Tuesday, October 21, 2008

People and their Beliefs




Bookmark and Share


It's good to have something to believe in. Really. It's always good to work for a cause, to fight the good fight so that a select group of the population have an easier time of it. I mean this in all honesty. Marxists supposedly work for the equality of the social system, feminists fight for the equal treatment of the genders, environmentalists tout the rejuvenation of mother nature for the continual benefit of future generations of the human race. We're all fighting and believing in something, and one way or the other, everybody's got a point.

Which is what brings me to mine: the -ism I adhere to is the one belief that will sit on the sidelines and chuck bombs when everybody else has gone to hell and back trying to shove each other's ideals down the next guy's throat. My personal -ism takes enjoyment in seeing the gestalt of a situation and making fun of it by pointing out the pros and cons of either side. Most importantly, my -ism believes in a sense of balance, where the good and the bad things never outweigh each other, where right encircles wrong in a slow waltz. My choice of -ism isn't an -ism at all.

That's right folks. I believe in neutrality. I am not apathetic, inasmuch as I care about the state of the world is in, and I am not impartial, since I think environmentalists and the pro-green activists are the way to go. But I like seeing how some good things will badly affect those in the immediate surroundings, while some bad choices will ultimately bring about a more nurturing status quo where fewer folks will have to suffer. I guess you could say that neutrality is all about damage control - neutral thinkers are the dudes who make sure that civilians aren't killed in the crossfire, or that you don't get accidentally shot because you were busy taking a shit when the Germans crossed the no-man's land.

Earlier today, I commented on a friend's post about Anna Garlin Spencer, a person who I know jack shit about. I understand that she was probably a pretty big proponent in the women's rights movement. The article outlined something to the effect that there are very few, if any at all, published works that praise the genius of a person who created what I imagine were plenty of useful things and ideas that the world benefits from today. In exchange, the text went on to say, her husband and children starved or suffered. A pretty ambiguous statement, at best.

Since I didn't know who she was, or what her contributions were to society and gender studies, I reacted (vaguely, it must be said) on the rather alarming statement that had something to do with her husband and children suffering. What irked me is the response of a person whom I didn't even know who seems to have snidely assumed that the person should have been common knowledge, or at least that her importance should be paramount.

Huh.

Well, miss Delirium 1986 (yes, I censor very little in my blog), if you'll forgive my blatant ignorance in the world of women's rights, I will forgive your ignorance in science and the possibility that you may not know that the man who conceptualized the radio satellite was Arthur C. Clarke, that Ada Lovelace was one of the best programmers who took over Charles Babbage's work in computers, and that the hyrax is a creature with rabbit-like features. I apologize for not knowing who Miss Spencer was, and I shall make it a point to ensure that every male person I encounter will know of her and her exploits, and why other people close to her should have suffered for the better good, whatever that is. I apologize that my world does not revolve around the same universe that you yourself consider very important, or that I should hold the immediate safety of other folks in higher importance than the point of making a statement against the status quo stereotype that females are the nurturers. After all, the fact that you don't know how I think is no fault of yours entirely (hilariously enough, this statement is true), and you are allowed the right to do and say whatever you want to show your utter disbelief that people can be so stupid.

Well, you know what, miss Delirium 1986? If you have that right, then so do I, since you, a female, and I, a male, are equal in every sense. And let me just greet you with a little "Shut your fuckin' know-it-all pie hole and shove whatever feminist-induced hatred shit you have lingering in your brain up your ass." It's feminists like you who make chauvinists out of neutral pigs like me. I believe in equal rights, I really do, but if equality is only going to bring about men and women who react like you to every gender-sensitive topic in the world out there, then why even fight for equality? We'll never have peace because people like you will be too busy yakking your self-obsessed righteousness into the world.

2 comments:

  1. i wonder.. i don't really think there is any need to fight for gender equality in this country. maybe i'm being ignorant, but i think it's as equal as it can get.

    absolute equality is a dream and will not ever happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i think so too. but other people don't, and they probably have a valid point as to why. so meh. let them fight for what they believe is right. malay mo, they might really be on to something.

    ReplyDelete