Why does Chansey have a move called hard boiled? Doesn’t that mean she’s cooking her children? I thought she was a motherly pokemon!
Anonymous said: Can you explain why you are against Feminism? Is demanding equality that bad?
In the context of Western civilization, it has outlived its usefulness. And I’m a tad uncomfortable projected Western notions of “freedom and equality” on to other cultures. Let them handle these things in the context of their own culture, religion, or what have you. Let Muslim women empower themselves, as many of them have throughout history, in their own way. They don’t need Western women to drop in and start throwing thongs at them to “liberate” them.
This question is odd because it’s loaded. When it comes to actual Feminist theory, it’s not about equality. First-wave Feminism was about equality before the law. Now, women are a tad “more equal” than men in the sense that women have much more legal representation and rights than men do (with regard to longer jail sentences for the same crime, unreasonable custody over children, etc.). What about in a social sense? Of course women are treated horribly. But let’s ask ourselves why that is.
First Wave Feminism was certainly a champion movement that dealt with women’s roles in society. Prior to women’s suffrage, there was some sense in only providing men with the vote. Most labour was urban, industrial, physical labour. As a result, women stayed home because there was nothing to do with regard to providing income to the home. Men were the ones who were sent to fight wars (oh the privilege of a gruesome death!), and as a result, because of employment and other circumstances, men would be the most directly affected by political decisions. Rising unemployment only affected women because it directly affected a man’s ability to find work.
However, at the end of the Industrial Revolution and around the time of World War I, women became taking a more active role in their soceities. As societies urbanized, there was an increasing diversity in the amount of work that could be done. Women could participate in war as nurses, and also completed tasks behind the front lines. Women worked in factories to fill in the deficit of male labour. Women could work office jobs, and as education become more readily available, women were also expected to teach. Now that women started playing an active role in society, they weren’t being affected by politics through their husbands, but now they were directly involved. It made absolute sense to give them legal, social, and political representation.
So to first-wave Feminism, I say, hurrah.
That only deals with the legal/political aspects of Feminism. The social aspects have changed but they still exist. Problem is, Feminism doesn’t solve them. Let’s look at the fact that women are treated disgustingly with regard to sexual ethics, double-standards (although sexual standards are evolutionary constructs embedded in human physiology), and a wide manner of other things.
Men act the way they do because society, with some help from “free love” second-wave Feminism, has determined that acting upon indulgent instinct is no longer tabboo, but something to be praised. Since there are no standards for being ladylike, there are also no standards for being gentlemanly. The sexual revolution which was meant to empower women has destroyed them by turning them into nothing more than playthings for pigs who now find themselves being justified.
Third-Wave Feminism is a silly and paradoxical attempt at cleaning up the filth left behind by SWF. It is demonstrably foolish when we talk about the legal status of women, because the “wage gap” is a myth, the whole “reproductive rights” issue is a sham (killing babies is not a reproductive right), and this whole “w0w they think that when women get raped they’re sluts and don’t prosecute rapists” is a bit silly when you consider that most Feminists do not accept the reality that men can get raped.
When it comes to gender-roles, TWF has abandoned any idea of “femininity”. Women who make statements such as “women should act more feminine” or “the man is the head of the household” or “I’d like to spend more time raising my kids than working” are shunned because they’re apparently shackled slaves of the Patriarchy. Motherly instinct is thoughtcrime to such people. However, if you’re an unmarried 40 year old business woman who insults people all day and actually is bossy (omg ban dat word rite), you’re “independent” and “empowered”.
When it comes to sexual ethics, they can’t get on the right page. Women should be able to walk around topless (even though the female breasts have evolved to have sexual significance, being an erogenous zone and all), wear almost-nothing outside, and walk around sketchy areas in lingerie and not be concerned for their own safety (because that’s victim blaming), but when men see this, they’re pigs for making cat-calls and acting on that? The way you dress, the way you act, and the way you communicate all gives off a message about who you are, and men responding accordingly, even if they respond like stupid, hypersexualized fools. This stuff matters.
In the end, I believe in gender roles, I believe men should act a certain way exclusive to men, and women should act a certain way exclusive to women. I think we should respect each other in such a way that corresponds to our genders, and that women should be valued, not objectified, attacked, and humiliated. I think that women deserve equal legal representation, and I think that femininity is a wonderful thing for a woman to have, and she should not be ashamed of that.
I don’t call that Feminism, I call that being a decent, Christian human being.