Within the scheme of gender, the ideology associated around
the woman transnationally and nationally with the state is very biased. It
places women in a category of femininity with ownership of nothing more than a
nurturer not a provider financially. Women are the main topic of concern
globally. Filipinas are placed in a category systematically cohering to the patriarchal
form of existence. This “world” to which all women live in some way shape of
form is created, bounded, and foundationally situated through social creations.
The created discourse about women transnationally is a gendered aspect that
does not apply to all women, but it defined under certain law and demand to be
required by all women. Filipina women were forced to leave their homes,
children, and husband to help provide a better educational life for their
children and financial well-being for their entire family. This book gives way
for explanation and change of the created gender norms associated among women.
In this lifestyle to which these women choose, it is in response taken
negatively among their society of law, some of the children, and as a free ride
to gamble and drink among their stay at home husbands. This way of life among these
migrant women are said to be disruptive among the family structure, but “normal”
for the husbands to precede the same journey.
Masculine
features are described among these women, but not accepted. It is very comical how
the right of women can be viewed among certain mannerism, but can never be so
much concrete in comparison to the masculine abilities held by a man. Men have
dominated society in every way of life. In the “building of the house” as
quoted by Parrenas, the sending of remittances (to which the wife also does),
and the role with his children are all traits to which are confined to the male
figure solely. Being female clearly, does not mean SHE cannot possess masculine
traits. Masculinity and femininity are all qualities of dress created by those
social norms to which society created. These qualities are not bound to be
conditioned upon anyone. The circumstances to which surround a certain individual
male or female in my opinion is what places these gendered positions among
each. For example, Filipinas emigrate to the U.S. to provide for their family
while at the same time “abandoning” their skills as the nurturer, while on the other
hand, some men do absolutely no nurturing or domestic work. This accumulation
of knowledge based on the world and their notions of women and men need to
re-analyzed and told where to stick their opinions and assumptions, because
everyone has one. The complex world of locality and space is positioned seemingly
only under a lens of homogenous capacities. Men and women are equal. Some
people would feel strange like some of the children of migrant women leaving
them as young children, but if the male can take a step down from his oh so
very high horse of superiority, maybe those strange feelings of children can
become lessened. Lessening the idea of women in a male role is the strategy of the
law, while simultaneously building the central role of men as rulers of all. Will
this image of male control and women as submissive creatures ever cease to
exist? This is why we have feminists to test the knowledge of those ever so
created ideologies of gender, and who they apply and why. Women are essential
to all aspects of life, working applies to all mothers who need to provide,
being masculine applies to all women who didn’t have a father, or knows no
other trait, and finally, women can be masculine, feminine, or neutral in
whatever aspects of life they choose. Pro-Choice is my advocacy in this dilemma.
Choice is what men want to dissolve among the female race. Women are the reason
family can exist transnationally and nationally. They are an oppressed group differently
whose fight is to no longer have an oppressor, but be equal with traits and
qualities allotted to them equally. GOD made Eve from the rib of Adam, not MAN.
No comments:
Post a Comment