It's merely a sign of the depths of depravity of the patriarchy -- its complete inner corruption -- that it cannot imagine any critique of it that is not also inherently corrupt. Thus does patriarchal thinking make corruption out to be the commonplace, the normal human condition.
Yet it need not be so.
Imagine a boxing circuit where it was considered quite permissable, quite de rigeuer, for half of the competitors to dope their opponents between the first and second rounds. Here you have an image of the patriarchy.
Why some people continue to confuse patriarchy with masculinity and to insist that what we feminists are attacking is masculinity never fails to perplex me. It seems that some people have trouble knowing the difference between freedom to rort the system and freedom to demonstrate one's strength.
Let me put it plainly: one is never not free to attempt to overcome difficulties, and if masculinity consists in this, I see no harm and all benefit to be gained in encouraging it. But complaining that an underclass of women are holding you back does not demonstrate the willpower or the courage of any kind of fighter, and breaking news is that women have it harder than you and emit fewer whines.
No -- the freedom to dope the female opponent should not be confused with anything good or worthwhile. Masculinity, I have been told, does things under its own steam, and does not need additional tricks and gadgets to try to make it look good. It knows when it looks good, because it is authentic.
The reason that the patriarchs are never quite sure if they look good and resort to taking out their frustration on women is because they were never really true to themselves to begin with. They want women to give them the reassurance about themselves that they have failed to furnish on their own behalves.
Yet it need not be so.
Imagine a boxing circuit where it was considered quite permissable, quite de rigeuer, for half of the competitors to dope their opponents between the first and second rounds. Here you have an image of the patriarchy.
Why some people continue to confuse patriarchy with masculinity and to insist that what we feminists are attacking is masculinity never fails to perplex me. It seems that some people have trouble knowing the difference between freedom to rort the system and freedom to demonstrate one's strength.
Let me put it plainly: one is never not free to attempt to overcome difficulties, and if masculinity consists in this, I see no harm and all benefit to be gained in encouraging it. But complaining that an underclass of women are holding you back does not demonstrate the willpower or the courage of any kind of fighter, and breaking news is that women have it harder than you and emit fewer whines.
No -- the freedom to dope the female opponent should not be confused with anything good or worthwhile. Masculinity, I have been told, does things under its own steam, and does not need additional tricks and gadgets to try to make it look good. It knows when it looks good, because it is authentic.
The reason that the patriarchs are never quite sure if they look good and resort to taking out their frustration on women is because they were never really true to themselves to begin with. They want women to give them the reassurance about themselves that they have failed to furnish on their own behalves.
1 comment:
Ouch. Wait til you see that video from Britain that encourages teens not to get pregnant.
It is the perfect fucked up example of what you speak of here.
Post a Comment