She's not entirely wrong. But broken clocks and all that jazz. There is certainly a disproportionate amount of hatred lobbed at men by certain feminists (See: Tumblr) and the idea that every man is a ticking time bomb of rape that has been adopted by a certain sect of the population is certainly worthy of scrutiny. I understand her attempt to defend men from the more fringe sides of feminism, but to then turn around and tell women that they would be nothing without men is, well, stupid. More than stupid, however, it is offensive. Her entire "logical" argument centers around the idea that women are being deprived of a strong male presence and, thus, are worse off for it.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
Oh lawd! What will all those poor meek women do without a big strong MAN to protect and care for them?!
The problem with Paglia's argument is that is considers men as benefactors to women. She once wrote that, "[i]f civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." She considers the progression of mankind to be a purely one gendered accomplishment, bereft of female contribution.
Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.
Thank your man, ladies. He made sure that you no longer had to do all that house cleaning and can now sit at home, pecking away at your computer. Like Jesus, men have been unjustly vilified in order to sacrifice themselves for your eternal salvation. Sarcasm aside, Paglia's self-assigned moniker as "dissident feminist" rings hollow when everything she says about women is degrading and archaic. She acknowledges that feminism's "proper" goal was to "attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women." Yet she attributes, seemingly solely, the abolition of these practices and the current well-being of women to hard work by men. She is forgetting, of course, the painstaking process that women have had to go through in order to get to where they are now (which is, arguably, still not ideal) and bemoans women for speaking any ill of men. But to understand the insane contradictions of Camille Paglia, a quick jaunt through her past quotes and sayings might prove fruitful.
Paglia identifies as a lesbian yet believes that the idea that all gay people are born gay is "the biggest cannard." She voted for Barack Obama but was a prominent member of the Birther camp. Oh, and she believes Chastity Bono's decision to get a sex change was a "mutilation" of her body. It's unclear whether Paglia says shit like this for the sake of being a contrarian or if she honestly believes in what she's saying, but it's irritatingly stupid either way.
Paglia's assertion that men are indispensable is, biologically speaking, correct. (For now, at least) But to presume that women are weak creatures that are unwilling to get their hands dirty is completely ignoring the fact that women, for a very long time, were considered to be lesser members of society. It was due to a male-oriented society that women were condemned to lives of "being seen and not heard" and menial house work. Birthing machines not good for much more than looking pretty, women couldn't engage in other work because it was expected of them to behave in a way that suited their gender. I don't know who drew the first gender distinction, but considering how men ended up on top, I can take a wild guess. Yes, men are cool and created a bunch of cool inventions and started civilizations and all that shit. But we (my gender, that is) also did a bunch of other horrific shit. And we shouldn't be judged solely by those actions either.
We could argue all day on if the world would have progressed beyond grass huts if women had been in charge (probably) but it would be useless speculation. Yeah, men do a lot of heavy lifting that women don't do, but that doesn't mean that the latter should fall at our feet and thank us daily for braving the horrors of the world so that they can enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Each gender possesses a lot of shitty people and a lot of good people. No one gender is responsible for the greatness of society because, like it or not, we are biologically codependent at the end of the day. In the same way women cannot exist without men, men are entirely incapable of existing without women. This is not to say that one leans on the other for support, but that we should have a mutual respect for one another for the sake of coexisting. We are, after all, stuck on this planet together. We should at least try to sit down and understand each other a little better and with a little more clarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment