Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Are You Sure?
In her article, Marti Kheel writes: "Feminists typically have condemned form of domination and have expressed compassion for the downtrodden" (327). But is that really true? I have had many discussions among friends about traditional and modern feminists, and many have come to the same conclusion. Even though feminism was originally aimed at gaining universal gender equality, countless feminists have grown very far from that goal. Instead they wish to not balance but flip power roles, putting women in charge and completely discarding men. So even though Kheel writes of "compassion for the downtrodden" it is a very easy idea to misinterpret. The downtrodden is not only women, it could be men, transgender, anyone of different sexualities, or anyone who is not of the norm. Modern day feminists tend to aim for simply equality among all people. It is hard to say whether or not Kheel ever considers these other groups but her writing only focuses on the troubles of women and animals. If the norms were to ever change would feminists still try to help the downtrodden, even if it were men?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good point. I think it is likely that some feminists would continue trying to help and others would not, similarly to today (except that today the split is between feminists who advocate equality, and those who advocate superiority.)
ReplyDelete