I regard myself as a feminist.
This may seem odd
1) since I am a male
2) since some of my feminist female friends would have had to put up with a fair amount of my `stirring’
Part of the reason for number 2 is that I also believe that once injustices and prejudices of the past are released, it then becomes largely the responsibility of the previously oppressed to free themselves. A slave once released is still a slave if they don’t leave… it is up to them to leave. Yes, there can be encouragement but at some point they need to take responsibility for the change.
My point, I argued, is that you can blame men all you want for things like fashion magazines and lack of women in leadership roles… but if the editors and consumers of those magazines are women, and women aren’t standing up to be counted as leaders, then there is a problem.
BUT…
The more I read the more I realise that the `liberated women’ that have been a part of my circle of friends, family, colleagues and culture are in the minority rather than the norm.
Women only got the vote in Switzerland in 1976! Our likely future president is about to take on 2 more wives (he has 4 already!).
False annoyance at things that are not the fault of males will continue to make me sit back and say, run slave, your shackles are gone… BUT we still have a long way to go until women in general are treated with the same respect as men.
5 comments:
Its an interesting question of what exactly should we do when people have been brought up in oppressive environment and have come to choose that lifestyle voluntarily.
Their preferences would be different in better world, but now they're not.
I'm not an especially great femanist I don't think. I don't think that equal pay or representation in leadership roles for men and women are worthy goals.
oh. I'm also not especially anti-polygamy.
I got all excited when I saw anonymous, I thought I had doubled my readers/commenters....
hmmm...
back to the chalkboard.
As for polygamy, it is an interesting question...
My gut tells me it leads to us to opression of women. But that is a distinctly westernized gut.
`westernized' despite the fact that I think defacto polygamy is very much a part of our society... or rather that very few people are in reality faithful monogamists.
If we were designed that way, once attracted to someone, we would never be attracted to anyone else.
There definitely seems to be a conlfict of physical versus emotional/intelectual aims.
I think that our westernised guts would make polygamy work pretty well for women now. First, most women wouldn't choose it and those who do would do most times free from societal pressure.
Another argument is that loser men have a tough enough time finding women as it is and that problem will just get worse, possibly affecting levels of rape, violent crime or general stability.
I found what a female friend once said to me quite interesting ito. `loser guys'...
She said the kind of guy she dreamt of was probably at home on a Friday night reading and would never end up asking a random girl out... thus the chances of them meeting was somewhat deminished.
anyway, that is an aside.
As for polygamy... I still wander what it actually means... I mean, why bother?
Presumably a polygamist doesn't have to be faithful? Since they would be dating other prospective candidates.
It doesn't mean you need to be married if you have kids since it seems our `leader polygamist' has children with some woman he has not married, and some he had children with before he married them.
So... what is a marriage then other than a big party?
Post a Comment