Feminism is a just a moth-eaten myth that destroys the cult of beauty

Dick Francis, the famous British author of “horse detective novels,” was a jockey before he became a writer. He had no chances of winning in a flat race because he was too tall in stature. So he rode the horses in a steeplechase. His career seems quite impressive. Francis won more than 350 races and become Champion Jockey one year.

Photo: Feminism is a just a moth-eaten myth that destroys the cult of beauty

Feminism is a just a moth-eaten myth that destroys the cult of beauty

The story could have been different if Dick Francis had acted like a feminist and launched some campaign against the discrimination of tall jockeys in flat races instead of riding his horse better than the others and winning the races. He could have demanded that speed limits be changed, or taller jockeys be entitled to friskier horses, or quotas be introduced for taller jockeys etc. The public would have held Francis up to ridicule had he opted to do anything of the above. At the worst, a flat chase would have looked pretty miserable had he managed to change the rules toward “equal opportunities.”

Children of nature

Patriarchy is one of the most hateful things for feminists. In fact, it is just a form of social division of labor. Women bear children and take care of offspring while men hunt mammoths and decorate the walls of a cave with primitive paintings of a quarry. Men also hold a contest in order to determine who has the longest club in the tribe. All the above is the direct consequence of a biological axiom otherwise known as the “principle of the irreplaceability of a female” among the animals of different sexes. Women represent a genetic material that is far too valuable to be wasted away for no good reason. On the other hand, men deserve less pity. Let them carry the load on their shoulders, let them win bread and protect their families, let them discover and explore new lands, take part in bloody fights for to win the love of beautiful ladies, let them be subjected to nature’s ruthless experiments that result in the production of more geniuses along with more scoundrels and lunatics of all kinds.

One has to have powers in order to perform his duties and assume responsibility. In a patriarchy women have no right to be in power and make decisions. The feminists are right in pointing out inequality in such a kind of society. In the meantime, they stubbornly refuse to understand that universal civil rights are not the history’s only mechanism for the protection of somebody’s interests. There are such things as tradition, moral norms, and religious instructions. A common human conscience is also on the list.

By the bye, the Domostroi, a Russian set of household rules published in the 16^th century, became something of a by-name of the patriarchal society. Basically, the book was aimed at curbing arbitrary deeds done by the head of the family with respect to his family members. For example, the husband had the right to “teach” his wife yet he had no right to maim or kill her; drunkenness and other vices were severely condemned while thrift and hard work were lauded and so on.

Thousands of years have passed since man drew the first painting of a mammoth. Saturday shopping superseded mammoth hunting, caves gave way to skyscrapers and mortgage, and loincloths were replaced by three-piece suits or low-cut jeans. The patriarchal division of gender roles ceased to be instrumental in keeping the human race going. Today’s woman can take care of herself and her offspring on her own. In other words, she can do both man’s and woman’s work at the same time if she feels like doing it for some strange reasons.

“Doctor, where did you get these pictures?”

Being a feminist requires an enormous amount of hate and disrespect toward women.

The authors of numerous gender studies strive to convince their readers that clear-cut biological differences betweenthe twosexesdo not bring out differences in mental or psychological structure, way of thinking, social behavior and roles etc. They attempt to portray the differences as a product of the longstanding policy of exploitation and discrimination against women. They claim that the woman too can work as a programmer, be an efficient top manager, and fill the position of the head of the family. There is no point in debating the argument. Those who still remember the Soviet-era realities can easily picture the woman working as an asphalt paver. Was it a twisted idea of equality or something else?

Feminists are full of spite and venom with regard to anything that is female and feminine. They say femininity is a humiliation. Likewise, they seem to believe that the cult of beauty is an abuse and the desire of a woman to be liked by a man is a shameful thing because it is based on the perception of a woman as a sexual object. Woman’s logic and intuition are nothing but myths meant to belittle the intellectual powers of a woman. Motherhood should not hamper a woman’s career while a maternity leave should be reduced since a woman will depreciate as a qualified professional after taking a long maternity leave. Incidentally, you may be probably unaware of the fact that PMS or premenstrual syndrome is just another sexist myth designed to convince employers that woman is a hysterical creature, and therefore cannot be promoted to a higher position etc. A wife treating her husband to homemade cookies constitutes a case of exploitation because she does not get paid for performing her household duties. The question is: Who do they think should pay for that kind of job?

At times one forms the impression that feminists are hired by corporations so that female employees can focus on the career of a mid-level manager and forget about anything that may get in the way. Some of the most radical feminists even see “sex as a rape” (A. Dvorkin).

So a woman was called insufficient and abnormal. But who on earth called a beautiful, emotional, intuitive, sexy woman who is also a good housewife, a caring mother and faithful wife like that? Was the name given by the followers of patriarchy or feminism?

Equality or equal rights?

Feminists are very good at double-dealing. They can argue passionately about women being as competent as men in any walk of life. At the same time, they never miss an opportunity to demand that the proposals based on their idea of equality e.g. quotas for seats in Parliament, recruitment benefits and preferential treatment, minimum fixed wage, and a ban on “sexual harassment” be signed into law. They do not have scruples about the impact on the rights of other people should those proposals become laws. As a result, such basic rights and freedoms as the right of vote, freedom of the speech, and property rights will have to be curtailed.

Fortunately, people are not equal. It means that they will have different opportunities while having equal rights. Likewise, equality is attainable only by means of inequality of rights. People are well aware of the results of numerous experiments that were conducted to enforce the universal equality.

Feminism is often interpreted as the struggle for women’s rights. In actuality, there is no such thing as women’s rights or sexual rights or those that have to do with ethnic minorities or disabled people. There are human rights, which are universal and applicable to all. However, the results of the “application” of these universal rights to different social groups vary because every group has its own specific characteristics.

Medportal

Translated by Guerman Grachev
Pravda.ru

Become a member of Pravda.ru online community for free!