|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of sexual equality touted by NOW-style feminists was meant to be taken literally, but it was never meant literally. It was just a device for undermining men, their position in society, and the way they are perceived as a group. Had these feminists revealed their true purpose, which was essentially to disenfranchise men, they would have been marginalised as the manhating freaks they are.
If gender is just a social construct, all feminist ideas about men must be viewed in terms of the uses to which those ideas are put. I've felt for some time that there is very little wrong with men that getting rid of feminism wouldn't cure. Feminism needs to continually problematise males of all ages. If boys are more physically active than girls that becomes the problem of boys' 'hyperactivity'. If boys respond to a different learning environment than girls, that becomes the problem of boys' shorter attention span or 'lack of focus'. If men are less vocal about their emotions than women, that becomes the problem of men being 'out of touch' with their emotions. If men decide to try new and exciting things once the children have grown up, that becomes the problem of 'mid-life crisis'. And so it goes on; I'm sure the list can be extended to hundreds of items. The purpose of problematising men is to encapsulate the male gender within itself, excusing the rest of society, in the form of its various institutions and, of course, women, from having to accomodate men's wants, needs and desires. The idea is that men somehow have to cure themselves of all their 'problems' so as not to be a nuisance to anyone.
As I said at the start of this response, the feminist idea of sexual equality was meant to be TAKEN literally (by non-feminists, legislators, reporters, intellectuals, etc), but it was not MEANT literally. It was a kind of Trojan Horse; the sheep's clothing hiding the wolf within. This must have seemed terribly clever at the time, but it is a strategy that contains a dangerous internal mechanism. It will work up to a point, but there will inevitably come a time when, in order to proceed with the real agenda, the disguising skin has to be shed. That's the junction that seems to be revealing itself in this article. There appears to be a real fear that the literal idea of equality - which, remember, was never meant literally - will take on a life of its own. Gender Studies, which has the potential be be inclusive and sympathetic to the realities of social development throughout history, is clearly not such an effective tool for promoting the hatred and denigration of men as Women's Studies, with it's far narrower range of perceptions and interpretations, and its 'monosolution' of men as the source of all wrong in society.
For our purposes, the original idea of equality - the one that was meant to be taken literally, but was not meant literally - is ideal. It is an idea which many people already accept, including legislators and the kind of leftist thinkers and activists who, through their various media positions, affect public opinion. We need to start pursuading these people that there are many who call themselves feminists who are not in the least bit interested in equality but instead seek to promote any amount of hatred and negativity towards men. It's not as if there isn't any evidence!
We didn't make the 'equality trap', manhating feminists made it because without it they'd have got nowhere. Their ideas betray them. If gender is a social construct (only an idea, not a proven fact), every feminist portrayal of men must be viewed as a construct also. That would be a great basis for a module of a Gender Studies course, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
