Machismo is back in style. It never really left us, of course. But it has made a furious comeback like a dauntless cowboy out of an old western.
We need only look at the headlines to see what sort of women are getting what kind of attention in this new era. We all know Nancy Reagan's decorating preferences for the White House. Phyllis Schlafly is telling us that if we women are sexually harassed at work, perhaps we should look at how we're dressing and walking. And the only woman in a prominent position in the administration, U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, is rivaling Alexander Haig, Jr. for public callousness toward the Third World poor and their struggles.
But this is only the visible tip of a dangerous iceberg. Beneath the surface is a calculated effort by the Reagan administration to undermine the progress of the recent past toward equality for women. During the election, a "pro-family" stance formed the backbone of Reagan's presidential platform. Issues which greatly affect the future of societal and family roles for women and men were primary in the whirlwind of campaign rhetoric.
The term "pro-family" has been revealed as meaning status quo at the expense of women. It has been used to justify increasing militarism in the name of protecting all that has been the basis of traditional American family life, especially Mom confined to the kitchen with her apple pie.
The April issue of the National NOW Times reported that "for the first time ever recorded, men and women voted quite differently in the presidential race." An Associated Press/NBC News poll showed that men backed Reagan with a 56 to 36 per cent edge, while women split their vote 47 to 45 per cent.
Read the Full Article
