args

First World Feminism in the USA

Roar! Bring it to me! === As we contemplate the reason for our existence, eventually, one way or another, we'll come across gender as part of our self-reflection process. We ask ourselves the biggest question of the day, "Why women?" and "Why not men?" and of course sometimes we receive the usual "Suck it up whether you like it or not" responses. Do these questions then, warrant a change in the social sphere? Why is it so necessary to cater to those oppressed? The Whole Women The concept of defining women is often subjected to absurd premises. Numerous cases, women are still simplified by their ovaries, by the amount of 'cleavage' that they possess, and are usually subjected to the usual train of misogynistic thought "You're like this because you're a women". Simone Beauvoir perfectly captures this exact plight accurately in her book "The Second Sex"(1): "Humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being." ~Simone Beauvoir The concept of the second sex still exists to this day. Institutionalized discrimination on a political scale may not exist, but the social stigma are still widely accepted and normalized throughout society, particular in the US. The purpose of feminism is to combat this stigma, with the same amount of fire if needed. If the language of civil debates isn't possible within these misogynistic individuals, feminists deserve every right to respond with the same amount of tenacity. Criticism directed at this premise usually involves something alone the line of "This is more of an emotional tirade than a rational discussion". The criticism is correct but in no way does it disprove feminist theories. The public sphere is often irrational, more so if it includes social norms, which is unquantifiable by nature. If the tone of discussion are unable to accept academic ways of discoursing, then neither group should sought the means to engage in it, rather, they should engage in whatever that is best for them. If attacking social norms require passion that vibrates by the string, then so be it, as long as the messages are conveyed successfully within the social sphere. One may ask "What's the point if both of them will simply reside in their own ignorance?". This sort of sweeping criticism, again, fails to address the issue. The point of controlling public opinion is to sway it by persuasion, and not by rational discussion, since people are more attuned to emotional passion, rather than a rational viewpoint. Jeremy Waldon, in his book "The Harm In Hate Speech" said "It was at the mercy of public opinion, and public opinion was looking well-nigh ungovernable"(2) in relation to society and power structures within it. He is correct, public opinion is ungovernable and almost impossible to influence unless one engage in the occasional persuasive rhetoric. If feminist desire equality, they have to overcome this obstacle first and the only way to do so, is to influence and engage in a speech that the general public accepts. It is as Simone puts it "Women discovers herself as the inessential and never turns into the essential, it is because she does not bring about this transformation herself." The transformation requires an emotional value which will then sway public opinion that translates into change for society. The premises surrounding feminism are justified, it is a net benefit to society as a whole. The means to achieve equality may not be rational, but if the final product results in equality, then there is no reason to suppress it. Sources: (1) The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir (2) The Harm In Hate Speech, Jeremy Waldon ===== I apologize for the short argument but I can't argue more than what I've said, I'm managing so many things at once. I have spring semester to handle, housing and classes to finalize. Sorry again. That is all for now. The floor is yours, con, I pray that this may engulf into a flamewar. Good Luck.