The problem of minorities is that they have to prove they are as strong and as tough as the stereotypical white man.
Of course there is no stereotypical white man because white men are afforded the option to be whatever they bloody-well like. They can be kind, they can be tough, they can be gentle, they can be tyrants, they can be intelligent, they can be shallow, and they can be any combination of the above or whatever else they would like to be.
Hillary Clinton famously succumbed to having to prove she's strong when she voted for the war in Iraq and said she would invade Iran. I believe she'd in principle do neither but says she would so people (specifically men) wouldn't say she was weak on war. As we know, the stereotypical woman is weak, a peace-loving soul when it comes to war and defense and a female president would let nations with more masculine leaders walk all over us. Come on, we know that's the rationale behind some of the treatment Hillary Clinton got in 2008. Although societies which are matriarchal aren't necessarily peace-loving at all. Some of them have been some of the fiercest and totally war-like, like the Aztecs. There is much debate, of course, about whether there has ever been a matriarchal society because men don't want to lose power because of precedent but the distinguishing factor between male and female run societies is the degree of grandiosity for the seats of power. Where the king, president, governor sits will be grandiose for male run societies and there will be no way to distinguish where the power radiates from in female run societies. I suspect this is true because women tend to form equalities rather than men who form hierarchies.
I've been bitterly disappointed with women in politics, its like they all have this agreement that the only way to be a woman in politics is to really act like a stereotypical man.
I really think a 'liberated' woman is a woman who is free to make her own choices and to have as many options available to her as a man, including and especially the choice to determine when or if she'll have children.
Unfortunately we see those qualities that the stereotypical woman has as being weaknesses rather than strengths, yet countries like England, France and Russia chose women archetypes as their personification, with Marianne, Mother Russia and Britannia.
Of course there is no stereotypical white man because white men are afforded the option to be whatever they bloody-well like. They can be kind, they can be tough, they can be gentle, they can be tyrants, they can be intelligent, they can be shallow, and they can be any combination of the above or whatever else they would like to be.
Hillary Clinton famously succumbed to having to prove she's strong when she voted for the war in Iraq and said she would invade Iran. I believe she'd in principle do neither but says she would so people (specifically men) wouldn't say she was weak on war. As we know, the stereotypical woman is weak, a peace-loving soul when it comes to war and defense and a female president would let nations with more masculine leaders walk all over us. Come on, we know that's the rationale behind some of the treatment Hillary Clinton got in 2008. Although societies which are matriarchal aren't necessarily peace-loving at all. Some of them have been some of the fiercest and totally war-like, like the Aztecs. There is much debate, of course, about whether there has ever been a matriarchal society because men don't want to lose power because of precedent but the distinguishing factor between male and female run societies is the degree of grandiosity for the seats of power. Where the king, president, governor sits will be grandiose for male run societies and there will be no way to distinguish where the power radiates from in female run societies. I suspect this is true because women tend to form equalities rather than men who form hierarchies.
I've been bitterly disappointed with women in politics, its like they all have this agreement that the only way to be a woman in politics is to really act like a stereotypical man.
I really think a 'liberated' woman is a woman who is free to make her own choices and to have as many options available to her as a man, including and especially the choice to determine when or if she'll have children.
Unfortunately we see those qualities that the stereotypical woman has as being weaknesses rather than strengths, yet countries like England, France and Russia chose women archetypes as their personification, with Marianne, Mother Russia and Britannia.
France's Marianne is supposed to represent Liberty, Reason and Equality. I have seen the choice of a woman representing being slow to war being a good thing and why France chose a feminine representation, but I see Wikipedia has dropped that and even sound dubious about any good reason at all for choosing a female representation. Of course Wikipedia is mostly edited by men.
Mother Russia is chosen to represent the unity between the different ethnic groups that Russia consists of. Again the idea of collectivity and equality raises its head.
Britain's use of Britannia dates back to Roman Britain's time where she represents Minerva, the goddess who sprung from the head of Jupiter, the goddess of reason.
This would clearly indicate the stereotypical woman was
a) reason, as we see both with Britain's and France's choice of a woman to represent them.
b) Inclusive, people aren't excluded from a woman's circle as we see from Russia.
c) Equality
d) liberty - women don't try to control people as men do. I think this is because men need to feel more important than someone else.
Perhaps we need to revise our definition of stereotypes. Didn't the US wage a civil war to establish equality between men? There is nothing mini- about the well established nations of France, England and Russia.
Nevertheless not all women are reasonable, some women exclude other people from their circle, some women don't treat all equally, and some women like to control others. And all of this can be said and more so for men.
Mother Russia is chosen to represent the unity between the different ethnic groups that Russia consists of. Again the idea of collectivity and equality raises its head.
Britain's use of Britannia dates back to Roman Britain's time where she represents Minerva, the goddess who sprung from the head of Jupiter, the goddess of reason.
This would clearly indicate the stereotypical woman was
a) reason, as we see both with Britain's and France's choice of a woman to represent them.
b) Inclusive, people aren't excluded from a woman's circle as we see from Russia.
c) Equality
d) liberty - women don't try to control people as men do. I think this is because men need to feel more important than someone else.
Perhaps we need to revise our definition of stereotypes. Didn't the US wage a civil war to establish equality between men? There is nothing mini- about the well established nations of France, England and Russia.
Nevertheless not all women are reasonable, some women exclude other people from their circle, some women don't treat all equally, and some women like to control others. And all of this can be said and more so for men.
Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story.
Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has
been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything.
- Jane Austen, Persuasion
Men are continuing to wrestle women for power and many women are letting them.
A 'woman' tweeted at me today: I know women are capable of getting their own things, no need to beg from men.
Yet the US govt is subsidizing old men viagra and postvac.com. Who has the advantage here? Who has the power? Old men have the advantage, and it is a woman arguing women should surrender our power while men still get subsidized advantages. Women do not have more money, but men do, particularly old men.
Anyway, the point of this post is women in power should not have to act like men. Women in power can prove to have many excellent qualities that the stereotypical white man does not generally have.
For Samantha on Sex and the City, it was to fuck as many men as possible. Acting like a man might wish to act isn't liberation either. Women will score as often as she likes, very likely, whereas men wish they could score that often. Have sex if you want to, by all means, but don't do it because you think its giving you equality, do it because you want to.
Is our real problem, that we do not know what real women are like and what it means to be a woman?
A 'woman' tweeted at me today: I know women are capable of getting their own things, no need to beg from men.
Yet the US govt is subsidizing old men viagra and postvac.com. Who has the advantage here? Who has the power? Old men have the advantage, and it is a woman arguing women should surrender our power while men still get subsidized advantages. Women do not have more money, but men do, particularly old men.
Anyway, the point of this post is women in power should not have to act like men. Women in power can prove to have many excellent qualities that the stereotypical white man does not generally have.
For Samantha on Sex and the City, it was to fuck as many men as possible. Acting like a man might wish to act isn't liberation either. Women will score as often as she likes, very likely, whereas men wish they could score that often. Have sex if you want to, by all means, but don't do it because you think its giving you equality, do it because you want to.
Is our real problem, that we do not know what real women are like and what it means to be a woman?
RSS Feed
