Monday, 10 June 2013

Why true gender equality would enhance our society not doom it:

Or a Rebuttal to the biggest load of ignorant textual diarrhea written that I have ever had the misfortune to read, aka: http://www.policymic.com/articles/45269/feminists-are-wrong-true-gender-equality-would-be-a-nightmare

"Yet the byproducts of these developments — namely the socio-cultural changes they brought — have been most deplorable, as they break thousands of years of existing traditions and threaten to create a new genderless society where gender identities would be erased."

This is assuming that the only gender identity that Angel is considering is gender stereotype rather than identity. Gender identity is alive and well, it is gender discrimination and gender stereotyping that are dying and about time as well. Also just because something has been around for thousands of years doesn't mean it's a good thing, FGM has thousands of years of tradition behind it, it's still a mutilation.

"It has become fashionable of late to preach that our gender identities — those of men and women — are largely created by the society and mainly consist of stereotypes and clich├ęs."

That's because they are Angel, if the ideas we as a society have about men and women weren't that way, they wouldn't need to be taught, they'd be automatic, as they do need to be taught? They're not gender identities they're gender strait jackets made from the whole cloth of nonsense.

"Why do we need to destroy these gender identities? The whole beauty of our society is that men and women are inherently different, not just biologically, but socially and cognitively as well. This constitutes the notion of family."

 Why does Angel Versetti not understand the difference between gender identity and gender stereotyping? Also Family doesn't mean man + women, it can mean many different permutations, and btw variety rocks.

"What would be the society where men were more feminine and women more masculine? It would be a genderless nightmare where there would be no stability and no progress, no love and no art."

 So Angel thinks love and art are dependent on tired old stereotypes about men and women. As an artist myself, I don't need to be feminine to create, creation, art and love isn't about what dangles or doesn't dangle between your legs, it's about wanting to create.

Also since when does a shifting of gender expectations = no gender? If we free people from gender stereotypes that hurt, that does not erase gender, it merely broadens and deepens it. As for progress and stability? Misogyny and restrictive gender stereotyping cost us in lives unlived, genius cut off from the ability to bloom, who knows, perhaps the person who could have cured HIV or Cancer is out there but because they're the "wrong" gender, they never got a chance to do the ground breaking research that would have cured either.

"The fundamental law of physics dictates that positive charge attracts the negative one."

Basic understanding of physics and what we understand about it? Not to be found in Angel's writing. In fact physics is profoundly more complicated than that.

 "By letting men become fragile, emotional and submissive and accepting the culture of women who would be strong, dominant, and promiscuous, we risk creating a society of complete equilibrium, characterised by lack of energy. The state of complete neutrality and lack of motion."

Because releasing men from the strictures of toxic masculinity would apparently make them fragile, emotional, and submissive, instead of freeing them to decide what being a man was for them and to be the people who they really are. Also even if the gender stereotypes completely flipped and everyone cleaved to them, how would it make society stall when the current set up doesn't? This is an ironic argument really, he argues that if we change society it will stall but he wants to keep society static and locked in an ideal that never really has been true.

 "It is strong men, of tough body or sharp intelligence, who have historically led society towards progress and realization of the post-modernity we are living in."

Dear Angel, men erasing the many contributions of women from areas of science, mathematics and much more does not constitute men always leading us. Many of the groundbreaking science that led to our current technological dominance was created by women as well as men, I'd suggest doing basic research because you just wrote complete bullshit. Not to mention we've had a hundred years of increasing knowledge in sociology an area women dominant in.

"It is loving and devoted women whose support in raising children and taking care of their husbands was indispensable for enduring stability and progress of societies." 

