A male view of feminism

2024 Author: James Gerald | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 14:00

I was on a trolleybus. Naturally - sitting, naturally - reading. On the Riga Bridge, I raised my head to stretch my stiff neck. A cute short-haired brunette stood next to me. I looked at her face for exactly a minute, after which my chest felt warm and cramped. I got up and offered the girl the seat I had warmed up. She refused to sit down, but readily admitted to me that "her name is Marina." The passenger mass pressed my biceps to the girl's shoulder and we started talking. The chatting was pleasant. But then she suddenly asked: "How do you feel about feminists?" I myself do not know why, instead of answering, I went out through the opened doors. Although I didn't need to go there. Maybe I was scared to meet a feminist (now I think: it's not as scary as if I were courting a girl at a party and found out that she is a transvestite). Maybe, not knowing the topic, I was afraid to blurt out something offensive. Maybe he was ashamed of the bearded joke that came to mind ("I am not one of them"). One way or another, Marina left without an answer, and I was left without her phone number and with no hope of seeing each other again. The only thing I had with me was the determination to understand feminism. So that next time you don't have to flee from an unexpected question.

So, I thought for a whole month, and this is what I came to: feminism - as a joke, is not appropriate everywhere. In order not to be unfounded, I will give a number of examples.

First: conscription

When I served in the Soviet Army, I was glad to give everything for the equality of men and women in this matter. In our unit for 437 men, there were only 4 women. A cook, two telephone operators and one at the headquarters. Moreover, one of the telephonists was a friend of the commander of the first company, and the staff officer had the captain's shoulder straps, and it was not supposed to devour her with his eyes according to the regulations. By simple calculations (2 "free" women are divided by 437 minus the commander of the first company), we find that each soldier could claim only one 218th part of the woman. Agree, it is unethical to divide women into such small parts. It would be better if the Minister of Defense issued an order on the recruitment of advanced adult girls with good health for military service. Deprived of the corrupting spirit of rivalry, receiving a daily portion of aesthetic education from the contemplation of combat friends (living "Danai", "Venus de Milo" and "Born Venus"), soldiers could achieve spiritual perfection in a few months of service. The presence of women in the army would eradicate hazing (sublimation of unspent erotic energy), and would fourfold reduce the number of unauthorized absences of soldiers from the unit. Yes, and girls, passing military service with their loved ones, would not be subjected to an intolerable test of separation (not everyone will be born as Penelope).

Second example: labor

With both hands for gender equality, miners. It is terribly lonely for men to sit for weeks without food and light, separated from their friends by tens of meters of various soulless rocks. True, in the darkness of the mine, female beauty would not be visible. But other senses would certainly come to the rescue. Touch, for example. The feeling of warmth and tenderness of a woman's body when accidentally touched could remind a tired miner that there is a surface of the earth, a house; could be encouraging and comforting. Especially in the pitch darkness, conducive to intimacy.

But here's a third example: family and marriage

Feminism is not appropriate here. The right of women to wash, cook and mop floors is inalienable. But feminists want men to have that right. Otherwise, what kind of equality is this? (The fact that a man is most often deprived of the right to bear children is fine with feminists.) So, imagine a situation: a hungry husband comes home from work, but finds dinner not cooked. The wife declares that the husband has the right to cook his own supper, and she generously gives him the opportunity to use this right. After that, the husband buries his head in the pillow and cries like a girl (I hope feminists admit the right of the stronger sex to such incontinence). Or such a situation: a man has the right to a mother-in-law, and a woman to a mother-in-law. If anyone does not see the difference between them, I will explain. Mother-in-law is a good fairy, constantly smiling at her son-in-law, who dared to take her ineptitude from her. She will always be happy to feed him and even pour a hangover shot from her reserves in the morning. And the mother-in-law is an evil fury, who knows only that her priceless son has been taken over by an unworthy slob, an impudent and a libertine. If a woman desires the right to a mother-in-law, I can still understand that. But if a wife wants her husband to have the right to a mother-in-law, then I'm sorry. No one in a sober mind and sound memory will do this.

Example four: leisure

Again in favor of feminism. Let's say I'm going to visit a girl. As expected, I carry champagne and sweets in my trembling hands. Maybe even flowers and fruits. In general, I spent, but I'm not at all sure of a positive result. Suddenly, the parents did not leave for the dacha, or, God forbid, she decided to invite a friend to her? How easy is it to go on a date with a feminist. Like a man, she has the right not to receive flowers, not drink champagne and not eat chocolate. Like a man, she is entitled to cheap vodka, complete with soda. In this case, I am spared ruin, and my chances of reciprocity are increased by the higher degree of the drink.

Finally: big politics

There can be no question of equality. Subparagraph "a": deputies, senators and various other governors and mayors are all fat and disgusting. As long as they are men, it can still be tolerated. But a woman, this beautiful creature, cannot be brought to such a piggy state. Personally, I will stop watching TV. Subparagraph "b": Imagine that we have elected as president of Russia a worthy woman, positive in every sense. And, as expected, our (a) president (sha) is on an official visit to China. Dzyan Dzemin meets her, hugs her and kisses her three times on the mouth. And then the Georgian, the First Sir of Russia (by analogy with the First Lady), separates from the Russian delegation, and beats the Chinese prime minister out of jealousy. International scandal. You will object: the blood of the Venetian Moor will not necessarily boil in the veins of the First Sir. Russian, for example, will endure. But I feel sorry for the man, whose wife openly kisses with other men in public places and in front of journalists. Besides, with foreigners. Of course, the male president kissing Jian Zemin is not a sight for the faint of heart. But at least his wife will be calm. After all - the prime minister of China, not Monica Lewinsky.

Of course, you understand that there are many more examples of pros and cons. I think an approximate balance of arguments will be maintained. So let it be feminism, but don't take it too seriously.

Vladimir Arkusha