posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 01:57 AM
The points she brings up are largely illustrative of why I feel that the feminist movement has pushed the pendalum too far in the US. From what I can
tell, it was needed at a certain point in our history- there was a time when there was no shame in being accused of misogyny, rape was largely
condoned, or excused, by the community, wife beating was considered a mans duty as part of taming the animal lunatic nature of woman, and laws did not
give women the same rights as men.
But they were able to change that, and now, they just seem to have trouble perceiving that. The most extreme feminists I have met seemed to be
externalizing an internal conflict, fighting inner demons of their own through projecting them outwards- thus you get some hypocritical behaviors.
Another thing I notice is that the US has had a traditional value upon individualism - which nurtures oppositional behavior.
In that, I mean the habit of taking the opposite view or position of whatever the collective seems to hold. A person feels that they are "different"
then everyone else, with a liberated mind, when they do this.
What results is extremism- especially as extreme opinions give rise to equally extreme opinions, and because our social instincts are still intact (no
matter how much we try to deny and reject them) people end up grouping together. But either they remain small (so that they can say we are just a few
"free thinking individuals" against the majority) or the groups they identify with are linked mostly by ideology, but not physical presence and
effort. (being someone who makes videos alone at home versus someone who is physically involved in a community of like thinkers that gather to move
their ideas into the concrete world with action).
You find an extreme split on almost every issue in that country, virtually no moderates, because that is too closely linked to uniformity- our biggest
foe. Individuals are traditionally recognized by their non-conformism.
I have put out questions on forums, asking what people felt on the idea of "moderation" or "mediocrity", and ALL of the Americans that
participated felt a strong repulsion to the terms. The worst thing in the world to be is mediocre, or moderate. Either one is the best, or the worst
(for one can even be the best at being the worst!) .
(just following my stream of thought and where it goes, I just looked up the definition of mediocrity, and saw a comment under it someone had posted-
"Mediocrity: to be led by the majority, incapacity to soar...".
To be balanced, to be moderate, intermediate, fair is "bad" in our values upon individualism.
What I find so supremely ironic in the current state of our culture is that,
That value has set us up such that,
To truly be "different" from the herd, a stance of moderation, and not of extremism is probably the most clear sign of a free thinker! To resist the
pull of being pushed to one extreme or another in reaction to others around you, takes a great force of individual will!
I think I got carried away with my train of thought and missed my stop (no regrets or apologies, I enjoyed every minute of it and discovered new
terrain). What I started out wanting to say on the topic is that the extreme opinions she refers to are not any more important than their extreme
opposants. If a culture is outwardly paternalistic, it will be covertly maternalistic, and vice versa. Here in France the term macho is used to refer
to misogynist- and it carries that suggestion in it- the macho is full of strutting claims of dominance- until he gets home to momma who is the real
covert power who pulls his strings.
The extreme feminists, I see the same way. Despite their overtly proclaimed positions, they show a covert masculine/paternal power.
We got our animas and animus's, push 'em down they just get more subversive and powerful.