Posts tagged feminism

Bitches Be Crazy: Patriarchy in Less Obvious Vocabulary Words

“My crazy sister thought she could get away with it.” “That crazy bitch wanted a raise.” “My crazy ex-girlfriend took the cat with her.” Similar statements can be heard from a multitude of wronged, angry men. It’s her fault, many of them say. She’s crazy.

What’s wrong with being crazy? The most brilliant minds in all time were and are considered crazy. The problem is that it becomes a derogatory term when applied to a woman. It’s a label that allows her thoughts and actions to be utterly dismissed. She suddenly has no more credibility.

Guys who are called crazy don’t lose credibility. It isn’t implied that their brains are inferior or that they are less capable of making good decisions. It isn’t whispered behind their backs that it must be PMS. When a woman asserts herself, she is called a “crazy bitch”. When a man does it, he’s just being assertive

But men are not the only perpetrators guilty of the crime of calling women crazy. Women are just as at fault, if not more so. Women disrespecting other women is absolutely nothing new. The advancing of patriarchal attitudes by women and men are so common and subtle that they are often not even recognized.

Using “crazy” is tame and barely considered an insult. But using it in a way that can be interpreted negatively can be just as abrasive as slut or cunt. “Crazy” has a negative connotation, and it is necessary to reclaim or replace the word, or make it into something that doesn’t imply a lack of knowledge and control. 

A woman who makes radical decisions for herself should not be told she is wrong or insane or a fucking crazy bitch. And women should not be shamed for doing something so rudimentary as making a decision.

I grew up in the church. I have studied the Bible. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins. I believe in God the Father. I also believe a bunch of old men have interpreted the Bible incorrectly, and that there is nothing wrong with being who you are. I do not consider myself a Christian. I do not belong to a church. I am bisexual. I am a feminist. And I believe men and women should be equal in society.

This post is to explain that last statement. Because apparently it needs to be explained.

In Genesis 1:27, it says this: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female he created them”.

I am going to say right now that I have a problem with all the”he”s stuck in there, but that’s the translation’s fault.

NOW.

I read a Bible that interprets this as men and women being equal in the eyes of God. Not everyone believes this. This has come to my attention recently (this morning) in the form of my Milton class, in which I wanted to punch a few people.

Now, it says in the Bible, after Adam and Eve sin, that part of Eve’s punishment is to always submit to Adam. Okay, fine. Whatever, Eve was an idiot. But the religious and power-hungry peeps of yesteryear (and, apparently, still today) use this as an excuse to be dickwads (pardon my French) and treat women as inferior beings.

This dude (Mike?) laughs at one point in class today and says, “All right, justified sexism!”

Excuse you?

There is a war against women going on right now, and there has been for the majority of human history. Oppression, lack of rights, etc. It’s everywhere.

We need to fight back. We HAVE been fighting back. But clearly, if views like these still exist in the general mindset of youngish populations today, we need to fight harder.

Women are equal to men. Maybe society should start acting like it. And it’s up to us to help make that happen.

Also, I apologize for any spelling mistakes; I’m doing this from my phone.

“…One-half of the moral and intellectual power of the world is excluded from any voice or vote in civil government. In this denial of the right to participate in government, not merely the degradation of of women and the perpetuation of a great injustice happens, but the maiming and repudiation of one-half of the moral and intellectual power of the government of the world” (Frederick Douglass, 1882).

Excuse me while I cry at the fact that this man is dead.

Okay. I’m fine.

Women are supposed to stay in the home, shut up, and do what they’re told, right?

Nope. Try again.

See, this model worked for a while. Then women started grumbling and glaring more obviously and some strong and highly opinionated people were born.

Thus, rights.

Well. Sort of. 

Frederick Douglass, besides being who I want to be when I grow up, had things to say about the American government. Namely, that they would crash and burn unless they let women into the system. Cause half of the population’s intelligence and morality was being ignored. He is, I believe, a feminist of an older sort—the type that believed that women are equal to men, but also that they differ in function. He mentions that women have been more involved in the freeing of slaves. He implies that women have more of a conscious than men, that they are more moral and compassionate creatures. This is not necessarily untrue (I’d believe it). It does, however, portray women as being more gentle, and more capable of caretaking. This may be insulting to some. My mother would probably agree with the statement (I don’t know how badly I would’ve turned out if my father had raised me. I’d probably be on drugs.).

I believe some women are better caretakers, and some are not. I think it’s individual. I do agree that both sexes are equal.

In conclusion, Frederick Douglass needs a shrine. Or several.

“When used by a man to refer to himself it is a “male appropriation of language no less stupidly defensive than a white man imagining himself to be a black radical.” Profeminist is a term used to describe the male who works towards feminist goals.” (Irving Weinman 1983, 133-134)

Feminism is a concept that includes working towards a goal. It is a concept that includes advancing in rights and ideas. I find Weinman’s ideas to be horribly ancient and exclusive for the application of such a movement that prides itself in advancement.

White males can have the same ideas as females, and that was addressed and it is something we agree on. “Profeminist”, however—this is where my real issue lies. Feminism is not exclusively for women. Yes, it is about women—the common goal of gaining rights, and equality in society—but labeling someone differently because they do not meet a certain “criteria”, when they share the same mindset as you, is judgmental and unnecessary. I believe men can be feminists. Not “profeminists”. 

Feminism promotes unity (generally, exceptions can certainly be made). Dividing its participants into certain groups is to divide those working for the same cause(s). It is, I reiterate, highly unnecessary.

I wonder what led to Weinman having this mindset. It sounds as though she deems men as unequal to women, in that women are superior in this cause. Perhaps she thinks that because it is about women, women know best regarding the subject? Might she believe that men can only try to understand the female psyche (ahh, and now we’ve gone Freudian), and because they will never be female, they will never truly grasp the struggles women go through? This is partially true. Men can only empathize, not experience it themselves. I still firmly believe that, because of this, they do not need a name which implies a lack of understanding. Men can be feminists, just as women can.