The problem with the western idea of emancipation

The issue of gender neutrality as one of the many expressions of the western idea of human rights necessarily negates the need for the existence of separate feminist movement. The fact that such a gender specific right finds its need to exist is one of technical irrelevance considering the fact that western ideological pragmatism holds itself to be as essentially egalitarian. The equality of the sexes, as it exists today as an absolute right ignores biological ideals and realities and is too simplistic in it’s assmptions of the nature and origin of the human self. The application of such principles is thus flawed as pragmatic realities are too complex for science to ever answer without making sweeping assumptions to make a theory stick. The scientific revolution has thus far only dug up way much more questions than it had found answers to ontological questions. Now there is so much more educated guesses masquerading as sure knowledge than ever before. This was the case with the theory of evolution and the “science” behind body-language.

Coming back, if secular philosophy goes in the direction in embracing an unqualified gender neutrality policy as being the right way towards equalising the practical inequalities of life, there is no need for a feminist movement to be given any regard.

Firstly, they have absolutely no regard for the freedom of expression of others against them while they rant and rave about the eveils of men.

Secondly they believe that they are living in a vacuum where they see their rights as absolute and cannot be compromised under any circumstances despite the reality that the right of one is only relative to the right of everyone else. They even think that abortion as their sole unalienable right. (An example of an absolute right) It’s absurd.

Thirdly they believe thier crap philosophy to be emancipation of themselves when they were exactly made in the caricature of men’s base desires.  A hollow ornament devoid of any worth in true feminist quintessence. An exact opposite of emancipation.

The fact that the feminist movement still finds a need to exist ostensibly to address the inequalities against women vis-a-vis their male counterparts speaks of a failure of the western idea of gender equality. I see it as something that is fundamentally flawed.

It failed to recognise the uniqueness of the genders and the resulting difference as manifested in the way we live cannot be addressed as a flaw but rightfully to be celebrated as something beautiful. As such this male-female difference cannot be addressed by universal application of absolute standards – such as women’s rights – simply because the differences should not be seen as flaws in the first place. That is the first flaw of the western idea of gender equality. The values espoused by such a movement has produced sexual permissiveness and it’s associated immoralities in society at an unprecedented scale. It’s downright ugly. The quintessence of feminine beauty  together with it’s identity thus is lost in raw display of aggressive sexuality that is uncharacteristic of the female species.

The right to have sex as a woman pleases and the right to express her sexuality publically, unrestrained by any sense of morality has essentially robbed the woman of her womanhood. She has become, in the eyes of her beholder nothing more than raw meat. A being with no soul – as the evolutionist would have us believe. This not only robs her of her identity in gender but also robs men of their masculine identity. As these identities are relative only to each other, it becomes necessary that such a distiction exists – not only as manifested in their physical appearance but also in thier psychological make up.

The treatment of women as according to their biological role and make-up should not be seen as something of an anthema. The very flaw starts with the initial assumptions. The fact of this popular western idea of gender equality coming on as an issue of human rights is thus absolute nonsense. It imposes a one dimensional application of standards on complex realities without any regard for seeking why such differences exist. The creationally discriminated human being (as male and female) is an enigmatic natural phenomenon and we only have an inkling as to why that is the case – and even then we are not sure. No-pseudo science should dare explain that (read : the theory of evolution)

The thing about any theory that claims to have an explaination for everything from beginning to end is so darn ridiculous that it should be treated with suspicion. If the explanation for life, as complex and diverse as it is, was so simple that any person with a half a brain cell could understand it, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the way it was hatched.

Surely we cannot give monkeys equal status with humans because we fancy that they are our evolutionary ancestors! But we are bound to treat them with compassion and kindness because we share this small planet with them. But it would be absurd to apply absolute standards of right and wrong in the treatment of animals.

Equality and justice in this sense means being discriminate in our regard for others. Not the crude application of principles in a perfunctory fashion as the western way of thinking would like us to have. To discriminate in our regard for women is not flawed so long it is kind and compassionate.

The feminist movement as it exists today and the people who buy their crap philosophy are no better than the monkeys from where the secular materialist think we come from.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: