|
Aswad -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/24/2012 8:09:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
If they can't grasp that feminism is about equaility with men, and with liberation, then they simply fail. They don't get to go to university. That is nonsense. If it isn't about equality with men, and freedom, then it isn't feminism.
What you refer to, essentially has no name here. It's the status quo. Has been for a while. What we're into now, is called "feminine politics" or "women's issues" or the like, depending on how you translate the set of words used (by themselves, about themselves; and by everyone else). Every institution, political party and so forth has a department that is solely concerned with that.
It's what makes us arrest Romani which come to Norway, as the age of consent is lower where they're from, making their marriages illegal here, so they're held on "human trafficking" charges for being married. When their wives cry and beg to have their husbands returned to them so they can leave the country, we send their children to foster care, and the wives either get left on the streets to beg (it takes a while to get citizenship if you're not a refugee or the like), or they're remanded to psychiatric care, so that the gravity of their abuse can be "explained" to them. Sometimes that requires forcible medication and intensive therapy, but they eventually realize they've been traumatized, of course.
That's the mild version.
Then there's feminism. Not so mild. Feminism is about doctrine and ideology.
And it ranges from things like legislating against homemakers, to androcide as a means of societal improvement (while waiting for genetic science to arrive at the point where the Y chromosome can be made obsolete, whereupon the previously culled breeding stock can be euthanized in their cells).
Presumably, such extreme, radical fringes aren't visible in areas where there are actual equality issues to be concerned with. But a body that exists to effect social change does not end itself when its goals have been accomplished. It keeps going, and the recruiting is adjusted. Enter the word 'misandry', a popular trait in some circles. The emphasis changes, the goals change, and things keep going. The law of inertia applied at a societal level. And this keeps exerting a force on society, winding up the pendulum. Much as I'm for consequences being used as a means of instruction, I neither want to see how far it'll be wound, nor how the backswing will look.
I'm simplifying something complex, nuanced and multifaceted, of course.
But I'm not pulling this out of my ass.
The crazy thing is, if we could've gone with meritocracy from the start, neither blacks nor women would have been an issue in regards to suffrage, equality and so forth. But meritocracy is as much of a bad word here as communism is in the USA. Maybe as bad as it was during the Cold War era. Equality here, now, is about fitting all the square, round, triangular and star shaped pegs through the trapezoid hole, beating down any differences that might be perceived (real or not) until they are no longer perceived (e.g. due to being suppressed, or the tall poppies having been cropped). Equal opportunity, on the other hand, isn't a concern anymore. That's not important. Unless it's ridiculously obvious that you lack opportunities (e.g. being blind), in which case you're padded to fit (e.g. a blind librarian with two full time assistants that enable him to do that job, both state covered; I shit you not). 50 years of socialism is getting to be on the long side, especially with a majority voting against socialism for the past 10-15 years or so, but I digress...
There's some good bits here, and some bad bits.
What you won't find, is a woman treated according to her merits, or another woman that cares.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
