Don't worry if you have a "WTF did I just read" moment. I did. I even re-read it to assure that I wasn't simply sleep deprived (which I am) and sort of mixing things up a bit for my own amusement. Sadly, that is not the case. What we have here folks is the "I'm all for women's rights... so long as they're also good for men!" personality type. These are the ones that might even agree to a woman's right to choose, however, and this is important, so pay close attention, they still see women as SUPPORT for men. You can read it plainly in his post. In black and blue. That man obviously does not view women as persons independent of men, or even an equal half of a whole if you want to go that route. This is the same type of person that, if not openly, in his head, likely often finds himself asking the question "well, what was she wearing?" when told some woman was raped.
And the funny thing is, he does a disservice to men everywhere. In his relatively short statement via that wonderful social networking site FB, with all it's heaps of brilliant minds navigating it, he has managed to claim that men can't function without a woman to provide for...
Uh...
Hey gentlemen, you think that's fair?
I don't. To claim that a man can't find the drive to become a productive member of society if he doesn't have a family to bring home the bacon for is ridiculous. It's inane. It's exactly that kind of thinking that leads to people doing jack shit with their life simply because they can't find "true love" and it's a load of crap. Every person, regardless of gender, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of religion, race, or what team they root for come game time, should be able to find it in themselves to become, if not successful, at least productive without the need of validation from an outmoded ideal.
Sure, racism is taught (I know this sounds like a non-sequitur, but see screen-cap), I don't dispute that, but not talking about it isn't what makes it go away (you idiot), NOT PRACTICING it is. Not talking about it, not addressing the issue when it's presented (and it always will be, unfortunately, I have very little faith in humanity as a whole), that can be just as harmful. I don't mean to BE racist yourself, or to use racial slurs, obviously, I mean to educate. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what mister blurry face was trying to say, but in a world where the typed word is king, you had better learn to proof read your thoughts just a bit more before posting them lest you look like a court jester. Us writers will pounce all over that shit.
Now, back to the women's rights thing and this jackasses passive misogyny (emosogyny). "Ooooo, that's a cool word, what does that mean Tiffany?" Well, he just showed you what it means, but let me go ahead and add a little to it just to make it clear. Emosogyny is when someone comes across initially as in support of women, but in reality isn't. It's making comments like this (oh, jokingly, of course):
To quote another blogger (who quoted another blogger):
Passive misogyny (emosogyny) is underestimating and/or stereotyping women based on deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes and ignorance, and then getting defensive when you are called out because you do not consider yourself sexist and you do not like being wrong.
Yup. And perhaps you'd like an example. Aside from the typical not allowing a wife to work but rather firmly (but oh so gently) insisting that she stay home, cook, clean, care for the kids etc., despite what the woman may desire (more power to you if that's what you enjoy doing, I'm a SAHM myself at the moment), of course, 'cause that one's too easy. Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say this daughter's has nothing but pink everything. Let's say you never think to allow her to go down the car toy isle at Target because, well, those are boys toys, why would she want those? Let's say you buy her legos, but oh, you must buy the ones they have in girly colors, or the sets with little girl figures that come with.... hair dryers... yeah. I loved legos as a little girl. Know what, the regular colored ones suited me just fine.
This does not mean that you can't allow a little girl to CHOOSE those things for herself. In studies where both "boy" and "girl" toys were offered collectively to toddlers of varying ages, often they gravitate towards those we consider to be "gender" specific (boys toward trucks, girls toward dolls). The point is not to push those stereotypes on to our children. By intentionally (or rather ignorantly) providing your little girl with nothing but baby dolls, toy strollers, fake high heels (which seriously should be banned), and play kitchens, you are telling them that this is all you expect of them. And maybe they're okay with that, maybe they are just born to be a mommy... but maybe, just maybe, they're not. Maybe they dream of flying an airplane and see the world, or being a doctor and saving lives, or a lawyer who helps fight for justice, or an archaeologist who gets to explore exotic lands and find wonderful treasures! Do you want to deny her her dreams? Do you want to potentially crush your little girls dreams?
I never said, in fact I stated quite the opposite in the blog post that was "shared" in the post blurry face was responding too... which means he didn't read the blog... *sigh* maybe for him ignorance IS bliss. Anyway, as I said there, I do not think that being a SAHM is shameful. Quite the opposite, I think it's one of the most rewarding, hardest, scariest, nerve racking, IMPORTANT jobs a woman (or man) can do. See how I threw in that "man" all sly like. Yeah, MEN can own that role too, and be damn good at it! The point is not shaming at all. The point is allowing a choice and allowing pride in whatever that choice is, and feeling pride for them in their chosen path. Period.
It may turn out that she rocks the SAHM role, but let her decide that's the role she wants to fill, don't push her into simply because your male ego can't see past her lack of a penis.
No comments:
Post a Comment