Thomas Agrusti
Life
November 29, 2012
An
irritating Sect: FEMINISM!
Of
all the philosophies I have studied throughout my life, none has angered me, or
made me laugh more, than feminism. However, this is not because I am misogynistic,
quite the contrary as I will go forth to show in this essay. It is because a
certain sect of feminism enrages me like nothing else, and I will also reveal
what that philosophy in question is called, any why feminism’s co-created sect
is at the top of this black list.
I
believe there are three sects of feminism. Of the three, the first is
admirable, the second a tad annoying, and the third the worst of all. The first
of this trinity is the “Equality based” feminists. These are the women who
believe there is an imbalance of power, wealth, justice, or bias otherwise
against women in western society. To a point, they have a valid argument: There
are certain jobs that research shows that women get paid less in compared to
men, certain arguments that women are overly-sexualized in the popular culture,
and that some society-founded gender roles are not becoming invalid.
These are people I
respect, and personally, I would akin myself to them, but instead claim the
stance of a “Humanist” not a “feminist”. In all my years of studying philosophy
and psychology, I have seen that the differences between men and women on a
biological level are minimal. Though men do have a muscular advantage, whereby
a male and female training and dieting identically would show a male advantage,
and men do show a generally better performance in math and science while women
hold a positive trend in reading and writing, these are still small advantages.
I know that there are women marines who are strong and agile under stressful
conditions, and are far more athletic than the everyday male, and I know of
women who vastly outweigh many men in ranges of intelligence, mathematical,
scientific or otherwise. However, these truths are not because of a genetic or hormonal
bias, they are because of the effort that each person put in. The marine is not
strong because she is a woman and the teacher not intelligent because she holds
an XX chromosome; they are strong and smart respectively because of the time
and the commitment that they devoted to their respective fields to attain those
strengths.
The before mentioned women are also ones that take a
stand on such matters. This is a trait I strongly agree with and encourage. If a
woman feel she is being wrongly treated, stereotyped or bias, she has a right
to present her argument and make the movements to change them for the better.
The second group annoys be because they fall in the
median range of these three sects. These are the feminists who believe women
have been “oppressed by men” over the years. These are found in feminist literature
very often, and I find this to be quite pitiful. If I was to make a very
generalized retrospective of history, it can be said that men, starting as the
hunter gatherers, and women, starting as the mothers and the nurturers, were placed
in biologically based gender roles, with men being stronger, more athletic, and
better suited to hunt, and women being able to give birth and breast feed the
child. These were our native societies, and as they evolved, men became predominant
leaders of these societies, for whatever reason they had at the time. This
continued through society, leading to a bias where men had access to more
resources than women. Now, these women do not aggravate because they feel
oppressed or constrained by men, society, and/or gender roles; they irritate me
because they never seem to do anything about it. As I previously stated, I can
admire anyone, man or woman, who takes a stand on a situation and strives to change
it, but many women in the feminist literature I have read over the years shows
a woman who “wants to be free” or “wishes to be so much more” but never breaks
free from her bonds, nor even shows desire to. They seem to simply sit idly by,
writing and dreaming, but never doing. This isn’t constrained to feminism
though, as I would feel the same feelings towards a person who wishes to be or
do anything, yet never makes a conscious action to do so.
One piece of “feminist”
literature that I find quite fascinating is “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I enjoy it in
because it, much like the works of Edgar Allen Poe, gives a brilliant
retrospective of madness in the first person point of view. The reader can see
the slow but steady decline of the speakers control over her sanity, slowly
being picked away until she becomes a beast like creature. However, I do not
agree with the perspective that she was “being tortured and belittled by her
husband, and HE drove her to madness.” For I believe that she could have taken
a stand at the beginning. She could have left the house if she felt endangered.
One may argue the counterpoint that she wouldn’t have been able to because of “the
society” but this was colonial America. If she fled to another state, or even
another town, she would’ve simply been viewed as a woman, and could’ve gotten
remarried. In fact, I don’t recall any reason she couldn’t divorce the man. If
one truly wants to say that “HE” was being abusive, then they would also be
charging “HER” as the victim, they would also have to point at that she was
fully aware of her distaste for the situation, and could have divorced him. One
may claim “Catholicism forbid her” if that was an element from the story, but
again, America allows for freedom of religion, and she could have just as
easily broken that conviction if she felt her life and/or her sanity were at
risk. I would stand to argue anyone who claims that the woman in that story was
“unable” to leave that situation.
Returning to the
argument at hand, I present the final sect of feminism, and the philosophy that
I despise the most. These are the feminists who believe that women are superior
to men in any and all fronts and that men do not understand them and/or cannot
comprehend their complexity. For the prime example of these despicable people,
I would present Ms. Zora Neal Hurston, the most biased and hateful feminist
writer I have ever had the displeasure to discover. Writings of her such as the
short story “Sweat” or the novel “Their eyes were watching god” show women as
pious, pure, and intelligent judicators of the world, and men as squabbling,
ignorant, and Neanderthal savages. I could go on in reasons why I am disgusted
by this writer, but I must conclude my argument. The reason why I hate these
types of people is that they are complaining about an unfounded and illegitimate
bias that they do nothing about and that has no purpose. They claim that women
are superior when studies show that humans are predominately equal, and that
placing any favor on either gender is illogical. They claim that they are
treated unfairly, yet, like the second group, do nothing but shout and cry
about their unfortunate situation, never solving the problem that is their
situation, and instead blaming an element that they cannot control: their
unalterable gender. (Note: I am not saying gender cannot be changed, as with
modern science a “Sex change” is possible, and a transgender individual can
identify with the alternate sex. I am saying this because the feminists in
question not only blame their gender for their misfortune, but also vow to not
alter it because of how wonderful they are despite their circumstance.)
Lastly, I wish their extinction because they
view life in the worst philosophical way: Futile. Futilism is a philosophy
where on believes that all things are predestined, nothing can be controlled,
and we are victims of the fates handed to us. I would be most akin to the
Existentialists, and thusly believe this philosophy to be despicable. Why do I
view feminism as the worst incarnation of this chained state of mind? Because not
only are they being futile in their thoughts and their actions, but they’re not
even being creative about it. If a person said that they had a doomed life
because of a physical or mental handicap, or because they were born into
bondage, or poverty, or some type of difficult circumstance that would take
great effort and incredible pain to overcome, then I would show some sympathy,
though still encourage the effort, for seeing someone break free of the bonds
of slavery, poverty, or unjustice otherwise is an honorable feat. But what I
hate about Futile Feminism is that it takes the base denominator, their gender,
and claims that that is the full reason that their situation is unfortunate,
and that they should be helped, or pitied, or, the worst of all, honored, because
of their stance on their situation. The idea that a person should be honored
because they dislike their place in life blamed entirely on their gender is
sickening.
These are my takes on
feminism, and in theory certain gender roles as well. I believe all women have
the potential to be great, as to men. I believe all humans have the ability to
overcome difficulties they face, be them predisposed or stumbled upon in life.
I believe traits like resilience and commitment are traits to be honored and
respected. I do not believe in Futilism, and I especially with even more
misfortune on the doom-preaching Futile Feminist.
With all such said, I
wish you a merry day and a blessed life!
Living in His Name,
Thomas Agrusti
Shine today like no
other!
