posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:20 PM
A tale of two lovers? Or enemies?
I am not a feminist nor a mens rights advocate, simply because I support the rights of all genders. Too many labels begets too much baggage anyways.
And you? I’m sure you’d tell me; but it would be vain to submit that the systems of suppression are not indiscriminate to our superficiality, and
putting the rights of one gender aside while we focus on the other sounds like a dreadful task. We who prefer to defend the rights of every
individual, regardless of race, class, creed and gender, but according to context itself, should be careful to remain neutral.
But, if gender and not power were to write the story known as history, feminism points out an important fact, a fact that is apparent by looking
outside, in the paper, on the television or in the streets: namely, that man buttresses society from both the highest and the lowest echelons of
civilization at the same time, being both the poorest and the weakest, but also the most rich and powerful. This generalization is not quite as honest
as it might be, because obviously woman has always been in these areas as well, but if numbers are any indication, let’s just say it might be nice
to get a little more female support in both these domains. The folly and gain of testosterone, that risky ambition and aggressiveness from which
either opportunity or disaster may arise at any moment, hasn’t quite served as a forgiving and padded enough wall to continually bash our head
And woman...deemed by man for so long to be too beautiful to go to war, and too natural to engage in the fiction and play-acting of man that we know
as politics, statecraft, industry, and religion, have finally been convinced by the peacock masquerade of the male sapiens that she too wants to take
part in the farce, and even go so far as to want her delicate touch to be the hand that guides this rudderless ship. Even though a mother already
knows that it is her that determines the trajectory upon which every individual shall go forth, and in a sense, woman already is the guiding force
behind society, she may perhaps wish to lower herself into the hierarchies of idealistic man. Who knows? Maybe even to be at the top?
So be it in my mind. No cog has a gender and all cogs are equal. What should it matter who runs us into the cliffs? Hell, I’m even for it. Indeed,
when I think about the injustice the patriarchal powers inflicted on dear Hypatia, and I shed a tear both for her and Hellenism, I almost wish that
there was a more feminine version of tyranny in her time.
I say that “woman”—at least how she is according to her own expression, and not how man has written her into his history and art thus far—is
rarely like the symbol man has made of her in his mythology, that she has proven too natural for his sordid metaphors. The real contradicts the
mythology in every action, and the metaphor “woman”, that supposed feminine ideal as defined by masculine minds, does little to encompass the
reality. It might be time to stop guessing what woman is and to finally ask her—what is “woman” to woman?
What has man confused and confused wrongly? He has confused where he has always confused—biology. The female body…the fact that man has slandered
this goddess for so long like he’s done all the pagan gods of old only reveals the fears of his own superstitions in regards to biology. But why?
Nature is the greatest misogynist. The female body…thrown haphazardly into an existence where you are under natural order to gestate, birth and
rear, you are more primal, you are the last elemental being of the homo genus, always tied to the same earth that man has slandered and built over for
so long, so that it is never too far beneath your feet. Not only to give life, but to cultivate it—that has to be the most important task of
humankind so far. What else is comparable? It is shame that we venerate deities and idols rather than this earthen goddess. In this respect, man hates
only his inadequacy when he hates woman. He knows that in the grand scheme of things, he is damn near disposable. Humanity would get along just fine
with a select few majestic men as breeding studs.
But, like most packs and herds, the male still serves a purpose besides rutting. One is vulnerable to the world when she creates and cultivates life.
The activity of creating life requires not only fertilization. A defender was once needed during this time—a defender that is perhaps nowadays no
longer needed. Indeed man has been defending his broods for so long, that society itself has risen as a monument to this pastime—which when compared
to other hominid species, doesn’t sound so strange a notion. The male body…it is easy to say you are no longer wanted, not needed, not required,
that your strength, your aggressiveness, are disposable and even dangerous, but woman hates only her own inadequacies when she hates man. Rather, you
are still indispensable as the protector. Sure, nowadays woman can live without you and do so splendidly, but to the extent that she still nonetheless
requires the society that you built as support and protection, the society built and so far maintained in man’s image, she is never really without
I have to remain partial where gender and intellect is concerned, for no science shows that either man or woman is more or less equipped than the
other, and I think we can safely infer that this corresponds to stupidity as well. This is another fact we might have to face—stupidity knows no
gender. Injudiciousness is a universal human activity.
Perhaps we should be more cautious. If you've become indignant against what I've written thus far, you may have mistakenly assumed I am writing
about actual people and not ideas. We might rather be like Sherlock Holmes insofar as we deduce from trifles and reason backwards. The only facts in
regards to gender are the biological kind, and since guessing is destructive to the logic faculties, probabilities and maybes are simply not good
enough to arrive at any other conclusion about any other individual, and any talk of “man” or “woman” in such generalized terms as I did
above, as if they were more than characters in a tale called History, is fantasy. In other words, “man” and “woman” are not arguments. Even
so, even if we deduce from the facts of biology, assuming we could know enough of it, it is impossible to make reasonable judgements about someone’s
worth based on gender alone; unless of course one is used to, or otherwise not worried about, being continuously wrong. Biology rarely shows the
battles, victories and defeats one has been through. Neither vagina nor penis is a prerequisite to our compassion.
What's my point? The whole gender debate is a farce, a fiction. Those who promote a gender operate under the same fictions of those who condemn a
gender, under the hyper-generalized context-forgetting rhetoric of historical mythology, rarely touching on or considering the biological facts and
reality of each and every individual. When one actually views rather than merely thinks about a fellowing human being suffering under tyranny and
subjugation, gender will not even matter to him.