Tags

, ,

http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/02/men-are-obsolete/

Lets get some basic facts.  First What is feminism?

The Oxford English Dictionary is considered the definitive dictionary, the best dictionary.  It defines feminism as

the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

The advocacy of women’s rights.

The advocacy of WOMEN’S rights.

Let this sink in, Feminism is the advocacy of WOMEN’S rights.

The advocacy of women’s rights.

Now Lets look at Hanna Rosin’s “Men Are Obsolete

She makes 5, really 6, points.  Lets look at them.

ONE: It’s the end of men because men are failing in the workplace.

What support does she offer for this ominous claim?

men are failing to adjust or get the skill they need to succeed [in the workplace].

This is true, men are failing to adjust to the Brave New World.  My question is what CAN feminism do about it?  How can “The advocacy of women’s rights” even consider addressing this problem?  How could more rights, more benefits for women possibly hope to address men’s failure to adjust to changing times?  It can’t.  Feminism isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.  We need a Men’s Human Rights Movement to address “The advocacy of men’s rights on the grounds of social, political and economic equality to women”.

TWO: It’s the end of men because the traditional household, propped up by the male breadwinner, is vanishing.

What does she say about this?

Women are occupying positions of power that were once totally closed off to them.

Yes, men are obsolete because women are now doing the things that where once closed off to them.  Men are not doing the things that are still closed off to men.  One in five Senators in the US is female.  One in THREE HUNDRED homemakers in the US is male.  Men are excluded from fully participating in social and economic activity traditionally female.  Again, I ask how can “Advocacy of WOMEN’S rights” hope to address this?  Why would anyone think that feminism can address this, unless female dominance, not equality to men is the real goal of feminism.  We can’t change the outdated harmful regressive and oppressive gender role of men by Advocating for more rights, but only for women.  We need a Men’s Rights Movement to address the issues facing men.  We need a men’s rights Movement to change the gender role of men to function in this Animal Farm.

THREE: It’s the end of men because we can see it in the working and middle class.

And the affects?

as men lose their jobs and lose their will to be fathers

It’s point three before Hanna actually got something wrong.  Men are losing their jobs, but men are not losing their will to be fathers.  Men losing their jobs means that they don’t have the income to support their families.  Since we have chosen to not address the outdated dogmatic regressive and oppressive gender roles of men, this income that men no longer have was their only perceived contribution to family.  With out this contribution, men are excluded from family.  Once excluded, it’s not that men lose their WILL to be fathers.  They don’t have the financial means to fight decades of court battles to have even tangential attachments to their children.  Often men are locked up in debtors prisons for being to poor to pay child support.  It is not losing the jobs that excludes fathers, but a twisted court system of 1984.  For a third time now, How can “Advocacy of Women’s Rights” even be considered a possible option for solving this problem.  It can’t.  We need a Men’s Rights Movement.

FOUR: It’s the end of men because men have lost their monopoly on violence and aggression.

Men never had a monopoly on violence or aggression.  The monopoly was on being held accountable for said violence and aggression.  Men and women are in fact equal, not “should be considered” equal.  Women are and always have been just as violent and aggressive as men.  Men outnumber women in prison 12 to 1.  So while women are just as criminal as men, men and almost exclusively men are held accountable for their actions.  I mean really.  40% of Rapists are women, but the anti-rape campaigns are “Teach MEN not to rape“.  And again, how can “Advocacy of women’s rights” even hope to be a solution to this problem.  We need Men’s Rights Activism so that men are the social political and economic equals of women.

FIVE: It’s the end of men because men, too, are now obsessed with their body hair

I really have no clue how changing standards of “Sexy Men” has anything to do with anything.  Beards are a fashion that comes and goes with no greater social political or economic meaning outside of possibly selling a few more razors.  Chest hair is no different.
Of all of the point Hanna makes I think the unnumbered last point is the most telling and most important.

I see my job as accepting him [Hanna’s son] as he is, and teaching him how to adapt to the world as it is.

So men should just adapt to the world as it is regardless of how unfair, unjust oppressive and regressive it is?  Men, unlike women, need to just adapt to the world as it is.  Do you really think that the women of 1970, when women where falling behind and becoming “obsolete”, that they should “just adapt to the world as it is” not fight to make the world a better place?  Feminism was misguided in trying to change the world to be a better place for women, women should have just accepted their place and adapted?  I call  BULLSHIT.
Image
Bullshit
 Bullshit_46346
Bullshit
 Bullshit_46346
Bullshit
In 1970, 44 years ago, women where getting the shit end of the stick.  In 1970 feminism inspired change to make women the social political and economic equals to men.  In 1970 women formed a movement for change.  Now in 2014, men are getting the shit end of the stick.  Men don’t need to just accept their place and adapt, women didn’t.  Men need to form a movement for change, a men’s rights movement.
Advertisements