Aspects of Feminism
Feminism is, in reality, a movement with various components, much like any other movement, and within each, there are many different perspectives. As the ancients used to say, "tot capita, tot sententiae" (as many heads, as many opinions). However, as in any complex reality, it's necessary to simplify things to avoid getting lost in endless and thus inconclusive discussions. I would distinguish three main approaches.
According to the first approach, it is essential to safeguard the rights and dignity of women. The traditional model, in my opinion, was generally theoretically balanced and functional for the needs of traditional families of the past: women took care of the family and the home, while men handled everything else. It is important to consider that infant mortality and the lack of tools that we now take for granted (diapers, washing machines, hot running water) made women's responsibilities a full-time job. It seemed immoral for a woman, instead of dedicating all her energy to the difficult task of ensuring her children’s survival, to concern herself with other matters like culture, politics, business, and so on, which were therefore reserved for men, who in any case did not work any less.
However, the guarantees for women were few and weak, so often (too often, we might say) the female role ended up being concretely that of a "servant and whore," as the saying went. The husband did not appreciate the woman’s work, from cleaning the children to making preserves and doing the laundry; he considered it lowly and therefore servile, without understanding the essential and vital importance of these activities. In marital relations, the woman was used for the man’s physical needs as if she were a prostitute, completely ignoring her own needs and desires. Essentially, the intimate relationship was not seen as an expression of marital love in an exclusivity that did not allow for infidelity. Nowadays, rightly so, such a role should be rejected by women and, generally, but unfortunately not always, by men. Women, therefore, demand equality primarily in dignity and then in rights, which cannot be arbitrarily managed by men. Functional differences, which have significantly diminished (but still exist), should not translate into injustices and oppression.
A second type of feminism, on the other hand, believes that gender is merely a difference in organs that does not affect personality; it’s like eye color, a detail with minimal implications. This seems to me an evident error: from a very young age, boys and girls have different attitudes. Certainly, as citizens, there can be no discrimination or inequality, and equality of rights is enshrined in the constitution. However, in familial and personal relationships, roles may differ, which seems entirely natural. For instance, even though schools treat students without regard to gender, on Saturday night, girls act like girls and boys act like boys: they are two different worlds that attract each other precisely because they are different. Similarly, in the family, the woman is the mother and the man is the father. In practice, however, the principle of role diversity is always present. In fact, husbands now know how to do at home what wives do and vice versa, but still, the traditional roles prevail. Fathers help around the house, take the children out, but they feel uncomfortable if the wife has a more important job role, whereas the opposite does not happen: for example, one marries even if the woman does not yet have a job, but not if the woman has a job and the man does not.
A third approach involves exalting women and denigrating men. It is said that the male is a biological necessity but a sociological calamity, and so on. In this case, however, feminism falls into a contradiction. If we think that men and women have different general aptitudes in performing tasks, can we still talk about gender equality in the various activities of modern society? Logically, it seems not. If we think they have different aptitudes, then consequently, we might think it logical to reserve certain roles for men and others for women. In theory, we could also think that important political and social roles are better suited to women and family roles to men, but more easily, and I would say inevitably, we would end up thinking that women are more suited to affection, family, the home, etc., and thus once again confine women to the traditional roles of wife and mother, angels of the hearth. This is precisely what feminists, and the modern world in general, are fighting against. On the other hand, when it is said that men are a biological necessity but a social calamity, it essentially means that men are less reliable in tasks related to family life.