Feminism in Russian

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

It so happened historically that in our country it is customary to be equal to the West. Since antiquity we have squinted and adjusted"

Everything "foreign" has always seemed to us invariably better, more beautiful, more correct. Remember the French perfume or dresses from "Burda" - the top of the dreams of a modern woman thirty years ago. This list will be continued by music, jeans, money (by its very appearance inspiring in us a sense of confidence in the future), intrasocial processes, rules and traditions.

The question of whether a state that constantly squints at others is capable of achieving world recognition and success at all requires a separate discussion. But we rip off everything that is possible from the West "under tracing paper," completely ignoring the historical prerequisites and peculiarities of the mentality that led to this or that phenomenon there. We distort the stolen, in an attempt to fit at least somewhere, to surreal monsters, but we are proud that now we have "this" too, it seems like we are no worse.

The apogee of this process was the phenomenon of "feminism". By the way, the very term "feminism" is amusing. In medicine in general and gynecology in particular, the term "femina" (woman - lat.) Means truly feminine principles: female sexual characteristics, female features of appearance and character. And the process of feminization is a manifestation of feminine traits. Somehow it does not fit with what modern feminists strive for, trying in everything to liken themselves to a man and move away from their feminine principle as far as possible.

I will make a reservation right away that, while preparing this material, I shoveled a lot of works on this issue, from historical references to analytical articles.

Throughout the history of the origin and development of feminism, experts distinguish two waves. The first, which began in the middle of the 18th century in America and then in Europe, was sound and sane. The ideologists of the movement defended the rights of women to education, work, choice of their own path in life, and independence from the unjustified tyranny of father and husband. During this period, divorces on the initiative of a woman were legalized, and later abortions were allowed. But the woman did not compete with the man for a place in the sun. She just proved that she is the same person, with all the ensuing consequences, and not an animal worthy only of the meeting of the Ecumenical Council to establish whether she has a soul.

The second wave, which gained momentum in the 50s of the last century and was marked by the sexual revolution, turned, in my opinion, into a real farce, into the euphoria of a weakling who found a grenade launcher and revels in his unexpected strength and power, not thinking about what will happen if the weapon fires …

The very problem of confrontation between the sexes is strange to me.

First of all, because it is a direct rivalry with Mother Nature. After all, there is nothing superfluous in nature. And, if only one sex was enough, nature would create us the same - hermaphrodites with equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. And since she acted differently, it means that this makes sense, albeit hidden from most people.

In addition, the modern social structure did not fall from the sky either. This is a consequence of the centuries-old formation of society, starting from the Stone Age, when the more hardy - men - went to hunt for mammoths, and the weaker ones - women remained in caves to sew clothes from skins and dry meat.

The entire second wave of the feminist movement is far-fetched, sucked from the finger. Probably out of boredom. After all, then, in the Stone Age, it would never have occurred to a woman to prove that she, too, was able to overwhelm a buffalo. Those people were faced with the most important problem - survival. Men and women worked together, doing not what they wanted, but what everyone could do better and more efficiently.

Today, when humanity lives in relative safety, when most of the problems of that time simply do not exist for us, we can give free rein to whims.

Consider, say, the notorious "sexual harassment" - a symbol of the modern feminist movement. In most cases (I especially emphasize - in most, but not in all), this process seems to me somewhat contradictory. A kind of justice with a proviso, the judge of which is the prosecutor himself. In other words, a court where the law is represented only by the accusing party, the defender has practically no right to vote, and the judge is generally absent as a class. What I mean?

A woman, by nature, is determined to be successful among men. Otherwise, numerous perfumery and cosmetic companies, fashion salons, beauty salons, sports clubs and dance schools would not have enjoyed such success. And you do not need to bend your heart, saying that a woman is doing this for herself, her beloved, in order to feel more confident. This point of view is a logical dead end. For, on the one hand, a person never does anything for himself, but only in order to exalt himself in front of those around him - this was remarkably proved by Kant. On the other hand, a person who is sincerely concerned only with himself is referred to as? That's right, selfish.

But back to sexual harassment.

A successful woman does everything to achieve it. And, moreover, he demands it, taking offense if her efforts go unnoticed. And here she is acting very unethically. It is not a secret for anyone that in any team, each person has his own "favorites" and "not favorites" among the members of this team. And the attitude towards them, respectively, is different. Here is a woman, in every possible way encourages signs of attention of men who are attractive to her and suppresses, accusing of "sexual harassment", unsympathetic men. Moreover, if it happens that a woman, falling in love with her colleague, ends up in the same bed with him, it would never even occur to her to sue him. On the contrary, she will in every possible way encourage his hints and flirting, trying to be even sexier and more attractive. But watch out for the "no pet" hinting at a meeting after work! You will be called a rapist, branded and disgraced.

The law is the same for everyone. And even the one who creates it does not have the moral right to interpret it in a given situation to the extent of his need. And a woman who cares for a certain attitude towards her should in every possible way prove that this attitude is really necessary for her: to look dignified in the workplace and suppress any hints, regardless of personal sympathy for the person from whom they come, and for sexual attractiveness there are appropriate places.

And this duality can be traced in absolutely everything. Local feminists demand equality and independence, but in the evenings they moan from loneliness, or demand protection from their companions and a higher salary (for the mentality of a Russian woman, which has been forming for centuries, requires a defender by her side). They seek primordially male work, and, failing to cope with it, demand a condescending attitude towards themselves, arguing this with the words: "I'm a woman!"

But it remains unclear: why then strive for this? After taking on obligations, any person, regardless of gender, is obliged to fulfill them. Or admit your insolvency and be fully responsible for your mistakes. Otherwise, I do not see the difference between this example and how the janitor, shouting to the whole world that he is the smartest and can do everything, will take the place of a doctor and will prescribe medications and prescribe treatments left and right, and, having killed a hundred, another patient, will say: "Well, excuse me, I'm not a doctor, I'm a janitor!" And it will require indulgence to itself.

Feminists play with unwritten moral and ethical laws, bringing those around them to exhaustion and nervous tics. Indeed, more and more often you can observe a situation when a man is fired for the same offense, and a woman gets off with a small penalty. But is this - equality? It's time to defend men's rights here!

Feminism has become a universal weapon used by women to achieve any of their goals.

As a result, there is an aggressive misunderstanding between a man and a woman.

But we, men and women, are created by one force: whether divine, alien, natural - it doesn't matter. Each of us has our own unique qualities. Women have wisdom and tenderness. Men have endurance and determination. Undoubtedly, we are different. Women have their own destiny and duty in this world, men have theirs. But we have one common goal. And we can only achieve it together. And for this you need to learn mutual understanding and the ability to find a compromise and humble your egoism. Would our people have won the Great Patriotic War if ordinary soldiers argued with the generals, proving that they also have rights and they themselves will decide their fate?

We are all "in the same boat" and by joint efforts must fight for our future, comfortable and confident. And if we continually pull the oar from each other, arguing to which shore to moor, the boat will overturn, and we will all go to the bottom.