Feminism in the past was never about forcing everyone/employers/college admissions/etc. into accepting all women that apply for jobs regardless of whether or not they qualify.
all it meant was that women should not be prevented from competing. women should not be prevented from reaching their full potential in academic, educational, career circles. the concept of "affirmative action" also, in my mind meant that qualified people should not be prevented from entering the upper echelons of education and employment simply because they were women and/or minorities. it did not mean that unqualified people should be allowed in simply because they *were* women or minorities.
it did not mean that unqualified women nor racial minorities should be ushered into jobs for which they are not qualified.
all this meant was that if a woman or racial minority (or both) did in fact have the credentials, training, education, skills for a job, she or he should not be [[[dismissed as a candidate]]]] simply because she or he was not a white male.
All of this has always made sense to me. This was because I have always understood the concepts of competition and unequal capabilities. Different people have different natural abilities, skills, and talents that are gifted to them.
as a matter of fact, even thought I always identified as a feminist, the idea of forced equality has always been very distasteful to me. The thought never even occurred to me, until very recently when on the interblogs people confessed that that is the brand of feminism that had been shoved down their throats.
We all grew up hearing the phrase "everyone is created equal" from the time our infant cognitive abilities first attached meaning to those jumbled sounds that grown-ups make.
Even as a child, to me this never meant that all people are exactly alike with no difference in capabilities. It simply meant that everyone should be polite and civilized and should be kind to others.
Also as a child, I understood competition. I understood wanting to be the best. I wanted to be the best student in the class. I wanted to be the kid who got the best grades. I wanted to be the kid who read the most books. I wanted to be the kid who got the most stars. Why would anyone want it any other way? Why would anyone not want to work hard? Why would anyone not want to strive to achieve and reach their full potential? Why would anyone not want to accomplish any goals? Why would anyone not want be awarded for being the best if they truly worked hard and were the best kid in the class? The best student, the best at math, the best reader, everything. When I was a little kid, the thought of not making it a priority to be the best -- this didn't even occur to me.
I think children can kinda sorta detect when adults spout empty platitudes out their ass. I know I certainly understood. Just like all of you, I too remember always hearing that "everyone is equal."
There are plenty of phrases that make you realize, 'Oh well, people have to say those sort of things in polite society.' Another classic favorite was, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game." Again, as a child I remember likening that to rules of all kinds. there are rules about not talking in class, not being rude to the teacher, don't push and shove, don't cut in line in front of other kids, wait your turn, don't be a tattletale, don't steal other kids' school supplies, don't write in the textbooks.
Those rules were broken all the time, but they were still important. More to the point, they were a perfect ideal of sorts that everyone should try to aspire to. The more simple concrete rules -- don't spit, don't push and shove, were easy to follow. Just don't do it. However, the abstract bromides quoted above were a little harder. Even as a child, I understood that those were simply polite sayings that adults liked to quote, but kids could not realistically follow them one hundred percent of the time.
I also remember when I first started hearing about women "suffering" because of society or whatever. That was when I was about in fourth or fifth grade. I consciously remember being irritated upon hearing this phrase repeated ad nauseum.
I did not know of the phrase "self-described martyrdom" back then, and up until a moment ago I still didn't because I just made it up. But it is an accurate descriptive of how I regarded all the tales of "woe is me" about which boys and girls seemed to be in perpetual competition.
Ah, excuse me, but why in the world would anyone want to have led a terrible, long-suffering life? Why would anyone want to think of themselves as having an awful, difficult, abuse-filled life? Why would anyone want to think of their life as being miserable, despairing, bleak? Why would anyone want to have it harder? How in the world is that a good thing? Why in the world would you insist that your life is harder than life is for the "other?"
all it meant was that women should not be prevented from competing. women should not be prevented from reaching their full potential in academic, educational, career circles. the concept of "affirmative action" also, in my mind meant that qualified people should not be prevented from entering the upper echelons of education and employment simply because they were women and/or minorities. it did not mean that unqualified people should be allowed in simply because they *were* women or minorities.
it did not mean that unqualified women nor racial minorities should be ushered into jobs for which they are not qualified.
all this meant was that if a woman or racial minority (or both) did in fact have the credentials, training, education, skills for a job, she or he should not be [[[dismissed as a candidate]]]] simply because she or he was not a white male.
All of this has always made sense to me. This was because I have always understood the concepts of competition and unequal capabilities. Different people have different natural abilities, skills, and talents that are gifted to them.
as a matter of fact, even thought I always identified as a feminist, the idea of forced equality has always been very distasteful to me. The thought never even occurred to me, until very recently when on the interblogs people confessed that that is the brand of feminism that had been shoved down their throats.
We all grew up hearing the phrase "everyone is created equal" from the time our infant cognitive abilities first attached meaning to those jumbled sounds that grown-ups make.
Even as a child, to me this never meant that all people are exactly alike with no difference in capabilities. It simply meant that everyone should be polite and civilized and should be kind to others.
Also as a child, I understood competition. I understood wanting to be the best. I wanted to be the best student in the class. I wanted to be the kid who got the best grades. I wanted to be the kid who read the most books. I wanted to be the kid who got the most stars. Why would anyone want it any other way? Why would anyone not want to work hard? Why would anyone not want to strive to achieve and reach their full potential? Why would anyone not want to accomplish any goals? Why would anyone not want be awarded for being the best if they truly worked hard and were the best kid in the class? The best student, the best at math, the best reader, everything. When I was a little kid, the thought of not making it a priority to be the best -- this didn't even occur to me.
I think children can kinda sorta detect when adults spout empty platitudes out their ass. I know I certainly understood. Just like all of you, I too remember always hearing that "everyone is equal."
There are plenty of phrases that make you realize, 'Oh well, people have to say those sort of things in polite society.' Another classic favorite was, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game." Again, as a child I remember likening that to rules of all kinds. there are rules about not talking in class, not being rude to the teacher, don't push and shove, don't cut in line in front of other kids, wait your turn, don't be a tattletale, don't steal other kids' school supplies, don't write in the textbooks.
Those rules were broken all the time, but they were still important. More to the point, they were a perfect ideal of sorts that everyone should try to aspire to. The more simple concrete rules -- don't spit, don't push and shove, were easy to follow. Just don't do it. However, the abstract bromides quoted above were a little harder. Even as a child, I understood that those were simply polite sayings that adults liked to quote, but kids could not realistically follow them one hundred percent of the time.
I also remember when I first started hearing about women "suffering" because of society or whatever. That was when I was about in fourth or fifth grade. I consciously remember being irritated upon hearing this phrase repeated ad nauseum.
I did not know of the phrase "self-described martyrdom" back then, and up until a moment ago I still didn't because I just made it up. But it is an accurate descriptive of how I regarded all the tales of "woe is me" about which boys and girls seemed to be in perpetual competition.
Ah, excuse me, but why in the world would anyone want to have led a terrible, long-suffering life? Why would anyone want to think of themselves as having an awful, difficult, abuse-filled life? Why would anyone want to think of their life as being miserable, despairing, bleak? Why would anyone want to have it harder? How in the world is that a good thing? Why in the world would you insist that your life is harder than life is for the "other?"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment