obscurantist posturing: "Let us suppose, for a second, that there is such thing as masculinity. Perhaps it consists of bravery and the kind of daring represented in DIEHARD and RAMBO . (I don't despise such things -- I was brought up under the shadow of Rhodesian masculinity. This historical mode of male expression would be a hard enough act for anyone to follow.)
Now suppose such a thing existed in life, and not just on the television sets? One would be able to see its traces in the real behavior of those around. By expressing such behavior they would be deemed to have hit the nail on the head as concerns masculinity and its expression.
Now suppose, just for a second, there was such a thing called patriarchy. Perhaps it would consist in such things a bosses and politicians dismissing their female colleagues and workers as mere "girls". One might also see it in a wages differential, and in boys' clubs in organisations. One might see it in the posturing of those who act as if women cannot have an intellect worth reckoning with.
Perhaps one actually believes that one observes this patriarchy in action. Experience itself teaches; and the evidence amasses that there is a patriarchy at work. Yet, when patriarchy is pointed out as a peculiar sleight of hand that prevents women from getting their due, the defenders of the things as they are turn up to state:
"You got that wrong, twee dearie." They go on to say:
"It was masculinity in action that you were in fact observing!"
Would such an argument alone suffice to obscure our vision?"
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment