I firmly believe that the things that affect us must be recognized, and that, if they are recognized, they must be said. Said without sugar coating. What happens is that very few things in our day to day manage to get out of our usual routine, and since almost nothing of the usual is exceptional it turns out that if there is something special inside the usual, we are blind to it.
Precisely for that reason, what I am going to be talking about in this article is something that’s there every day, and that, although it has already been said many times, it always needs to be said one more time and to another that reads it.
If you ask what the hell I’m going to be writing about, it’s feminism. NO, NOT HEMBRISM !!! Of feminism!!! (I quickly tell you that hembrism – like machism – is about the supremacy of women over man, while feminism seeks equality, but recognizes the current situation of difficulty for women). This clarification is important because the majority gets bothered with the idea of ”feminazi” that unfortunately brings feminism; but as you see it’s a mistake.
I want to talk to you about why feminism is the most important social revolution of the 20th century and why it must end (calm down, I’m not crazy, its just that if it’s over it’s because it’s not necessary anymore), and also of the importance of recognizing that men have also been type casted, as well as other genders.
Let’s check out an example before starting: if a woman pays the bill, doesn’t this show her independence and thus free man from that responsibility? If women work, wouldn’t that also help out her husband? herself? her family? the world? If boys and girls play with whatever toys they want, wouldn’t that make them happier? And so, their parents? If men and women study what they want without prejudice, wouldn’t that give us better professionals? More passionate?
I do not know, but it seems to me that no one is now 100% happy and winning. Male superiority exists, but in certain things, like female superiority, again, in certain things. If supremacy isnt complete, it is not possible to generalize it.As you can tell, we are taking the perspective of a kind feminism governed by equality, and more than that, we are taking one more step ahead of the woman vision, to replace it with society, with all the people.
Equality is inclusive, and for me feminism is about that. Feminism should be fed on love and not hate. However, we must put things in perspective, and that is why we are going to talk about feminism as such first. The aforementioned is a social revolution that has been pronounced for centuries (officially since the eighteenth century), and although it is so old nowadays, it is too broad and difficult to define. Feminism has a thousand variants that, in the end, make it difficult for anyone to understand.
Logically the best thing wouldn’t be to complicate everything, but it is not easy when dealing with something so big and serious.
But if I had to define it, I would say that feminism is a social movement that fights for the of rights for women that have already been given to them years ago, and likewise. It defends the need for social equality and the eradication of violence specific to women for being a woman (femicides, for example).
However, many would extend that definition and even say that mine does not do justice to the movement. The reason for this is that the followers of the so-called radical feminism, think that equality between men and women is insufficient to achieve balance (in my definition, gender equality is basically the central point).
They assure women are currently at a total “disadvantage”. This is because they are oppressed by patriarchy (which is the predominance of male authority in a social group) which makes them unable to decide for themselves, and that for this reason, women need special privileges.
What are these privileges? laws specifically designed to favor us just for being women. They are all about favoring woman over man solely because we are less, because we are women. For me, radical feminism victimizesus, treating us as invalids who can’t take care of themselves. This is what they call “positive discrimination” (I have a question, will there also be “positive bullying”?). Okay …. Doesn’t this look like the privileges of men over women just because they are men? It’s the exact same things. We do not need new laws, we need to meet those that have already been created for people.
In addition, the radical feminists affirm that absolutely all the violence towards women is exclusively due to the fact of being a woman, and they assume that the perpetrator is always a man. But how would this apply to lesbian couples? What if the woman assaults the man first or if he assaults her in self-defense? The case of violence between lesbian couples is still misunderstood in courts, because when dealing with a female victimizer the law does not cover it. And just like that, when the man is the victim, the law does not know how to protect him either. It isn’t any different what gender the victimizer is. We in addition a non-binary person could attack or be attacked, leaving men and women in the back.
When it comes to justice, it will only exist once we start judging crimes and not genders. If the same crime occurs, the same treatment must be applied, the same law, the same justice, not any special laws for anyone. Consider that women have come to where we are today (much better than years ago), without any of this “positive discrimination”, what is more, we will get where we should get without any help; and that is part of the empowerment, autonomy and equality that feminism defends. Today, there are more women in universities than men, there’s some undeniable progress!
I don’t believe that the creation of laws of impunity and benefit for women would be the right solution. A decision that benefits some over others unfairly will always end in conflict. Another pillar of radical feminism is that women should not be allowed to stay at home even if they wished to, because it affirms that, if they wanted to do so, it would be because they have been oppressed and manipulated towards that desision. Like they could never want to stay home.
In this way, it assures that the way to fix this is by forcing them to work, simultaneously eradicating the maternal instinct and the “myth” of family. That’s difficult to make and to affirm, let me tell you, especially because the maternal instinct comes from deep inside, and that being or not being at home is a personal decision.
In this case, radical feminism does not act as a liberating agent of women -like feminism should-, but rather as an oppressive mechanism and a totalitarian state, which seeks to impose over the individual liberties with what it considers correct, in order to maintain social control. I think it is dangerous.
