Feminism as Reverse Patriarchy
It strikes me...at this late hour in my insomniac binge....that reactions against the establishment, whether in the form of subcultures or sub-ideologies, often become as anarchistic, oppressive and closed off as what they are reacting to. For example, there are some feminists and those who think they know what feminism is who react so strongly against the patriarchy and society that they in turn become a sort of feminarchy. Their need for women to be "free" and not give in to the demands of society is no better than those that influence women to follow the blonde and beautiful path.
The point is that one group or another feels they know what is best and tries to provide what they feel is the better alternative...the freer one. But telling women it is wrong if they decide to be homemakers, models, get plastic surgery, or flaunt their femininity is not allowing any kind of freedom. Freedom is about choice. Yes, ideologies exist for a reson as modals for living life and it should be a choice to follow them.
Relgious zealots do the same thing, with extremely overt Christians who condmen those they see as less Christian because they may not, for example, go to church every night. Or Muslims who think those who don't scream out "Jihad!" every five seconds and don't believe in punishing infidels means they are not true Muslims.
Or consider the punk subcluture who believe that bands who get record deals are sell outs when the medium can be used to further their message. Why does the music change nature when all of a sudden it is sold? Is it not the same music they were listening to a month ago in some dingy dark club?
Even in gay communities, those who don't go marching around in parades, or contribute funds, or those who are not out and outwardly supportive are labeled as cowards and less-than-gay.
What determines what is and is not the best for people, cultures, ideologies?
Why am I less of a scholar if I don't publish and do research yet still seek to educate myself through other means. So what if I don't want to live in the ivory tower? So what if I don't give in to the commercialism and commodity fetishism of education and thereby ignore all my pedagogic moralities in order to become a process plant professor? And does it make me any better than reverse patriarchists if I criticize those that choose to do that?
What's right, fair, just, the best thing to do, is so subjective, yet we work off these antedeluvian moralistic stone tablet tendencies to justify and make our paths clear for what should and should not be and do. Yes, we need to traverse and conform to certain ideologies sometimes in order to even navigate some basic parts of society, but does that make it right?
Sometimes I wonder if cicivlization was really just the destabilization of society.
It strikes me...at this late hour in my insomniac binge....that reactions against the establishment, whether in the form of subcultures or sub-ideologies, often become as anarchistic, oppressive and closed off as what they are reacting to. For example, there are some feminists and those who think they know what feminism is who react so strongly against the patriarchy and society that they in turn become a sort of feminarchy. Their need for women to be "free" and not give in to the demands of society is no better than those that influence women to follow the blonde and beautiful path.
The point is that one group or another feels they know what is best and tries to provide what they feel is the better alternative...the freer one. But telling women it is wrong if they decide to be homemakers, models, get plastic surgery, or flaunt their femininity is not allowing any kind of freedom. Freedom is about choice. Yes, ideologies exist for a reson as modals for living life and it should be a choice to follow them.
Relgious zealots do the same thing, with extremely overt Christians who condmen those they see as less Christian because they may not, for example, go to church every night. Or Muslims who think those who don't scream out "Jihad!" every five seconds and don't believe in punishing infidels means they are not true Muslims.
Or consider the punk subcluture who believe that bands who get record deals are sell outs when the medium can be used to further their message. Why does the music change nature when all of a sudden it is sold? Is it not the same music they were listening to a month ago in some dingy dark club?
Even in gay communities, those who don't go marching around in parades, or contribute funds, or those who are not out and outwardly supportive are labeled as cowards and less-than-gay.
What determines what is and is not the best for people, cultures, ideologies?
Why am I less of a scholar if I don't publish and do research yet still seek to educate myself through other means. So what if I don't want to live in the ivory tower? So what if I don't give in to the commercialism and commodity fetishism of education and thereby ignore all my pedagogic moralities in order to become a process plant professor? And does it make me any better than reverse patriarchists if I criticize those that choose to do that?
What's right, fair, just, the best thing to do, is so subjective, yet we work off these antedeluvian moralistic stone tablet tendencies to justify and make our paths clear for what should and should not be and do. Yes, we need to traverse and conform to certain ideologies sometimes in order to even navigate some basic parts of society, but does that make it right?
Sometimes I wonder if cicivlization was really just the destabilization of society.
