forgotten children

i think it starts to dawn on me how gender has rendered differences that are beyond common/basic knowledge such as mere physical attributes. girls that i look up to are on their feminist path flaming with peaceful dissemination of knowledge, ironing out misunderstanding about feminists, while proudly wearing their feminist badge on the internet sphere. some of them lightly conceal their feminist stance and do the talking through actions, maybe to settle a dissonance that arises from a popular belief that it is better to walk the walk, that the ultimate goal is to show final results. it might be intentional that some people--if not most-- could still see an opaque layer of intentions slipped underneath those actions. some of the actions, i feel, are rather off and inevitably evoke a question from me, why the need to exclude boys? but boys often exclude girls as well, and sometimes when they don't they view them as objects/subhuman creatures who exist solely to their benefits ('party situation' as portrayed on tv, not accurate portrayal of reality though, but surely happens). but definitely these people are also feminists spreading messages, which unfortunately, differ greatly from one alike bunch to another.

when writing my paper for a module i looked up on google for the phrase 'feminist', mostly looking out for types of it for i believe there are different flavors etched onto such multi-dimensional title. if as believed by initially mentioned girls (who, according to an unacademic site who might just fork out a bag of virtual dollars out of their paypal account in order to rank first on google, are 'liberal feminists'), i am on their side. first of all maybe it is in my natural urge to 'fight for my kind' that is the female mankind. secondly i think it is important to see everybody as equal. equal not by being exact robotic copies of one another but by having proclaimed superiorities/inferiorities cancelled out. i do not wish to neglect the fact that men are superior in various areas, most of which are showcased daily, giving way to casting wider spotlight on, for example, their power (average men might be able to carry bulky stones everyday but women will not, under any circumstances, give birth everyday), and in result i have to admit i am often embarrassed by weaknesses that i perform and irresponsibly attach to my biological status as a female being.

i have to say that i look up to men. in primary school i along with the rest of my slightly-brighter-than-the-rest feminine troop managed to dominate academic battlefield for years, except for the couple last. we did not know whether it was us who got dumber (perhaps puberty dulled our wits with juvenile notions of love and pulled us away from alphabets and numbers) or whether the boys received secret extra tuition hours, causing a sudden academic climb. we thought it was magic; nothing related with development or nature. but as i grew older i realized that the same cases were pervasive--boys embark on serious journey of intelligence later than the girls.

i did feel defeated. i did feel the need to prove my superiority not on the behalf of my female friends, but for myself. but i also thought that men's secretive ways of snaking their way up is ultracool. i never wondered "if i were a man", i just plainly think there are areas they probe much better. and there are also others that i admire in women, but maybe not as much because i am practically 'looking in' and it is harder than observing/'looking out'. but more or less that is what i meant by canceling out superiorities/inferiorities. i do not think that being perfect means being flawless, or a state of 'being better' is absolute. sometimes being content is nice and does not hinder progress--it is a good thing to acknowledge what we have. i am a sucker for superlatives and the idea that everybody is attached to subjectivities.


third i think men and women are different and that is the end of the sentence. different just like how i am different from you and no one including us could pinpoint exactly who is better. i do not really get people who always do their thinking in absolute terms ('this is better'), rather than flexible ones ('this is different'), although sometimes it is required that we exert our opinions but most importantly also take responsibilities of them.

fourth there is no clear picture of what are feminine and what are masculine, other than biological traits. there is only general consensus--that men are physically stronger and women are emotionally expressive, at least when alone/with the closest ones. but there are men who cannot lift heavy suitcases and there are women whose tears are as rare as snow in bahamas. there are feminine traits in biologically masculine species and vice versa, whose extent differs from one individual to another.

when i was a kid i was wondering why is it that a rapist has to always be a man and the victim a woman. i think i asked my mother but i did not remember her answer. i am wondering too now why is there a feminist movement and no masculinist one? is it because men do not feel the need to defend themselves? do we as women feel insecure that no one acknowledges our superiority in certain areas? if the goal is to see everybody as equal then why does it have to be named 'feminist'? to me it sounds as if it was a movement to make people understand why girls could or maybe should be always able to do it better.

anna-marie slaughter's piece on her still not being able to 'have it all' was not just being slaughtered by feminists from all corners of the world, but also praised with careful dissection. i think it is an important piece and on deeper level it reminds us of what it means to 'have it all'. does it mean to be able to play both man's and woman's roles and even code-switch between them most of the time? but that seems only applicable to women. dear feminists, what do you think of 'being able to have it all'? is it to gain equal or even higher salaries, is it to maintain staggering respect while also being an exceptional mother? or while throwing our primitive role as mother (overpopulation issue aside)? then why the idea of being a 'mother' (not biologically) seems less desirable to men, or even recently to some women? does that mean that men's role as breadwinner are more desirable and they already 'have it all'?

i just think that it is important to raise questions before getting my ball rolling.

No comments:

Post a Comment