Thursday, April 15, 2004
feminism, part two
***Controversial blog. Read disclaimer at the bottom of the page first.***
Women's rights. Interesting term. Human rights, I fully understand. But I just simply can't understand the logic behind women's rights. Why do women need seperate rights? I certainly have not heard of men's rights. Why the need for seperate categories? Can't it all be lumped under the main banner of "human rights", where everybody is treated equal?
You may be wondering what extra rights men require, since women always argue that they are treated unfairly in a pre-dominately male society. However, consider the following:
1) Women can wear men's clothes and nothing is said. Its a norm for women to wear jeans and shorts these days. However, in most countries, a man wearing a tank top and a skirt can be prosecuted for cross-dressing. I am not saying that all men are dying to try on a pantyhose, but consider the plights of transverstites. Wearing lipstick and make-up would result in them being scorned by the society. Faggots, queer, Mak Nyah, Ahqua. All not very nice names, just because they choose not to conform the norm.
2) A man is considered a hopeless bugger if he earns less money than his wife. It is also frowned upon if the woman has had a higher level of education than her husband.
3) If a man sits at home and does housework (ie. clean the house, pick up the kids, etc..), while the woman goes out to work and earns money for the family, he will not hear the end of mockery.
Barring a few countries where some women are denied the rights to get a job, denied the rights to get a proper education, the rest of the world has pretty much opened up to letting women enjoy the same rights as men do. But the same social taboos remain for the male species.
I am a strong advocate that all human beings should be given equal rights. That ALL humans should be allowed to get a proper education. Women's rights activists in the past fought for the rights for women to get an education, and to be equal. But if they were so bothered about equal job and education opportunities, they should have fought for the rights of ALL humans. But nobody seemed to bother about the disabled people. Even till today, in most countries, disabled people are denied the rights to a proper education, simply because most governments don't really give two hoots about them. The poor in undeveloped countries are also denied the rights to a proper education, but nobody seems to give a shit as well. And what about the ethnic minorities being denied job opportunities?
"Women's rights" in my opinion is a crap term made up by feminists who hate men and who think that men are out to screw them over. Simply because, if they are so interested in EQUALITY, then champion the cause of human rights, fight for the rights of ALL humans, male and female regardless, including the disabled, including the poor and the ethnic minorities - not just one particular sub-species. Fighting for something that benefits your kind alone is not called championing your cause, is it called selfish hypocrisy.
**Post publication entry - There was a very good rebuttal article written by my friend Inverse. I followed up that rebuttal with another argument rebutting her arguments. You can read both her article and my rebuttal to that here.