I am a man and according to feminist thetoric I am inherently sexist. Isn't that too a sexist statement? Yes, neither side of the gender divide is innocent of sexism.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
No comments:
Post a Comment