conflict philosophy


5:37:00 PMConstrux Nunchux

Below are some loose notes I’m compiling for a proposed manifesto for a potential organization.  More than anything, as is unsurprising, they express a generally dissatisfied malaise with the hypocrisy that stems from those claiming to act on behalf of social betterment.  The views below are not necessarily supported by all contributors to (dba  They’ve merely provided the space for free expression and for this I’m thankful.  

Feminism does not represent femininity—not in the progressive sense it purports and advocates.  Femininity is a purely social construct.  As is by now common knowledge, matriarchal societies exist, though not prevalently, throughout the world.  They still embody a concept of otherness, that it’s this other society, great as it is that females guide the majority in their communities, it’s still out there in the mystical, mythical else, where it’s a possibility, unlike our society where women, statistically are still overlooked and underpaid—statistically, mind you.  That’s the important point is what the numbers and especially the averages show.  It is another way to segment and separate what should be a cohesive society, so that some without the strength to pursue a true fight may essentially drop out and create an exclusive subculture available by permission only.  Not only does this work to easily create a more hostile environment through not only challenging those truly trying to wrest power away from those attempting to achieve equality in society, but also through alienating those with the same changes at heart by establishing a message on both the explicit and subtextual levels that certain types are not allowed solely on the basis of natural occurrence.

Feminism is purely a reactionary schematic doing more to create a schismatic (not a prismatic, mind you) society by promoting the artificial construct of a composite other, a vilified or inherently villainous entity that exists solely to prevent the success of the group as a whole and individuals within the group.  It’s easy to dismiss this all as [the opposite of whatever your beliefs are] propaganda.  The aim here is past that of identification by predetermined social standing.  Most assume this can be done by expression through routine behavior and life planning, such as choosing a partner, or a job, or an after school/work activity, but participation in such only creates more barriers.  To be plain for a moment, I have experienced more animosity as a person for the simple fact of being male than for nearly any other quality (including my interminable annoyance).  So just by breaking barriers for oneself, one is not automatically resisting the confinements of traditional structure.  It is our obligation as human beings to educate and enable others and not only those we identify with, as if it’s some game on a company retreat.

Before this spirals into a misconceived attack on assertive women, allow me to acknowledge that yes, yes, yes, certainly abuse exists, harassment (social, professional, etc) exists, double standards exist.  Since it’s unordinary and novel, no one minds reactive double standards even though they’re just as destructive and inhibitive. I agree that there are basic anatomical and biological differences between males and females.  I’ve seen these differences once or twice.  This does not necessitate that society develop in an uneven manner, but rather social hierarchies, exist as they may, should be continually reforming to promote the unnoticeable interplay between genders.  It requires more than financial allotments or representation on boards and in entertainments.  While it’s easy for most to argue that society is constantly evolving, the parts that may be argued to be changing only reinforce the artificially social impositions that predated and preceded them. 

A majority of females have proven themselves to be at best compliant hindrances, dead weight it one will allow, or outright opponents to any type of progressive thinking, much less action and many of these are famous, often on the basis of their ironic kitsch value (see Kundera??) while covertly promoting an imaginary hierarchy that doesn’t exist.  In my own daily encounters as well, I’ve observed and avoided those who implicitly through tacit, placid acceptance of universally enforced, but unilaterally aligned drudgery or by concerted efforts at assumed assertion through aggressive supplication.  And yes, the males don’t help.  They exist on all ends to further this dichotomy.  In the heterodoxy (that’s a pun and a fun word to say), the self-proclaimed and oft exposed sensitive male lays limp for any attention granted from any female without challenging the validity of her beliefs where as the insensitive (see Phife Dawg??) exist as the direct opposition to independent success for a female.  To make that make more sense, visualize the typical bar scene and the typical nice guy and the typical strong guy.  The typical woman has her pick and will choose whatever she feels reflects her strength as an individual as it is defined by her environment.  The pitfall here is that the society is already constructed to equate fulfillment of gender identity with (universally sought and constantly elusive) individual strength, so the woman will take whomever she can feel like more of a woman around.  Really, the choice is actual arbitrary since both men are more or less playing to passive duality and the same results occur regardless.  And of course from the quier set (I was told recently that the word I’m replacing here holds no identity as hate speech) by refuting the traditional conception of a male role without offering a suggested behavioral replacement and in many many observed cases (meaning personally involved on one end or another), encouraging females that they themselves do not desire to behave in callous and emotionally irresponsible fashion that creates more friction.  Not necessarily between any two dichotomous halves (gay.straight; male/female) but between individuals.

