So, everyone's heard the old Rush Limbaugh canard that feminism was established "to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
Isn't it awesome when men who are not attractive by their own superficial, "conventional" standards of hotness falsely accuse an entire group of women of being ugly and of, therefore, building a movement around obtaining societal resources that do not hinge on their looks?
It's interesting, I suppose, but not surprising when we remember that patriarchs are full of projections and reversals.
If movies, TV programming, and reality often attest, it was patriarchy, actually, that seems to have been established to allow unattractive and elderly men easier access to "conventionally attractive" women.
Or, wait wait, here's another! It was patriarchy that was established to allow stupid men easier access to societal resources that they could not otherwise garner if they were required to compete against both men and women, as opposed to just men.
Discuss.
*Writing this feels appearance-shamey and I want to be up front about that. My intent is to highlight the double standard in place whereby men, wealthy ones especially, are not held to the same standards of beauty, youth, and thinness that all women are held to. It is hard to highlight that double standard without implying that men should be shamed just as women are. Ideally, neither men nor women would be shamed by their appearance, age, or weight. It just really irks me when unattractive men don't see their own privilege that enables them to make a sweeping judgment about an entire group of women whilst their own appearance is, of course, "off-limits." I hope that is clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment