My previous post was written quiet some time ago but my belief that someone, somewhere would take it the wrong way prevented an earlier publication. Now I'm sharing a record of how that conversation went. I'm not here to wave my hand to self-fulfilled prophecy or to usher in an example of hostilities found in debate - I'm simply recording an exchange and hope that anyone who has found offense under the same contentions will have foreknowledge of my position.
The original post may be found here.
The name of the my friend will be left unknown for the privacy's sake.
Sealhy Nendyek -
"Um. Wow. I really have no words. Has it ever occurred to you that gender is secondary to humanity? And that these neatly packaged ideas of how to relate to this absurd creature called 'woman' is possibly irrelevant because we really aren't so different than men? I suppose gender roles, and stereotypes, and adopting an 'us vs. them' mentality, looking at us like we're some sort of novelty behind a glass is just so much easier than approaching us like we are merely another human being just like yourself. If you are having a hard time understanding someone, or are not sure how to relate to them, I always suggest a little open, honest communication, accompanied by an open mind. Funnily enough, this applies regardless of gender, or age, or position, etc. But don't mind me. I'm female. I'm sure I need you to pander to me, and anything more I just wouldn't understand."
Me -
I think you misunderstood the whole point of me writing this. It wasn't a thesis on "womanhood" and why manhood is different or, God forbid, better, if anything, notice that I only poked fun at males. And that perspective (to make fun of your own gender) is typical of these sorts of articles. For example most of these types of articles are written by women, and they poke fun at women. This one was written by a man (or a boy if you prefer) and was designed to poke fun at men.
True, we can diverge into the realm of stereotypes (which I do believe on a macro scale holds some form of truth), but I believe where we seriously diverge from the same path is the notion that humanity is preferable before gender. It's like saying automobiles are more preferable to corvettes or that insects are more noble than the ant. To me it seems that the negation of particularity is the negation of personality - you can't throw one out and hope to keep the other.
But perhaps, since I have gone this far, I must continue to the root of the gender wars: Feminism. The problem with feminism is that it isn't feminine. The problem with feminism is that it is entirely unconcerned with feminism and entirely concerned with masculinity. In one fell swoop and perhaps with a wave of a much more dully colored flag, they usher in Protagoras as their god and cry out, "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." Feminism, with all their secular philosophy, assumes that the fulfillment of womanhood is simply completed by doing what men do, and along the way they drop the divine notion that they were created by God for a much greater, and wholly different, purpose.
Sealhy Nendyek -
Feminists. Evil bra-burners & man haters. Their 'secular philosophy' is what exactly? Social & economic equality? How horrifying. The freedom to define their own femininity that may or may not conform to someone else's 'ideal woman'? How dare they. It's not about who's stronger, or what roles someone needs to be confined to. It's not about defining someone else's femininity or masculinity for them. I was born female. I identify as female. Therefore I am feminine. There is no set standard that I have to conform to in order to claim that. The exact same thing goes everyone else. You think feminists only have a problem when people try to define women? That we could care less about society's rigid gender roles for men? You're right. That's terrible. We should just let well enough alone. Things like rape culture, gender discrimination, male centric standards of beauty don't exist. After all, if we reduce feminism to a ridiculous caricature, then we can convince hordes of people that it means something that it doesn't. Men and women are different. Just like men are different than other men, and women are different from other women. You reduce everyone's individuality to a simple black and white box.
Me -
I apologize Ashley, but if you received the notion that I thought Feminists were man-haters then I misstated. I meant to say that they obsess over men, they think their grass is much too green. Hence my pun to Protagoras about man being the standard for all things. But before I begin I would like to make one thing clear, I'll be responding to feminism's ideals. In otherwords, I'll argue where they erred, I am not providing the solution.
Let's begin with economic equality because that's the most fascinating. If we go back one-hundred years, we'll see a very different America. An America that viewed a traditional set of ideals: men went to work, women stayed at home, children had to learn. When Feminists came to centre stage it revolted against this tradition. But what's fascinating is how they did it.
First, the home was altered from a house to a prison compound. The perception was deftly one-sided - a woman at home is a woman unused. While a man is away exploring the depths of culture and the far-reaches of civilization, the woman was left at home to fiddler with her fingers. The most horrifying blindness of this one-sided approach is that it reduces children to worthlessness. In a conflagration the workplace became important and the home became the burning stake.
Second, the work place was glorified as the chisel against their chains. Again, notice the one-sidedness: give a woman a job and now she's worthwhile. Take away the women from the family, and now the family is complete. How is that? The lie that was eaten was that the world constituted everything outside the home when the opposite is true. It is the home that has made every civilization, and the job to keep it was given to the woman.
And third, the notion of economic equality is false advertising. It's false advertising because no one talks about the role of a job. People get jobs because people need money - we call this wage slavery. And I think rightly so. For feminism's response to this predicament was to give equal slavery to everyone. Again, notice the one-sidedness. They didn't expect the man to come home and be equal parents for their children, they sent the woman to the grinding stone and attack the family.
Next, I'll move to your definition of femininity. It seems as though you're comfortable in saying your feminine because of a certain organ arrangement. I suppose I must have misspoken when I thought that speaking about women was to address a lofty set of ideals, it appears in your case it was some sort of cosmic accident. Either way, your definition prohibits any freedom of the will.
And your last point. It is true, men and women are different from each other, also men are different from other men, but I do believe we have something going for us when we still call all the men in the room men. The ideals of man is to be a protector and provider, the ideals for a woman is to train up and guide. Do we really wish to argue that the protector is worth more than what is being protected? Is the treasure chest really worth more than the treasure?
No comments:
Post a Comment