Deconstructing Gender, Civil War, and a New Nation

As I see it, this election was all about gender. From who gets to decide abortions, to who gets to use which bathroom, to older white male versus younger black female - this whole election was really about who we are as a people and most fundamentally, what does it mean to be male and female.

We are in the middle of a civil war, it just looks different.

If race was the heart of the first civil war in our country, then gender is the heart of this one. And we are experiencing the fall out, how the pendulum keeps swinging from left to right until we can find a new center.

Women have been convinced that they can have it all. Some caveat that statement with "but not at the same time" to make it more realistic, while others argue that women could have it all if only men were more willing to carry their share of the home burden.

However, in creating a picture of the liberated woman, we have ignored this question: What does a liberated man look like?

Toxic masculinity is fairly understood, but it is a vague concept that often just means men suck. Yet the task of being a woman who can have it all demands that women embrace traits and behaviors typically associated with toxic masculinity: a drive for work and accomplishment, a pursuit of goals with determined single-minded focus, long hours at the office, wear pant suits, skip the make-up, don't smile so much, don't be so emotional (at work?).

What is healthy masculinity, then? Is it men embracing traits and behaviors typically associated with women? People born male cannot get pregnant, lactate, nor menstruate and therefore not go through menopause. The hormonal difference makes it hard for biological instincts associated with femininity to be developed or exercised by born-males, so how do we expect men to develop those?

Are women ready for men to wear skirt suits? Nail polish? Eye liner? Can men finally "be soft" too?

Women themselves are often the ones perpetuating the hard lines that divide gender roles. It is definitely the case in Latin America, I suspect it is the same here in the United States. If a man fathers a child and the woman is not ready to be a mother, how does that man participate in the decision-making, if at all? In an age where women have both the body control and means of sustenance to make the choice of motherhood, what does fatherhood even mean? Does a man have to be invited into fatherhood, with his role being defined in terms of what the mother needs, exclusively? Or does a father get to co-create his place in the family unit? Isn't this the foundation of a marriage and family? There is a lot at stake here.

We have so many questions to answer as a people. Yes, legislation is important and it will eventually reflect what we agree on as a country. But we must first come to some new agreements about what all of this means, which can then translate into the kind of policy that we can all live by.

As we deconstruct the traditional meaning of man/woman, lets be gentle with each other. Few people have the emotional fortitude to question their very personhood without spiraling into panic attacks, at a minimum. I myself struggle with all of these questions in my own home. Biology is wonderful, full of unpredictable genetic combinations that create a spectrum of human beings, and as religion, micro plastics, hormones in chickens, pesticides in fruits, and unhinged media shape the human experience, we will find that the gap between our morality and our biology widens more and more.

I think that is what this election, and this civil war, wrestles with. Who are we? Who do we want to be? What feels safe, even if it is ugly? What feels unsafe, even if it is known and acceptable?

When the storms inside each of us are calmed, the pendulum between left and right extremes will slow down, and we will have found a new sense of balance, resulting in a new nation.