Marie Curie? (Two nobel prizes) Hypatia? (Invented the astrolabe, water distillation techniques, Hydrometer) Mary the Jewess (Invented a still and quite a few items of chemistry equipment) Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (Pioneered the smallpox innoculation in England) Lise Meitner (proved Nuclear fission) Emmy Noether (Revolutionized the theory of physics and mathematics) Inge Lehmann (First person to theorize that the earth's innermost core was a solid suspended in liquid) Anne Cannon (Revolutionised the way Stars are classified). Henrietta Leavitt (Laid the groundwork that would later let Edwin Hubble do what he did) And those are just a handful of the many many unsung female pioneers whose work was and is still integral to science, and that's just one branch of the sciences. In short Angel doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about when he waffles about men doing all the progressive stuff and women just looking after kids.

"This harmony of opposite genders has maintained stability in our society. Wars, revolutions, and societal changes occurred, but so long as the traditional gender roles remained intact, there was no fundamental threat to our society."

This is just painful nonsense. "Traditional gender roles" are a threat to our society, they stifle some of our best and brightest minds, they shackle us to a "tradition" that is complete bollocks, an idea that never existed in reality.

"Art, the whole cultural heritage of mankind, exists within the framework highlighting the difference of genders. Literature, music, films, paintings, and sculptures emphasize the bravery of men and gentleness of women."

 Hey Angel Pleasantville called, they want to know when you're coming home to a time and society that never existed.

"This is why the stance taken by feminists is destructive. They are trying and succeeding at destroying the most important expectation from women: the expectation of morality."

  Wait, weren't we talking about gender roles? Not morality? Oh wait, I forgot, I'm reading completely drivel intended to be an appeal to keep an antiquated way of thinking alive that should have died out like the dinosaur it is. There is nothing moral about stifling our best and brightest minds in slavery to some rose glassed ideal of a gender history that is almost entirely bullshit.

"The so-called “liberation of women” has done little more than to say that is it normal for women to act disgracefully: to act like a prostitute, not to care about the household and family, and to indulge themselves in vices of men."

It is okay for women to be sexual, women can do more than simply be baby machines, and weren't you just praising how forward and creative men are? Now it's vices of men when women do it? Cohesion, it is absent from the Drivel Angel Versetti wrote.

 "It is certainly shameful if a man gets drunk, sleeps around, or acts irresponsibly towards his family. Yet it is more shameful when a woman does so, precisely because women are the child-bearers and the morals and values they have will be passed onto their children."

And what will your daughters learn from you Angel? That they're second class citizens, that their accomplishments are okay to erase from the history books? To be judgmental and to sneer at others? To be hidebound and to moon after a past that never was where a nonsensical idea of gender supposedly worked? And your sons? That they should not have feelings or care? That they should judge others? That they lost something they never had because you taught them false beliefs about gender?

"Men, as risk-takers, shelter-protectors and food-providers, can in the process of fulfilling these duties get rough and divert from what is moral. This is where women, the moral-keepers, the hearth of the house, come in. They restore the inner balance in men, making sure men will not turn into savages. If women lose their morals completely, the society will descend into the state of animals"

So your sons will learn from you that their gender is actually "animal" and that they need a woman to prevent them from turning into a gorilla? Angel apparently does not credit men with being able to judge their own actions and make the choice to be moral, he thinks they need supervision.

"The point of this article is not to offend women in any way"

Mr Versetti, this article should offend anyone with a brain given the complete nonsense in it and the awful writing.

"Girls, we guys may smoke, swear, drink, fight, and sleep around — but your disapproving look will make us ashamed. If you, however, decide to smoke, swear, drink, fight, and sleep around as well, what will happen to our society? Who will we look up to? Who will our children look up to?"
  
 Typical putting women on a pedestal to put them down and to keep them down shit.

"We love you because you are not like us. Because you are different. Because you are better."

Unsaid: But you're not allowed to actually be better than us, we're going to erase your bigger contributions from society and keep you barefoot and pregnant and tell you that it makes you better when we keep you down.

"Don’t throw away the gender identities and don’t endanger our society by trying to change it. Let us men handle that."

  Yeah, let men be the ones to endanger society by clinging to a tired all nonsensical idea of gender that should die already.
  
Seriously, I cannot believe this complete crap was published, it read like something from the 1950s.

No comments:

Post a Comment