Feminist Pretends To Be Male...And Learns Important Lesson
With so much misunderstanding between men and women right now, it's really nice to come across a video that helps promote a greater understanding between the sexes.
Norah Vincent is a female, lesbian and feminist who dressed as a man for eighteen months as a human experiment. She wanted to see what it was really like to be a man, and so Norah put herself through a mini become-a-man bootcamp and became "Ned".
The results were pretty interesting.
1.) Norah became much more empathetic to the difficulties of being a man in the modern world. Norah now has much more compassion for men and men's issues, not less.
2.) After being a man for 18 months, Norah became depressed and wanted to hurt herself. Was this because of the added stress she faced as a man? or was it because she felt bad about lying about her identity as she says in the interview? Maybe it was a combination of both?
3.) At minute 18:32 in the video the interviewer asks Norah if she liked being a woman before she was Ned? To which she responded, "I did, but I like it more now because I think it is more of a privilege." That's right, a person who has had the rare opportunity to live as both sexes says it is a PRIVILEGE to be a woman in Western society.
I like social movements that offer solutions and bring people together, not movements that are divisive. The idea that women should have all equal rights to men is of course a wonderful idea, but that is not what most of Feminism has become. So why call ourselves after one sex and say it is about both sexes when we can simply use a better word that doesn't create division?
For example, why not call ourselves "Equalists" so that the average man can join the movement as well? And so that we can work together, and side by side, in making sure all persons are treated fairly and respectfully regardless of gender?
If Equalist isn't the right word, maybe another one is?
The point is words matter and we have to recognize that feminism is a divisive word, and because division can never offer us the solutions we need, I think we should abandon it.
It's very similar to Black Lives Matter. BLM is a divisive concept. I know they are not saying their lives matter more, but what do we do when a white person is brutalized the the police? When a white child has a flash grenade blown up in it's face? Nothing? Those lives don't matter? There is no rally call for their suffering and injustice? And that isn't supposed to create resentment and division? Why can't we have a name or slogan that represents everyone who is involved and not just one group?
BLM is a divisive approach, and while "black lives matter" are just words, look at how powerful they are at creating a division among us!
The irony is the minorities lot never improves without the support of the majority, and so by alienating the majority, they only hurt themselves (and all of us, ultimately).
I think the golden rule we need to follow with any social or justice movement is this:
No matter who is being treated most unfairly it should always be about making sure ALL people are treated fairly.
If we follow that mantra we cannot be divided and no one can be left behind.More from me:
|
Should I Become A Comment Spammer?It's the latest craze and everybody is doing it! So why not me? [Read more] |
|
GOT - Who Will Die This Week?A song of Steem and Ice? It's GOT prediction competition time! [Read more] |
|
The TRUTH about making money on SteemitIf you want to have a profitable experience here on Steemit... [Read more] |
It's not about what feminism has become, feminism has always worked starting from the idea that we live in a world built by men which favors men at the expense of women. This idea is present in all waves of feminism regardless of how much they may speak about equality or choice, and it will always be because the idea is at the core of the ideology.
Feminism can exist without oppression but it can't exist without an oppressor.
I am trans and have lived the treatment given to men for almost a decade. I am also from the third world so no one call tell me this is about developed countries and women in other places have it worse. The better part of these years I've dedicated to creating awareness about male struggles and the biggest obstacle has been people identifying as feminists because anything other than women suffer more than men is blasphemy to them.
Feminism equates pressure to make money to power and sovereignty, this couldn't be more false.
Agreed. Men are not women and women are not men. They're different. There are exceptions but women should feel special. Mothers have great roles. Mothers have tough jobs too. Men can have tough jobs too. Feminists need to realize that some men want to treat them very well.
Sure, if a woman wants to be a mom, that should be respected just as much as if she wants to have a business or career. And a woman should be able to decide what is best for her. It's just common sense, and it's also already the reality imo.
Interesting... I think there's something more to this however than simple "lets make everybody equal." I think the point most minorities would make is that things didn't start out equal. Yes, all lives matter. And yes, equality of the sexes is a good thing. But how often do you think white lives or men's rights have been treated the way the murders and disappearances of over 1,000 native women in Canada have? Simply swept under the rug? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/04/the-mystery-of-1000-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-in-canada/?utm_term=.288ef06dd3c6
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I think a more balanced approach is that yes, equality is the goal, but there is nothing wrong with shining a brighter spotlight on injustices and crimes that are statistically far more likely to go without even the dignity of an honest investigation, much less justice.
In my opinion, everybody is different. And those differences can be a source of strength. That's kind of the beauty of humanity I think. How did civilization begin? Specialization of labor is a rather good argument. Men and women are different. People from different cultural backgrounds are different. The key in my mind is to realize and accept that different does not mean better, or worse. It simply means different. And when those differences are embraced and utilized in positive ways, beautiful things can happen.
The reason you shouldn't shine the spotlight on the group being targeted by the police more is because that group is always the minority (governments always pick on minorities) and that approach alienates the majority (that's just human nature) which the minority needs the support of if they ever want to improve their situation.
So, while you would thinking making it more about the minority, who probably is treated more unfairly, would help them, but in reality you only end up hurting the minority you're trying to help.
As well it should be noted that it's difficult to walk away from racism while continuing to use race as a defining factor in the conversation. It's much more productive to see ourselves as equal in terms of how we should be treated by government than as special interest groups.
Haha okay then. Your logic seems a little circuitous to me, but I'll bite. Why does increased attention on minority victims of injustice creates more injustice for those victims? If I'm understanding you correctly, then by your argument the families of those indigenous Canadian women who have been murdered should not draw attention to themselves if they want justice for their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. I don't really see the logic there... Not drawing attention to themselves and their community just perpetuated the cycle of abductions, rapes, and murders.
I said you shouldn't shine the spotlight on the group being targeted by the police more, not exclusively. If only one group is being targeted exclusively, of course you should make noise and call attention to it. But if everyone is being targeted, instead of calling attention to their suffering as greater, the minority should work to include the majority into their injustice and to focus more on how it effects us all. That is a message of unity, and that increases the ability to make things better.
Ahhhh okay I understand your point a little better now. Thank you for clarifying!
Not using race as a defining factor in conversations about equality is a double edged sword (in my opinion). I've had a lot of conversations with some very dear friends who have dealt with a some severe overt racism in their lives. And I was surprised to discover that denial of race -- denial of the natural differences in experience and... well... life... is in some ways just as damaging as a racist sob getting in your face and being hateful. As surprising as I found it, it made sense to me. No matter who you are, whether you are a minority, a majority, a man, a woman, etc -- if someone treats you as though your uniqueness as a human being is irrelevant, you're not going to enjoy it.
In my own friendships with people of different races, social and economic backgrounds, countries of origin, and intellectual predispositions, the pattern I've always seen is that while blatant prejudice sucks donkey balls, the far more insidious denial of a person's differences--denial of the uniqueness of their experiences and difficulties, denial of the struggles they have faced because of who they are--is in some respects more deeply damaging to that person's identity, sense of self, and ability to keep moving forward.
All blatant prejudice sucks donkey balls, and all races have blatantly prejudiced racists among them.
Yes indeed. Thanks for the fun conversation!
ROFL nice