I’m in a squircle [1] mood today. Let’s talk about sexism, let’s talk about feminism. Let’s talk about all the -isms in the world.
So, where do we start? I’m not quite sure, but here’s one thing we need to know, first of all: I absolutely hate hatred of things.
It sounds a little ironic, and hypocrisy creeps in, but it’s not really. Let me explain by saying that they’re all on a different level. No, I’m not saying that I’m superior (which would bring us back to hypocrisy); rather, it’s this ‘hatred’ or ‘dislike’ that’s different from each other.
Guys, I genuinely can’t stand pompous assumptions and declarations without explanation and discrimination and dislike and I’ll take the opposite stance in any attempt at argument and it all just annoys me.
I’m into grey and ambiguity and uncertainty and acceptance of everything (except, you know, hatred, even though I really do try to go with that- Brain: allow it; Other parts of brain: how about no) so I suppose I should understand that controversy and annoyingness has to exist.
But really, I’m one of you too, so I can’t help it, man.
I want to talk about slavery in ancient Greece. I was talking to someone about this a while ago, and it’s been on my mind ever since. I think the precise wording my friend used (either about Aristotle or Athens in general (probably the former)) was ‘they had quite intelligent policies...such a pity they believed in slavery’. Okay I made that up almost completely but the general sense was the same. My response at the time was ‘that’s not fair’ because I was so completely caught up in the unfairness of the situation but today I’m detached (relatively) and I can say my piece (without my friend agreeing and rolling his eyes because he knows this and thinks it doesn’t require saying).
Perhaps some might say it was a pity Virgil didn’t come up with Harry Potter (debatable; the Aeneid is better written), perhaps we could say too bad the Akkadians didn’t know Chinese. It’s like Shakespeare writing about alarm clocks (my previous two examples were better) - I emphasise that it isn’t fair to harp on the ancient Greeks about their helots because it’s just anachronistic and hence extremely unreasonable.
I don’t know if anybody feels the same, but I get extremely irritated when people complain about their parents being conservative and being narrow-minded and stuck in the past. I hate the dismissal that they are ‘backward’ and hence less intelligent or less worth talking to.
It’s about being brought up with a different set of ideals. I know many people would laugh at this and say well of course, but it’s not as simple as it sounds. Now, I’m not trying to encourage or endorse anything, but stereotypes and prejudice exist for a reason. It may be for as simple a reason as a defense or coping mechanism, such that your brain associates all Mikes you know with bad breath, simply because you know someone named Mike with bad breath. It need not even be malicious. Which is why when I went to Morocco and was addressed by ‘Jackie Chan’ and or ‘Konichiwa’ I really didn’t mind at all (it was really quite endearing). Obviously the difference with most cases of discrimination is that this arises from an attempt to appeal to me but I’d just like you to have a think and perhaps open your mind up to discrimination. I mean, you want them to be less ‘narrow-minded’ as you call it, but yet you can’t accept that discrimination is a natural fact of life. Granted sometimes (read: most of the time) the means of discrimination isn’t the best (read: in any way positive) but it’s like the Odyssey, right: is the only reason Odysseus is the hero and not Polyphemus the simple fact that Polyphemus didn’t offer Odysseus and his men food before asking him whence he came (simple code of xenia, in which - oh wait, Polyphemus doesn’t even believe)? [2] So yeah, if it’s on the same level and doesn’t involve other things, we shouldn’t really judge judgement. [3]
I want to talk about feminism. We all gotta admit today that sometimes people go overboard. When I say that, I mean to the extent that feminism isn’t feminism anymore but discrimination.
See here: feminism isn’t the opposite of sexism. It’s really just the advocacy of equal rights. And what are rights? Choices and equal opportunities. That is to say that women should be given fair chance if competing for something, not that we should set a percentage or amount of space for women themselves. I mean, fair enough, sometimes this is the only way they get a chance to do anything, because some men cannot speak for all men (and I mean this strictly in the sense of ‘man’ as in ‘human’ and not ‘man vs woman’) and prejudices really do exist (again, not necessarily in a negative sense - perhaps a particular job requires a particular set of skills that men tend to have, and vice versa) so really, thinking about it gets us nowhere. But what really annoys me is feminists who take the choice out of ‘feminism’. It’s like the question of tradition vs. new cool ideas booyeah. Apparently a few years back a few Christians were kicked out of Morocco for attempting to evangelise their people. I mean, it’s not about the religions at this stage, right? Yes, people can want freedom to believe what they want to, and maybe that’s the idea behind the whole thing. And perhaps the biggest criticism of this ordeal is that it’s stupid or silly. But see here - if people are happy with what they do or have, convincing them it’s not enough is a bad thing and you’re just deliberately antagonising people. So back to the feminism - some people would shake their head and criticise households in which women are homemakers, but it would just be prudent to consider the fact that perhaps it was their own choice. It’s why Hermione always really annoyed me with SPEW, man.
Okay I’m out of things to say for the day.
- ‘squircle’ - pernickety
- Long story short, Odysseus and men broke into Polyphemus’ cave. Polyphemus wasn’t there. Odysseus (and men) ate his food. Men planned to steal some and leave, but Odysseus wanted Polyphemus to give more, so he stayed and lay in wait for Polyphemus. Polyphemus found out, wasn’t happy. Asked Odysseus the provocative question: ‘Strangers, who are you? What land did you sail from, over the watery paths? Are you bound on some trading errand, or are you random adventurers, roving the seas as pirates do, hazarding life and limb and bringing havoc on men of another stock?’ Because, of course, they had a different set of moral ideals. Polyphemus found piracy distasteful; Odysseus and men simply believed that sacking cities was alright and okay (hence Ilium, although one could argue that they were just rescuing Argive Helen) But then again, in Book 2 of the Iliad Nestor (who fought with Odysseus at Troy!!!!!) asked Telemachus (son of Odysseus) the same question, so idek man. I guess the difference is that Polyphemus ate Odysseus’ men, and no matter what he believed in, man-eating just isn’t right ya know. (Odysseus did get punished for what he did to Polyphemus (oddly enough, not the plundering and food-stealing) so I guess you could argue that the Greek myths are in a strange sense quite rounded in terms of their morality (like the Oresteia)
- Although I'm really really not endorsing discrimination. I don't like discrimination, remember? And people really should try not to hurt or insult anyone. But while I think that one party shouldn't be antagonising others, the other party should also try to uh...well let's suggest a double retreat?
