More things that I ponder.
I, frankly, think that Feminism is a joke. Not because I am a male, but because it is unnecessary. Back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, it was, but now not so much. I find several aspects of it to by hypocritical. Here is an example.
Why is it that feminists fight for equality, yet have said nothing about having to register with the military? All men do, and the Government does't mess around. They will track to down. Understandably, that would force them to support something that they hate. But why?
Woman, as a population, are considered a minority. Intestingly enough, in American (and world) population there are more woman than men. Something like 51% to 49%. Small I realize, but enough to make them officially not a minority.
It's victimhood. American society, more specifically the left, has convinced minorities that they are victims. That subject, however is a whole other post of it's own. Perhaps the next one. Long it will be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree with GS: I think the important thing to remember when examining men versus women (or between races) is that there are indeed differences, and we should be grateful: it's the important differences in strengths (and weaknesses) and ways of working that make women and men so efficiently co-exist. Maybe a woman would prefer to nurture than nuke, for example. Not in every case, but at least in some women, the "mother" gene makes for a very necessary caring half of the population. Men have strengths (not that I am stupid enough to enumerate them here) that women don't focus on but that create an important balance.
The extradition of differences that women cry for is the different treatment they receive in a "man's" world. Don't deny or supply me anything, solely because I am a woman.
As for the women being a minority thing, very few classicists use "minority" to describe women, because we are indeed the majority. However, we tend to be a grossly underrepresented group in positions of power or business and such things. This is generally the only implication of "minority standing."
I think that, if it's possible, the differences between races are even more important: not to classify people in order to exclude or include them in social circles and business elites, but rather because of the wonderful diversity it creates, especially in an unaptly termed "melting pot" America. If everyone melted together, we would all be disappointingly similar and boring. Instead we have a melange of culture and history that gives us a unique opportunity as Americans to enjoy many different ways of life.
As an avid Democrat, I not only encourage differences to be acknowledged, I can personally appreciate the expressiveness of the Black culture and the latin dancing of the Hispanic culture. What I will not stand for, though, is a classification based solely on race or sex that is a euphemism for a degradation of social status. For example, saying someone is "urban" is a not-so-inconspicuous way of saying that they are from a run-down neighborhood with a high likelihood of governmental aid... and it usually is directly interchangeable with Black.
We are all prejudiced and we would do best to admit that from the get go. What I suggest is that, like perfection, even if a completely prejudice-free mentality doesn't exist, that we strive toward it anyway. I'm not saying don't learn from your past, but people are hardly as easy to figure out as stoves. For example, you can simply read the dial on a stove to see if it is "hot" or not. I would argue that people can be much more complex than that and that with humans and human interaction it is slightly more detrimental to judge based on classifications (it's a stove) or appearances (looks like something that could burn me).
I have no problem with numbers and I won't argue that unfortunately, the black population is still not quite on even ground (as far as opportunities and neighborhoods) as "white people."
And I have no argument to the fact that the average strength of men is greater than that of women. Men and women, thank God, are built differently. We wear weight in different places and grow strong in different places (physically and emotionally).
They are mere differences, that indicate certain strengths and weaknesses that are the norm. Not everyone fits into the norm and that must be recognized as well.
I couldn't agree more (yes, that is a little weird).
I think the point overall is that there is such a thing as "subjectivity" and such a thing as, well, bigotry. You have learned things about groups of people as you've grown and you're mind stores those pieces of information and associates them with your daily life, be it a fair assessment or not. The key is not to let your idea of someone at first sight be your only/last one.
Just to clear up slightly: I don't think it is necessary to be prejudiced, I just know that some parts of our brain store info that it relates to certain physical attributes and that it is important to gather more information before evaluating someone.
For example, you see a black man and a white man both in similar physical shape lining up to run a race (just using your sports example). Your past experience associates your images and decides that the black man will win. Well, that's not entirely accurate. It may not even be statistically accurate, I have no clue. What I'm saying is, let them race before you decide who will win.
Comprende?
Actually, it's been scientifically proven that women have a higher capacity for scholastic aptitude than men. The reason there are feminists who highlight these trivial things that make "women smarter" is the same reason as a black man can say he's better than a white man but the reverse would be racism. It's a type of retribution for past generations' sufferings based on first impression and stereotyping. I don't agree with that at all and I've already admitted that I think there are important diffs between men and women's strengths.
However, I certainly don't think that feminism has done more harm than good. It has budged the scale and more power to feminism for it. Sure there are people who take it overboard, but they're fairly scarce and don't represent the true ideals of feminism. Feminism was initially based on a search for equality, not reverse superiority.
And may I interject that though women and men may neither one NEED each other, it is a central joy in life to seek out our places amongst and with each other?
I'll be the first to tell you that it is a sad day when women and men have created an aura of "not needing" each other. I simply meant that even if in a literal, emotionless sense we don't need someone of the opposite sex in our lives, that because of the emotional reasons (that you quite eloquently enumerated) it is the joy of life to find companionship.
I have to say (it's actually required by my liberal standings) that I don't think it's that a same sex relationship is any less satiating if it's what you want/need. Homosexual couples may have a higher stress rate because of a confounding external factor: like the stress of being gay in a straight man's world, or perhaps the stereotype that gay men are as emotionally stress-prone as the most catty of women.
I think that it's all about seeking companionship. Be it sexual, emotional, supportive, whatever we need at that time. It is one of the driving reasons of human existence. We seek it because we are made to seek it. Humans yearn for human relationships -- we may be burned a hundred times and still seek love. Because without it and without the hope of it... what would be true happiness and sorrow?
So then why is femanism so popular? Because to me it seems it bucks against everything you just said.
First of all, I will never claim to speak for all women or all feminists or any one group of people. These postings are the feelings of one person, despite their alignment with feminist or female views.
Second, having EMOTION is not contradictory to feminist beliefs! Again, I will reiterate that supporting feminism is still for the most part about creating equal opportunities in the world for women as for men. It has nothing to do with being an amazon woman/spinster. I don't think a woman should have to give up hopes of a relationship purely because she feels she should fight for women's rights. And I certainly don't think that feminists are so inhuman as to not be seeking love. In some cases, feminists are women who are seeking equality in love just as much as in other aspects of human existence.
And please note: feminism is not "that popular" in fact. It's just another example of isolated cases and a loud spoken activist group that represents a minority in American culture. Its wide spread is more a fad than actual feminism popularity.
(this conversation has been restarted/continued on my blog as well)
I will continue to affirm that there can still be equality amidst "difference."
Well, women really are better than men. So why is it so awful to ask to be revered as such?
:)
Post a Comment