Ok, am I the only one who had a hard time with class on Monday Friday? When Erin was talking about how we should try to understand and rationalize with the people who think that it is a good idea to cut men’s penises off, I just felt like she was rationalizing fundamentalism and, by proxy, terrorism. Am I the only person who still thinks that violence is NEVER justified until all other options are exhausted? I really don’t think that rationalizing with someone who wants to cut my dick off is going to change their minds, or mine for that matter. They hate who I am at a level that I can’t change. No matter what I do, they will still hate me. That’s discrimination and sexism. Isn’t that what they are fighting? My definition of a hero is someone who fights evil without succumbing to it. And while they are fighting for women’s rights, they started doing the same things as those they hated. They started thinking the same way as those who were trying to oppress them.
The women of the Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM) are trying to motivate change by making men afraid of them. They hope that policies and opinions will be changed by men because of the threat of losing a part of their bodies. I will never allow myself to believe that the means justify the end (which is what terrorism is fundamentally about).
If that is the kind of person that Susan Douglas is, then I am going to just stop reading this book. I have a real problem with the justification of violence. I don’t know if Douglas is this overly radical, but it was insinuated in class. I think that Douglas is just an angry idealist, but that is where the process of fundamentalism starts.
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, began her organization with great intentions, but when radical idealist got wind of her ideology, other groups with less virtuous members started their own political action groups. Such groups are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). This group firebombs animal testing faculties. They go into classrooms and teach kids how to make incendiary bombs. Their most notable public figure is former member Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of arson when he burned an animal testing facility at the University of Michigan to the ground. Douglas should, in her book, condone this type of activism. She should also be wary of people who don’t have such a moderate view who get a hold of her book. They could be motivated by her words (as confusing as they are) and commit an act of terrible violence towards men.
I’m not saying that Douglas’ book should be banned. What I am saying is that she should take proactive measures to keep her distance from violent feminists. Everyone has every right to say whatever they want, and let the free market place of ideas run its course and determine what is correct. But if she is not careful, she will be seen as a radical feminist who sees the road of change lined with blood.
Hating someone for a belief is a terrible thing to do. I mean, I don’t really like people who are overly religious, but you don’t see me trying to hurt them or burn down churches, mosques, and temples. And I don’t hate them; I hate the idea that they believe in, not them. Hate should be specific (if at all). Hate someone for something that they do, like “I hate Jim because he abuses kittens.”
This radical feminist ideology is something that I will never allow myself to rationalize, or sympathize with. The end never, ever justifies the means!
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Friday, February 6, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Confused Reader
Boy I sure love reading this book (it is very hard to convey sarcasm in a blog). The book is confusing and difficult to read. Susan Douglas needs to word her examples better. For a nearly two pages she talked about the movie Imitation of Life. I couldn’t follow her train of thought for that whole time. The movie is from the late 50’s, so I didn’t have any prior knowledge of it. Having a quick synopsis was helpful, but if it had been understandable, that would have been much better.
What I could understand, sounded like she was complaining. Ok, the first thing that you have to realize with the media is that no matter what the information is, or who is giving the information to you: The media is always trying to sell us things. Whether it is a product or an idea, they are trying to sell you it. You, as a consumer of media, are responsible for filtering out the prejudice and the inappropriate.
When she wasn’t complaining, she was advocating a change. But it’s not the kind of change that you would expect. On page 27 she says, “Since I would be nothing without a man… I’d better learn how to be cute and popular, how to stand out from the herd.” I may have not completely understood her perspective, but it sounds like she is advocating that women become gold diggers. Isn’t that something that feminists would generally avoid? And isn’t her audience… feminists?
The whole time that she was discussing Disney, I felt as if she was personally angry at the company. I know that she has a personal interest in what they did, but I don’t think that Disney did it on purpose. They looked at what was popular in the 1950’s and created a product that reflected that. Like I said; use your own filter. If you found the material the Disney was selling offensive, do something about it. Stop buying Disney products or better yet, create your own product that is to your liking. And then let the free marketplace of ideas decide which is better.
If consumers like your product, then you know that people were forced to tolerate Disney’s prejudice. But if can’t sell your product to anyone, then we know that people don’t read into cartoons, and that they teach their kids what is right and wrong on their own.
Besides the stories of Disney are full of Jung’s archetypes which are arguably ingrained in us as a society. That it is part of who we are as a worldwide culture. Many different geographic regions have a similar mythology. Jung’s argument links archetypes to heredity. He began regarding them as human instincts. These are patterns that we are born with, and they structure the human imagination. They make us distinctly human.
If it’s in our instincts, then there is almost nothing that you can do about it. People will fight a change that tells them their instincts are wrong.
On page 31 Douglas discusses how women see the flaws in their beauty. “We learned… [to] identify our many imperfections, and to learn to eliminate or disguise them, otherwise no one would every love us.” I found this comment particularly interesting. Because when I chose someone to date, I prefer that person to have flaws. One of my favorite quotes is, “Look for the flaws in beauty, and see the beauty in flaws.”
What I could understand, sounded like she was complaining. Ok, the first thing that you have to realize with the media is that no matter what the information is, or who is giving the information to you: The media is always trying to sell us things. Whether it is a product or an idea, they are trying to sell you it. You, as a consumer of media, are responsible for filtering out the prejudice and the inappropriate.
When she wasn’t complaining, she was advocating a change. But it’s not the kind of change that you would expect. On page 27 she says, “Since I would be nothing without a man… I’d better learn how to be cute and popular, how to stand out from the herd.” I may have not completely understood her perspective, but it sounds like she is advocating that women become gold diggers. Isn’t that something that feminists would generally avoid? And isn’t her audience… feminists?
The whole time that she was discussing Disney, I felt as if she was personally angry at the company. I know that she has a personal interest in what they did, but I don’t think that Disney did it on purpose. They looked at what was popular in the 1950’s and created a product that reflected that. Like I said; use your own filter. If you found the material the Disney was selling offensive, do something about it. Stop buying Disney products or better yet, create your own product that is to your liking. And then let the free marketplace of ideas decide which is better.
If consumers like your product, then you know that people were forced to tolerate Disney’s prejudice. But if can’t sell your product to anyone, then we know that people don’t read into cartoons, and that they teach their kids what is right and wrong on their own.
Besides the stories of Disney are full of Jung’s archetypes which are arguably ingrained in us as a society. That it is part of who we are as a worldwide culture. Many different geographic regions have a similar mythology. Jung’s argument links archetypes to heredity. He began regarding them as human instincts. These are patterns that we are born with, and they structure the human imagination. They make us distinctly human.
If it’s in our instincts, then there is almost nothing that you can do about it. People will fight a change that tells them their instincts are wrong.
On page 31 Douglas discusses how women see the flaws in their beauty. “We learned… [to] identify our many imperfections, and to learn to eliminate or disguise them, otherwise no one would every love us.” I found this comment particularly interesting. Because when I chose someone to date, I prefer that person to have flaws. One of my favorite quotes is, “Look for the flaws in beauty, and see the beauty in flaws.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
