On The Defense of Men... Again

I guess it is part of my fate, as a feminist, to walk around defending men from the attack of rabid females. I can't just wrap my head around the idea some people have that women should debase men, just as retarded men (and some retarded women) debase women. First of all, and i want this to be perfectly clear, being a feminist doesn't mean that I believe women to be better or superior to men, BUT that I believe that men and women are EQUAL. Now this "equal" word is quite hard to understand for some (many, many, many). By now women are stating harder that they can do any job men can, and also that we are capable at performing at high positions, and hold high offices and manage, be CEOs, CFOs, AGs and even Presidents and Prime Ministers. But do we earn this by taking it away from men? I don't think so. This is not a Summ Zero equation.

But let's not go into the labor sphere, but the personal sphere. Then again, though I addressed this topic before, the topic comes back thanks to three ladies: Gitta, who wrote in her blog an entry titled "Protected Men", where she pretty much said that women are entering every aspect of life, priorly reserved to men, men are being pushed out and left to oblivion. Like I stated before, lets obliviate the "labor part" and concentrate on the "choice".

The other two ladies, Rosario and Cynthia, were happily commenting that marriage should never happen because people are in love, but only when the guy has enough money to buy a comfortable life for the woman. Needless to say that I oppose this idea, and then again, here we have the core concept of "choice".

Though our choices form us as individuals, choices do not define our gender. The gender is something you are born with and is part of who you are, but not the determinant element of your whole being. Let's keep in this in mind, shall we?

Lets ask ourselves, what is a man? A man is a person, a human who has been born male. In every aspect is equal to it's female counterpart, known as woman, save in the organs needed to reproduce the species. Both have one brain, both are capable of thought, both have feelings, both are capable of communication, both have the need to communicate. Both laugh, cry, smile, whine, shout, burp, frown... and so on. Both can solve a math excersize and learn a language, read a book, play a sport and just about anything you can think of.

Through the feminist revolution, as women broke from their socially imposed chains and proved that they can work shoulder to shoulder with men, what did men lose? Were they not able to do a given job because women were doing it? No. Men can still choose to be engineers in spite of women chosing to be engineers. Women are still being paid less, in average, than men for the same job, and it's nto because they are given a differenciated wage, but because in many companies women are given less chances for promotions or chances to get "points" that would make their wages bigger (business trips, seminars, time to study, because, you know, women "get pregnant" and are not a "good, reliable investment" in that sense). Of course, that could make a capitalist pig to choose women over men, because they are "cheaper" and "easier to manipulate". This doesn't mean that women are pushing men out.

The idea should not be about who does the job, but about everybody having the same chance to do the job. A man shouldn't feel different about his choices just because women can make the same choices. On the other side, men should have the same chance to do whatever job and whatever activity us women choose to do. There shouldn't be "man jobs" and "woman jobs", just jobs. Men should be able to be secretaries, assistants or even stay home dads and househusbands, why not? They are just as people and just as human as any woman who chooses to take any of those paths. Why do we have to deny these from men? Are they not equal to us?

This brings me to the "role of men" in a relationship. Sure, I'm not an authority in the matter of "relationships", but even so, I can't believe that I, as a former bed-hopping one-night-stander, have a better understanding and a far deeper appreciation of men, than that of women who have spent significantly more time with men. First of all, why should men have a role and women have another role? Shouldn't a relationship be about equal shares? Why is a man expected to protect and provide, and the woman to serve and care? Can't a man care and do chores? Can't a woman provide and stand out and defend her man?

The idea that there's a given "role" is what, I believe, fucks up the whole thing, because as individuals we don't have the same "gifts" and "tendencies" and, regardless of the gender, one partner might be more fit for providing and the other more fit for caring. Just think about gay couples. In a gay couple, you've two men or two women, who does what? The one who is more fit. Does that make the other one less of a man or less of a woman? No. People don't go "genderless" or change their gender because they don't "act" the way they are supposed to in the frame of society. So, if gay couples remain man-man, woman-woman, why should it be any different for straight couples?

When Rosario was proudly telling how she showed a friend "the right path" because her friend was about to get married but she realized she didn't love her boyfriend, and so Rosario told her that getting married isn't about love but the money the guy has, reminded me of the "other role" many women expect men to fulfill. Cynthia goes on the same line. Both Rosario and Cynthia seem to take great pleasure in lecturing me about milking money from my boyfriend, making him pay absolutely everything, which I find utterly hideous and unbecoming. The question that rises here is: are men organic ATM?


Yes, in the female subculture many see men as walking wallets, that must be exploited. Something like women's very own RPG where you walk these passages killing other females and loting on men to get their "stash". This is the world of golddigers, where the women who preys more on men's money is the hero. This is the world where all little girls want to grow up and be Ivana Trump. But are men's only value in the size of their accounts? Is the worth of a man measurable by the figures he makes? Because if women want to be valued by their personality, their thoughts, their capabilities, their true selves, shouldn't men, as our very equals, be valued by the same paramethers?

I don't want to be with a man because he can buy me all the Swatch watches I want and take me to travel here and there. I want to feel the PRIDE of being able to give myself what I want and what I need. The man I am with, should be great just by being himself. I don't need a man to support me, or at least I shouldn't: that's what "work" has been invented for, and that's why we have fought and struggled, and why so many of our sisters died for.

Truth is that sexism works both ways and either way is wrong. Women are to slaves made to serve men and replace their fists around their dicks and so men are not income sources to be pounded for the things we want but are not willing to work for, which must be kept "oiled" with nookie. Lets stop objectifying each other! Please, they are our friends, our brothers, our sons, our fathers and grandfathers, why can't we love them for who they are? Why can't we respect them for who they are? And foremost, how can we demand their respect when we do not return the courtesy.

Some women are not different from the men who mistreat us, who see us as bounty, as property that can be sold, bought or used, abused and destroyed at will. But why do they think they have the right to do to men what we do not like done to us?

I think a lot of people don't like humans to be equal because they life to exploit these irrational, unrealistic differences. This rises one last question, which I leave to all: does it mean that the people who relay on these fake differences are actually the ones uncapable of developing themselves, growing up and fulfilling themselves in the ways they pretend "the others" to serve them? Are they the flawed ones? I think they are.