Down with Gender?

Shulie Firestone was undoubtedly a dedicated and important part in the feminist movement. Since she started the first major radical feminist group and wrote "The Dialect of Sex: The case for feminism", she gained credibility amongst her fellow females. While, naturally, the men in power whom she sought help from were unsympathetic to her cause and the chairman even disregarded her as a silly girl and I laughed off her "female concerns". I understand Firestone's frustration, being a feminist myself, however I don't believe eradicating gender and dismissing genitalia should be the solution to the inequality women face.

 Women have been struggling with power since the beginning of human existence. In the past we have never had the same opportunities that males have had because in history the male figures hold the leadership roles. Firestone brings attention to the fact that women only really get power one of two ways: 1. Being young and beautiful 2. Having a baby. I agree with Firestone's thought here and the biggest issue I have with this statement is that men give women this power in both situations; women feel beautiful by the attention men give them and men also have a part in impregnating the woman. While, I don't approve of this transfer of temporary power, I also don't think we should forget about the root of this dilemma.

 The goal of feminism is not to make women and men exactly the same. The problem is not with genitalia; to be honest many people are proud and love it. What feminists really struggle with is they way they are treated compared to men. Not to say that men don't have their own stereotypes to live by, but women are hindered by their stereotypes and lose freedoms because of it. Women should be able to choose to work,  be a stay at home mom, or live as an individual without a reason or someone thinking twice about it. Feminism is about choice, not about defacing the stereotypes associated with being a woman.

Firestone tries to eliminate these stereotypes by putting herself on a pedestal and deeming herself too good to sweep floors because she is an intellectual. Just because women have a stereotype to clean doesn't mean sweeping floors would make her any less of a feminist. It is easy to take feminism beyond equality and to want to become the 51% represented. Which, is what Firestone is going after here with wanting to trade places with the men by having her voice heard instead of theirs. The other women in the New York Radical Women group noticed her "male" behavior by demanding leadership and thinking she was above what was known to be women work. This attitude did not do her any favors among her peers and her counter response was always reverting back to proving she was one of them, "look at these!".

I wouldn't go about feminism the same way as Firestone because I think her outlook gives people the idea that all feminists are crazy radicals with extreme ideas; however, how far along would feminism be without her? Firestone brings up a good point in her argument about not identifying with our genitalia and treating each other just as humans. At first I didn't understand where she was going with this because I personally don't see a problem with taking pride in your genitalia, but then I considered all the people who don't identify with any gender. I think it shouldn't be about your sex necessarily, but what you chose to identify with and who you are as a person.

I should also address Firestone's "male" attitude. I personally have never faced the same kind of harsh sexist remarks that she had experienced nor have I ever been a feminist in the 1960's. I can't say how I would react because maybe I would want to be the 51% represented too after being oppressed. I would want change and I would probably find the means to make it happen. Sometimes in order for this kind of change to begin you need a ripple effect created by a crazy radical, like Firestone, to rock the boat.