglected by traditionalists.
Contemporary traditionalists have often used the fact that men and women are different as a means of advocating a situation in which, if possible, women should stay at home with their children. This argument attempts to prove that nature dictates a particular social arrangement of men working in the world and women staying at home. However, it is important to remember that this arrangement is itself a modern cultural accretion. One can argue that the "traditional-family" model is in actuality not that traditional, being the relatively recent result of the Industrial Revolution. In making arguments of how the world should be arranged based on an increasingly obsolete model dooms the traditionalist view to utter irrelevance.
But should an understanding that men and women are different and that this difference is rooted in nature necessarily lead to such an antiquated view? Could there be something within the traditionalist heritage that allows for a new dynamic feminism? The answer is a resounding yes. If it is true that women are different from men, that they are other than men, then it seems to follow that we should want, nay that we need their contributions in public life and work. It is the very fact that women are different that necessitates their full integration into the societal life. If women, as traditionalists argue, are needed in families because of their unique gifts and talents then shouldn't these gifts and talents be fully implemented in all facets of societal life?
Many traditionalists blindly adhere to these obsolete views. They can see the value of integrating women into society but they seem to be unwilling to think through the full implications of holding such understandings. The simple fact is that a woman who has a family but also works is often faced with an almost unbearable choice: Should she choose to stay home, she might be neglecting a serious calling to work? Should she choose to work she might be neglecting her serious calling to have children? But does this dichotomy necessarily need to exist? Must one either be in the home or work?
I do not think so. Breaking down this dichotomy between family and career, begins by thinking of creative, new ways of organizing our societal life. We need to craft policies at the company, local, state, and possibly national levels to allow for flexible time and special arrangements so that women do not have to make the arduous choice between families and work. Men too need to be included into these policies. And a fundamental shift in attitude needs to occur as well. Men need to see that they also must share in the difficult decision to take time off work and stay at home.
Some of my more 'efficiently' minded friends will criticize me. They will argue that businesses cannot run effectively with burdensome family policies. But I raise this question: do we live to work, or work to live? The latter can be the only appropriate and reasonable answer. And since it is, we can and should dictate the rules of how we are to work. We must not let work dictate the rules of how we are to live.
The sort of thinking I have attempted to propose here might offer a middle way between a vapid traditionalism, which is a product of an outdated world, and radical streams of thought which seek to destroy distinctions between men and women and immolate the family and the values inculcated there. A humanism, which realizes the unique gifts of the different sexes must seek ways to fully integrate those gifts into all levels of society in new and dynamic ways. Failing to fully integrate these gifts would be a great loss for all men and women.
