The thing that brought this post on was a recent discussion about the “objectification of women” when an attractive female is placed on the front of a magazine with hardly any clothes. Please remind me, how is she being objectified, unless you are thinking of her as an object anyways? The magazine cannot objectify her; the person perceiving her must do the objectification. It’s the audience’s perception of things that has qualities, not just a picture of a beautiful woman with hardly any clothes. Attractive people are placed in advertisements and at the front of magazines because we like to look at them. Would you want to see a fat, balding man on the front of Cosmo? No. Why would you? Why does not wanting to see out of shape unattractive people make you an “objectifier” of people? I get to see those people every day at my local super market, at my work, and at my school. How do you expect anything to catch your attention if they blended in with the same things you see all day?
Put an attractive provocative woman on a magazine; Sexism.
Put an unattractive provocative woman on a magazine; O, the Oprah Magazine.
Put an unattractive provocative woman on a magazine; O, the Oprah Magazine.
The problem with this blog post is that the response will be I’m a “privilege denier” I clearly don’t understand my privilege in life. I've been in discussions with countless feminists and more often than not I'm called a misogynist before I can even clarify my positions or take a stand. It's become politically incorrect to stand up for men when it comes to gender equality. I’ve sat in one of my classes and was told by my professor that men are the root of all evil. If a male professor had said the same about women he would have been blasted in the media at the least and at the worst; potentially lost his job.
I also find it amusing that you won't find any gay men who are involved in masculism, but you sure find quite a few lesbians who are involved in feminism. It's also sort of hypocritical isn't it? I mean being a lesbian feminist is like being a doctor and a pharmacist. How can I expect an unbiased response from any lesbian feminist if she has no concern over the status and treatment of men, just of women? Heterosexual women are concerned about the treatment of women, but inherently must also be concerned about the treatment of men. They will after all at one point or another fall in love with one (to clarify I'm not saying I don't hope LGBT find someone they love). Also I’m not saying it’s impossible for a lesbian to care about the status of men, she very well could, but it’s not necessary or needed for her to be congruent with her inherent moral framework (this is completely philosophical, so bare with me here.) For example; it’s a contradiction for a man to hate men, because he’s a man. It’s also a contradiction for a heterosexual man to hate women, because he’ll almost certainly procreate, or love one of them at one time or another. It’s not a contradiction however, for a lesbian woman to hate a man, because she has no vested interest.
I also want to take a moment to make a point in saying that I do not feel this way for all feminists. I do think however, that a large majority have made the social movement irrelevant and turned it into a group of misandrists. For example; republicans in America are by and large idiots. That's a strong statement, but I think if you look at the idiots they have over and over again in their primaries, whom they actually take seriously, you’ll come to the same conclusion all the people in the world who aren’t republicans did; they’re idiots. In saying that however, I don't dismiss that there will be intelligent republicans, Ron Paul for example (at least in his foreign and economic policy.) However when you think of the Republican Party, immediately what triggers? Bush, Palin, Romney, Cheney, and countless other idiots. What else triggers? The base of the party; the majority of the people that make up that party and construe what the message was supposed to be about. The right wing nuts, the Bible belt Americans, the pro-war, anti-choice blundering fools. Unfortunately, they make up the majority.
As harsh as that comparison to feminism is, it's true in my experience. At least in university it is. Women who want to make a difference (but don't know how) drag down the rest of the feminists who may be about equal objectives, and instead turn it into man-hating. Forgive me if I hold a stereotype, however it proves to be true more often than not, that's why it's a generalization I hold and many men who have tried to have a discussion with a feminist only to be told off for being a misogynist because their opinion differs.
As with all past victims of inequality, tenderness still remains. It's difficult to have discussions about black Americans, Japanese Canadians, First Nations, and Chinese Canadians etc. including women, without sounding harsh. This harshness though, does not lie in the intentions of the person bringing the subject about; these intentions are automatically generalized to anyone who wants an honest discussion because of past actions of similar people.
I also want to take a moment to make a point in saying that I do not feel this way for all feminists. I do think however, that a large majority have made the social movement irrelevant and turned it into a group of misandrists. For example; republicans in America are by and large idiots. That's a strong statement, but I think if you look at the idiots they have over and over again in their primaries, whom they actually take seriously, you’ll come to the same conclusion all the people in the world who aren’t republicans did; they’re idiots. In saying that however, I don't dismiss that there will be intelligent republicans, Ron Paul for example (at least in his foreign and economic policy.) However when you think of the Republican Party, immediately what triggers? Bush, Palin, Romney, Cheney, and countless other idiots. What else triggers? The base of the party; the majority of the people that make up that party and construe what the message was supposed to be about. The right wing nuts, the Bible belt Americans, the pro-war, anti-choice blundering fools. Unfortunately, they make up the majority.
As harsh as that comparison to feminism is, it's true in my experience. At least in university it is. Women who want to make a difference (but don't know how) drag down the rest of the feminists who may be about equal objectives, and instead turn it into man-hating. Forgive me if I hold a stereotype, however it proves to be true more often than not, that's why it's a generalization I hold and many men who have tried to have a discussion with a feminist only to be told off for being a misogynist because their opinion differs.
As with all past victims of inequality, tenderness still remains. It's difficult to have discussions about black Americans, Japanese Canadians, First Nations, and Chinese Canadians etc. including women, without sounding harsh. This harshness though, does not lie in the intentions of the person bringing the subject about; these intentions are automatically generalized to anyone who wants an honest discussion because of past actions of similar people.
I'm white, middle class, male, and come from a Christian background (ex-Christian now) that literally makes me the image of all hate. I am the epitome of the people who did atrocious and awful acts. Yet I didn't do those things. However, I still can't have an honest discussion without being reminded of things I didn't do, because I look like the people that did do them. This in itself is a form of sexism, and racism, it's discriminatory in embodiment. I hate to remind you all, but you’re no longer a majority if you’re cut in half by your gender, and every other group hates you. All of these thoughts will be ignored, because who cares about the plights of the “majority”.
I am the double standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment