January 12, 2005

Patriarchial Blah Blah Blah

As the Cake Eater Father was always saying during my youth: why would women want to be equal when they're already superior?

While I'm fairly certain my dear old Dad was trying to get around the feminazi movement in a clever way with this statement, and that equal pay for equal work wasn't really at the top of his mind, the man's got a point. We bring life into the world and nuture it. Men, no matter how hard they try, simply can't do that. Furthermore, we keep men from killing one another for sport. We keep them in line and our society is better as a result. There is already great power in this, yet most feminists refuse to see it. They only see what they don't have, instead of exploiting the power angles that we already possess.

I've long said that if we women really wanted to rule the world, all we would need to do is have a day like the Great American Smokeout, but only we'd call it the Great American Flash-o-Rama or something similar. It's a pretty simple concept, really. Heterosexual men lose all train of thought when their eyes light on a pair of boobs. If every woman in the country took off their shirt for a day, we could take over while the men were busy looking at our boobs and could fix most of the problems with a little ingenuity and some elbow grease by four p.m.

This would take some sacrifice on our part. Women generally don't enjoy acting like strippers. This is fine, too. After all, women are better than men: we don't want to act like them. Men are constantly acting in reference to their perceived penis size. God only knows what havoc would result if cup size came into it. But I digress---the reason women would never do something like this is because we have men where we want them already. If we have to throw them a bone---like handing over the keys to the kingdom---every now and again, fine. So be it. Strife only enters the equation when you want to balance the equation not realizing it's---ahem---already balanced.

So, no I don't consider it to be a big deal when a man opens a door for me, or pulls out my chair or stands at the table when I'm in the process of sitting down. I like it. While I fully recognize this sort of act is mostly a matter of common courtesy, and not an act of deference to my sex, I sort of like the thought that it might be an act of deference to me as a woman. What is wrong with that, I ask you? Men wouldn't be here if we women weren't around: why not pay homage to that? Why would some woman get upset over having Neil Cavuto let her off the elevator first, and then hold open the door for her? Why is Cavuto's act automatically some demand for submission to the ruling patriarchial world order?

The chick's got problems if a chivalrous man causes her that much bother. There are women, all over the globe, who have serious problems with men who could teach this woman a thing or two about the real struggle for female equality. These are the women who are ritualistically raped by their male neighbors and then are stoned for having committed adultery---even if they're not married. If they're not stoned, they're told that---because of something they had no control over---they have brought shame upon all the male members of the family and are treated accordingly. Which means being beaten to within an inch of their life. Sometimes they're even murdered because of this shame---and the men get off when they're charged with the crime because said shame is an ok excuse for murder.

These are the women whose genitals are mutilated when they are small girls because their male family members do not ever want them to experience sexual pleasure as it might morph them into a loose, libertinious woman.

These are the women who are not free to divorce an abusive spouse, but whose husbands are free to divorce them simply by saying the words "I divorce you" three times.

These are the women who are wrapped up in yards and yards of black cloth to prevent men from being tempted by their wares.

These are the women who are not free to leave their house without the accompaniment of a male relative because no other man is allowed to have contact with them unless that man is there. And not because the male relative is afraid of the sexual ambitions of some unknown man---he's afraid that this woman might lure the man into temptation. He's protecting the man and not the woman to whom he is related.

These are the women who are legally banned from driving a car because if it broke down, who would be able to help them?

These are the women who today, at the beginning of the twenty-first-century, still have no say in how their government runs because they do not have the right to vote.

I could go on, but I think you get the gist. This chick doesn't have a clue as to what's really important, and if she thinks that she's showing solidarity with her oppressed sisters across the globe by refusing a kind gesture, she's kidding herself.

In other words, save your resistance to the patriarchial hegemony for when it's really needed and will really make a difference.

Posted by Kathy at January 12, 2005 01:13 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?