Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Re-opening the proverbial Can of Worms

L writes:

amusing…all of this really. i haven’t run away or gone home crying to my mother or anything of the sort. i’ve been at work. it’s what i do during the day.
i’ll state my position in the affirmative. i am a feminist. and by feminist i mean, one who believes in the political, social, and economic equality of men and women. yes, the feminist movement grew out of issues like voting and property rights. and yes - women now have the right to vote (in the USA). women now have the right to own property (in the USA). but does that mean that all semblance of inequality has been completely eradicated from the world? no. the reason that feminism still exists is because unequal treatment still exists. things seem to be improving, but there is still ground to cover. women who have the same credentials and the same responsibilities as the men in their fields are often paid less than their male colleagues. women are often denied promotions and tenure. women are often denied the opportunity to attend school. women are often subjected to the decisions of the male figures in their lives without ever being given a chance to think or to speak or to express their own opinion. women are often subjected to brutality and violence committed against them simply because of their sex…because they are viewed as somehow less than men.
i did not lie about claiming that extremism is dangerous. i took nate’s wording, carried it to the extreme, and wrote with the sarcastic comment beginning, “gee…I would LOVE to live a life…”
nate writes, “few things are as repugnant to a woman as an insecure man” and then goes on to say that if a wife ever talks to her husband about another man being hot, the husband should act like he is not bothered, especially if he is. that seems to indicate that he believes that in such cases, men should lie to their wives.
nate writes “women are confounded by machines” and goes on to say that they need machines to be as simple as possible. that seems to indicate that he believes that women are perplexed, baffled, confused, and/or puzzled by machines and are not capable of understanding complexity..
nate writes, “it’s up to the boy to make it right” and that it is the man’s job to provide for the family. i realize that nate is a house-husband and that his wife is currently the breadwinner in his family. thank you for making that clear. the paragraph, however, seems to indicate that it is somehow ingrained within a man’s nature to be able to bring home money over and against that which is ingrained within a woman’s nature
nate writes, “Responsibility: Any ultra-huge decision is ultimately the boy’s job. This isn’t because we’re smarter, it’s again, because she doesn’t want it. if she has it, it’s because you mistakenly let her take it from you, when really she didn’t want to take it in the first place.” that seems to indicate that he believes that women don’t want to make decisions and would prefer that men make decisions for them and that it is a mistake for a woman to hold responsibility in the larger things of life.
nate writes, “she wants you to grow a pair of balls and make a decision, and preferably one that she doesn’t have to put that much thought into.” again, that seems to indicate that nate believes that women really don’t want to think because they’d rather have a man do so for them.
hence my sarcasm. it is dangerous to take these things to the extreme because doing so seems to require women to silently busy themselves with what is simple and to ignore the realities of life. because the reality is that we are all human. we are all insecure at times. we are all wrong at times. yes - some more than others, thanks for pointing that out. we are all indecisive at times. we are all confused at times.
my comment - “dialogue and communication are essential in shaping who we are, what we think, and how we live. learning from each other is good, but that doesn't often take place when we attack people we don't know.” is of course an “estrogen raddled sentence.” there is estrogen flowing through me, and i make no apologies for that. pointing that out as a means of refuting my statement asserts that an “estrogen raddled sentence” is somehow less than some other type of sentence (though there was no delineation as to what that other type of sentence might be). that is silly. as i cannot remove the estrogen from my body, i cannot extract it from my thoughts. again, i make no apologies.
the exaltation of human thought, logic, and scientific observation as all that is high and supreme is asinine. such things are important, yes, but they are not the end-all, be-all. logic has led to things like colonialism and millennialism. logic has led to things like ethnic cleansing. logic has led to things like persecution and discrimination. logic is not always right. emotion is a part of human life and of the human experience. to feel is a part of what it is to be human. that, folks, is ingrained deep within us.
a person’s head cannot be separated from his or her history. a person’s life and story shape the way that person thinks. what we experience in life will inevitably have an affect on how we develop and process thoughts and ideas. thoughts and ideas - as well as feelings - always come out of some context.
i can go on and make a case about why extremism is dangerous. i can make a case explaining that Christ is a feminist. i can use big words and exegetical analysis. i can use rhetoric and persuasion. but i’ll spare us all. i’m sure you’re glad.
i am certain that most of you will continue in the same manner of thinking that you did prior to the beginning of this little episode. i am certain that i will as well. we seem to be a bunch of absolutists (albeit with differing absolutes) who do not at all speak the same language. accusing each other of this or that, claiming our own intellect as superior to that of everyone else, and being proud of our ability “destroy” (as was stated) the thoughts of others is a waste of time.
i purposefully posted my original comment on shawn’s blog, again, because i know shawn. i thought maybe there might be room for dialogue. i still think so. nate is the one who brought me over to this blog by posting my words here. i don’t know any of you. i never claimed to be superior nor did i have the desire to convince you of what i believe. i am quite certain that’s an impossibility…as much of an impossibility as it would be for you to convince me of what you believe. and so we are at odds. you can live in your bizzaro world, and i can live in mine. i’m sure none of us will lose any sleep over it.

So all that... just to say, "I could argue my point, but I'm not going to. Nyah Nyah Nyah!" Typical. Here's a clue honey... We aren't like Shawn. We expect you to back up your claims. You can make any statement you want, but you better be prepared to have it questioned. For now, all you've done is demonstrate my points over and over again. What is so infuriating about this, is people like L here claim to be open to other ideas, then when confronted with some, they urinate themselves. We are said to hate those who disagree, because we dare require someone to backup their claims with something beyond emotion. We have a word for that... We call it "Hypocracy".

I came so close to not even bothering with this... but hey... there is obvious interest. Shame you didn't send a picture for the Harem though.

No comments: