In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Marc Antony (before he married Jennifer Lopez and changed the spelling of his name) gave a famous speech remembering Julius Caesar, in which he noted, "The evil that men do . . . is generally the sum and substance of their interpersonal relationships." Or words to that effect.
If, as suggested by the above photo, Marc Antony bears responsibility for the existence of Zumba, then it is safe to say that the evil in him was spectacularly horrible and long-lasting.
However, except for any role that any man has had in the creation of any form of aerobics--for which an eternity of confinement in Hieronymus Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" is the only suitable punishment--I am not here to suggest that this essential characteristic of the bulk of us men is particularly terrible. After all, we are a species, both male and female of which watched "Jersey Shore." So horrible, disgusting behavior seems to be a universal constant for us humans.
But the fact that men are more likely to blow off their toes while calling to their buddies, "Watch this here, y'all!" than to correctly solve a long division problem is a fact that has a direct bearing on a proper understanding of what feminism is and is not. And why it's stupid for feminists (or any other sane person) to respond to the assertion that a "feminist" is a "man-hater," or similar assertions. But first: time for a picture of Bosch's painting and a picture of the cast of "Jersey Shore." If you can tell which is which, shame on you.
So, as Snooki would say, (which is to say, as Snooki would say if she would a completely different person), "The great subversion of feminism occurred when traditionalists managed to make the debate revolve around the relationship of women to men. In reality, defining women's roles by considering men is like defining Gloria Steinem by looking at a bicycle."
The subversion I am talking about is tactic of anti-feminists to characterize feminists as a bunch of women who hate men and/or a bunch of lesbians and/or a bunch of "bra-burners." I don't fully understand why the last claim is put forth--I can only assume that, in the minds of those making the claim, it is proof that feminists are radical terrorists seeking to destroy America's foundations.
And then supporters of the principles of feminism get drawn into a defensive debate of trying to disprove those claims. "No, not really. There are lots of feminists who like men! I was talking to one just last week!" or "Sure, there are a few lesbians, but we don't let them make any decisions!" or "Bra-burning was just a fad in the 60's--like love beads and Wayne Newton--and we modern feminists all wear proper undergarments."
But, if you think about it, how do those arguments have any bearing on what feminism stands for? I mean, the fact that Rafael "Call me Ted" Cruz is a flesh-eating cyborg manufactured in Dr. Mengele's secret Canadian workshop is not a valid reason for opposing his plans for America. Rafael "I'm not really Hispanic" Cruz's plans for America are the valid reason for opposing his plans for America.
Likewise, the principles of feminism stand or fall on their own merits, not on the basis of whether we feminists have a somewhat troubling fascination with undergarment combustion.
Clearly not a picture of two drunken dumbass young men (but I repeat myself) doing stupid shit (and now I re-repeat myself), but rather two socially motivated and thoughtful males expressing an appreciation for the moral imperative of equality for all.
Which brings me back to my point. "Equality for all" logically and syntactically cannot mean "equality for some--but only for those women who don't hate men, and do hate--or at least, feel queasy about the prospect of ever feeling an attraction toward--other women, and who don't burn anything except occasionally the pot roast, the silly, brainless creatures that they are." And the anti-feminist arguments which focus on what kind of women (and only women, for some strange reason) are feminists implicitly assume that equality isn't actually a right, but is a privilege that must be earned by proper behavior, and can be and is granted or withheld by the people who have historically enjoyed the privileges of "equality."
A feminist, on the other hand, believes that "equality" means "equality" (the mathematical name for this principle is The Reflexive Property, and it is taught to preschoolers--not that I'm making any judgment about the intellect of opponents of feminism). Another way of putting it is that, if rewards are given out on any basis other than based on who has gotten the best results, the process is not "equal." It seems obvious that rewards should be granted on the basis of results, but we all probably have examples in our personal experience of rewards being passed out in accordance with the Old Boy Network, or via afternoons on the golf course, or because "I just feel more comfortable with X than Y", and the person who has done the best work not getting rewarded.
So far in America, "equal opportunity for women" (as well as "equal opportunity for minorities", "equal opportunity for homos", and every other kind of "equal opportunity") has meant "permission on a limited basis for members of this group to get the some of the privileges of privileged white men, provided that they behave in a manner that falls into step with the expectations of those privileged white men." For example, Harvard School of Business recently created a special course for women in its MBA program that seeks to teach them to be more aggressive, pushy and self-promoting. Because, heaven knows, the way men always done things has to be the best way for everybody to do things. I mean, the alternative would be to let different people do things in different ways, and then judge them based on the results they achieved. But now I'm talking crazy talk.
It's like when Dick Fosbury decided to do his high-jumping with his back to the bar. All the top high jump coaches and established jumpers were saying, "What the f*ck is that long-haired guy doing?! That can't be right! We've never done it that way. That can't be legal." And all the young jumpers were saying, "Wow! . . . Hey, hippie! Yeah, you. Fosbury. Can you teach me how to do that?" And they looked at the rule book, and there was nothing that said, "You have to do it the way it's been done in the past." And Dick Fosbury won the gold medal at the 1968 Olympics.
In simple (i.e., sports) terms, the idea of feminism is that life should be like the high jump. Dick Fosbury got the gold medal because he cleared the highest height. And the established coaches and jumpers (read this as "traditional white males") didn't get to say, "that's not the way a real man would jump, so it doesn't count."
A similar lesson can be learned from Muhammad Ali. Before the Rumble in the Jungle, the boxing experts heavily favored George Foreman, based on an assumption that Ali would get in the ring and box with Foreman like all of Foreman's prior opponents had done. Instead, Ali did none of the traditional ("I'm full of testosterone and you're full of testosterone; so let's charge into each other like two water buffaloes") boxing strategies. He did Rope-A-Dope; he leaned against the ring ropes and let Foreman do all the punching. The commentators questioned whether he even was trying to win the fight, since he refused to engage in the standard boxing behavior of standing toe-to-toe and trading punches. That is, they questioned his toughness, his heart, and--at the core of it all--his manliness, until he knocked George Foreman out. And then they called him a boxing genius.
So you see my point. Because Ali's different, unconventional, "unmanly" approach worked, that was the end of the debate. They didn't ask him if he hated men, or if he slept with men, or if he thought men belonged in the kitchen, or any of the things that feminists get asked when they want things to be done a different way. No, they gave him this garish, ugly, monstrous belt and called him the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Hmm.
Now you're starting to see what feminism really means. Olympic gold medals. Muhammad Ali beating George Foreman. Rope-a-Dope. The Road Less Travelled. "And may I say, not in a shy way; oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way."
Wow! It turns out that, just like Muhammad Ali and Frank Sinatra, you've been a feminist all along!
So you see my point. Because Ali's different, unconventional, "unmanly" approach worked, that was the end of the debate. They didn't ask him if he hated men, or if he slept with men, or if he thought men belonged in the kitchen, or any of the things that feminists get asked when they want things to be done a different way. No, they gave him this garish, ugly, monstrous belt and called him the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Hmm.
Now you're starting to see what feminism really means. Olympic gold medals. Muhammad Ali beating George Foreman. Rope-a-Dope. The Road Less Travelled. "And may I say, not in a shy way; oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way."
Wow! It turns out that, just like Muhammad Ali and Frank Sinatra, you've been a feminist all along!