The only thing I have left to say is that radical feminism (which unfortunately is the one we see the most in the media and with which they represent the whole genre) is in itself male chauvinist. Why? Because it portraits women in the most male chauvinist society in the world. Thisis the disguised hembrism that defends that women are poor invalids and incapabl victims, and that man are ruthless monsters. None of that is real.
On the other hand, more brief, concise and fast, liberal feminism defends gender equality, but recognizes that today several rights of women are being violated.
We do not think that we need special treatment, but that the laws that apply to men, as well as the rights that are guaranteed to all human beings, must shelter women in crisis situations, when now, they are not doing it.
I speak of when a woman is raped and the court asks, “What did she do to provoke him?” Or when she is considered incapable of performing a job because she is a woman. Liberal feminism is important, it leaves room to talk about toxic masculinity, and about the variety of genres in the spectrum that should be equally sheltered.
Toxic masculinity is basically the way society and its stereotypes about what it is to be a man, affect the male gender. Yes, it’s true, women also suffer from toxic femininity, but it is given more importance and seriousness than the masculine one.
For example, it is more common to see a “tomboy” woman than an effeminate man. If a man is in any way effeminate, then he is accused of being gay (as if it were an insult), and in the same way a gay man who is not effeminate is questioned about his sexuality. And although a tomboy may be accused of being a lesbian or of being careless, most of the time she’s seen as a sign of empowerment.
A man who does not like cars is questioned, if he does not want to fuck he is questioned, if he is not aggressive he is questioned (and there are even parents who worry), if he is aggressive he is justified, if he does not pay the bill he is disqualified. If he wants to be a dancer he is a phenomenon, if he wants to play with dolls he is wrong, if he is born male he is dressed in blue, if he wants to wear long hair it is inconceivable, if he cries he is less man, and if his penis is considered very small de is unworthy, and if he wants to be a woman he is denied, among many other things. They may socially and economically earn more in most cases than women, but they certainly don’t go unpunished.
Nobody has the total advantage and that is why nobody lives at a total disadvantage. If you think so, it’s already a matter of your perspective on things.
Being a man is not easy, and there are more and more men who speak out about it while joining the feminist movement. Life is not a war of supremacy, but an imperative of equality and harmony.
This is why it is important to discuss and educate about gender equality, and it is true, culture and education are a necessary part of the matter, but praxis is the key. Less culture more making, we want facts.
Finally, this pressure and pigeonholing of people is what has led us to normalize the false naturalness of gender relations.
I remind you; gender is the sexuality with which a person identifies himself psychologically or with which he defines himself. And sex depends on biology, if you have a penis or vagina or none. Now, why is this distinction made? Because today we know that there are a thousand genres and sexual orientations (who do you like) such as: homosexuality, bisexuality, hetero sexuality, pansexuality, demisexuality, lithsexuality, autosexuality, antrosexuality. etc., these orientations could be of man, a woman, or a non-binary person. They are not directly related to sex or personality.
People belonging to the LGBTIQ community also fight against stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination and exclusion. The case of a gay man who is treated differently for being gay is not very different from the case of a woman who is treated differently for being a woman. We are all important and our movements correlate.
Now, let’s clarify the link between the false naturalness in the relations between the genres and the variety of sexual genders. Firstly, statistically in Uruguay (naming one of many), most couples are homosexual and most households are non-nuclear (father, mother and children). Secondly, heterosexuality is NOT “natural” because homosexuality or any other is not “unnatural”. Thirdly, the stereotypes of toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are not natural. Fourthly, gender violence is not natural, the glass ceiling is not natural, femicides are not natural. And to say that the are is sick and retrograde!
People who identify themselves in one point or the other of the gendre and sexual spectrum, must also be sheltered by feminism – as well as by their own movements-, in terms of tolerance and inclusion. We are no longer talking only about women, or stereotyped men, in the 20th century we talk about people.
Gender binarism is ending this society that’s everything but binary, we are subject to a system that does not work for our current society. It’s like having soup with a fork. Binarism brings a thousand justifications to violence, from socio-cultural justifications to religious ones. For example, culturally in countries like Colombia a man with a skirt looks bad, while in Scotland he does not. In religious terms for example, the Koran says that women are less and belong to man, the bible says that women should ask the husband and not the priest for religious instruction and homosexuality (among others) drowns in religious and social prejudices.
All these cells for society, slow progress and welfare. There are things that it would be good to overcome. Nobody is going to indoctrinate the world, this world and its people will forever have a free nature.
The deaths born of intolerance are justified in various ways, and that is why all, absolutely all these deaths, are avoidable.
We need to talk about feminism at the same table where we talk about equality, we need to not judge and rather accept, we need to not fear recognizing the need to empower others just because we believe that it would harm us. The individual good will generate the common good.
Life is not easy for anyone in particular, no one is in absolute advantage, and the world belongs to no one. That is why we must work together to recognize and end social inequality through acts and not words. We need to educate for tolerance, for expression, for self-love, for empowerment, for responsibility, for self-sufficiency. We cannot let metaphors think us.We have been in a cave for so long that we forgot that the exterior exists. Imagine how much suffering we could spare ourselves could all go out equally, and at once.