But quickly stepping back from the personal and suspect reasoning behind this rant, I want to take note of the various organizational aspects that bar interaction between groups.  As a self-proclaimed prospective artist, as one who hopes to connect to others and connect others with each other beyond the fleeting confinement of my mortal years, I am often chafed at the ludicrous pandering to specialized groups that prevents an equal judgment of submitted work.  Not only is it restrictive (here I would delve into a slight variant of the controversial affirmative action argument, and perhaps will do so), creating space for work based not on message or ability but solely on authorship.  This is not the vented frustration of a talentless hack (while I may be talentless, there genuinely abound opportunities for authors still assumed to be nontraditional).  This also operates wholly contra to the true cohesive ambitions of art.  Is art not supposed to uplift expand and in all ways enlarge mankind?

So yes, I will admit that there stand behind this particular rant somewhat overtly selfish motives.  Because, there are no doubt individuals that will agree, it is exactly these voluntarily sectionalist attitudes, based on the misconception of self-promotion when it’s actually steeped in assertion of an identity created by others before one’s own existence, even, that perpetuate the targeted repressive scenarios. I firmly believe the time for feminism to be updated.  It needs to represent femininity as it turly exists.  My question that has long gone unanswered is why are the soft qualities of a person are associated with females or labeled feminine?  Isn't this incorrect?  I have long believed that the Bible mixed up its gender assignment, that the one with the missing part is the masculine one, that the Adam and Eve were reversed or perverted and that while nature has descended and dictated our behavior one way, all controlling/extolling societies use this inaccuracy to further confuse the idea of acceptable behavior.

If any idea in here can be called slightly unordinary, it's that what we call feminine is a partial ideal, very much in the adoptive “eastern” sense that one cannot be a person without both parts, and that the more equal or blended they are inside, the more harmonious an individual’s existence can be.  The issue here of course is that to mobilize towards a new concept of human interaction, to be active in a struggle almost completely obliterates the ability to approach an internal balance.  Balance of course is entirely contrary to the concept, even in the realm of physics, of momentum, a primary necessity for effecting change.  So this creates a fairly insurmountable paradox.  How does one promote an ideal of unification/universality if one doesn’t not embody it internally, but how does one who does embody this internally become motivated towards change?

All of this coming from what’s archaically identified as a straight white suburban male doesn’t make it profound, but combative and regressive, and no constructive or collaborative points will be taken from this.  All those currently mobilized will view this as a Reactionary tract shouting down any past attempts at enlightenment or empowerment, citing any number of struggles that aim to reinforce the popular, simultaneously unarguable and unsupportable claim that [you] couldn’t ever understand because [you] aren’t a woman (in this particular case, but that can be replaced with the appropriate identifier], that simply because one lacks direct experience (although volumes and stacks of publications in all media exist attempting to relate this experience), one could never truly represent the aims of a particular social group.  And that’s just the point, isn’t it?  To not represent a subculture (in this case, we’re discussing a subculture in the same way India is a subcontinent), but to aim beyond limitations based on naturally imposed barriers. So no I don’t expect  to change anyone’s mind, or relate to anyone whose mind may already be somewhat aligned.  I expect this short essay stands more or less a (hot) topic for mockery due to its lack of either ballsiness or authenticity (depending on the audience, right?).  Just because I’m predicting it, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still belittle this point of view!

You Might Also Like

0 Construxive Remarx

Whattya Think?! Lettuce Snow!!

Contact Form