Bästa konservativa!

Jag följer med spänning de ständigt aktuella diskussionerna om män och kvinnor och hur vi bör bete oss gentemot varandra, inklusive kommentarsfälten på diverse nyhetssajter. Uppenbarligen är det en hel del av er som tycker att feminismen och jämställdheten har gått för långt i det här landet, och ni klagar vildsint när ni känner er tvingade till saker. Det är inte konstigt att många blir förbannade när de tror att de måste sätta sina barn i genusdagis och inte får bära könskodade kläder. Ni kvinnor som gillar att laga mat och ta hand om barn, och ni män som tycker bättre om att meka med bilen och bygga saker, verkar ofta känna att feministerna och vänsterpolitiken nedvärderar er och era intressen lite. Och det är såklart beklagligt.
Men även om ni känner er kritiserade är det fruktansvärt tråkigt att ni alltid måste ta till vad som är naturligt som ett argument för att försvara er livsstil. Att ni predikar ett särartstänkande som trampar på allt jämställdhetsarbete de senaste decennierna. Och att ni dessutom försöker använda naturlighet eller vad våra förfäder gjorde som argument för att ert sätt att tänka och leva på är det enda korrrekta.

Dessutom anser jag att er retorik är rent familjefientlig - rätt intressant när den kommer från människor som ofta lovprisar just familjerna. Liksom väldigt många vuxna är jag uppvuxen i en familj som bestod av mamma, mig och min syster. Och så pappa som var där på ett hörn. Min pappa har aldrig tagit ut någon föräldraledighet, aldrig lämnat sina barn på dagis på morgnarna, nattat oss på kvällarna eller hjälpt oss med våra läxor. Efter att mina föräldrar skiljde sig har han varit en stundom rätt trevlig farbror, som mest genererat dåligt samvete för att vi i tonåren hellre ville stanna hemma med kompisar än åka och hälsa på honom. Som bäst en varannanhelg-pappa som försökt lära känna sina barn. Och vilka är det som skapar sådana pappor?

Det är ni med er konservativa jävla skitretorik och era 1800-talsvärderingar. Det är ni som skriver upprörda insändare om att pappor är farliga för sina barn eller att barn minsann behöver sin mamma, och bara sin mamma, de första tre åren. Det är ni som klagar över delade föräldraförsäkringar och pratar om naturliga könsroller i termer som kvinnan är vårdande och tar hand om barnen och hemmet medan mannen arbetar och står för brödfödan. Det är ni som skapar de frånvarande papporna som inte lär känna sina barn och som är ledsna över det.
Häromkvällen satt jag och läste 95 kommentarer till Lars Ohlys debattartikel på Newsmill, där han argumenterar för en delad föräldraförsäkring. Det kanske är svårt för er som på allvar är måna om att bevara väldigt traditionella könsroller att förstå, vilken inskränkt livssyn de här konservativa värderingarna är ett uttryck för.

För mig handlar inte jämställdhet om att jag som är kvinna ska bli påtvingad herrkläder och bli företagsledare mot min vilja. Det handlar inte heller om att neka smågrabbar att leka med bilar om de nu känner för det. Däremot vill jag ha friheten att välja själv vad jag ska göra, utan att ni försöker tala om det för mig utan att veta mer om vem jag är än vilket kön jag har. Jag vill välja själv om jag ska bli mamma, företagsledare, läkare, förskollärare, älskare, författare, partner eller tågvärd. Jag vill ha möjligheten att, den dag jag skaffar barn, kunna ha både ett arbete och ett familjeliv, och jag vill att mitt barn ska bli en harmonisk människa som har en bra relation till båda sina föräldrar. Jag tänker inte acceptera att ni försöker tala om för mig att jag som kvinna automatiskt är ett snille när det kommer till att ta hand om hushåll och barn, men inte duger någonting till när det kommer till att göra karriär! Jag tänker inte acceptera ert förbannade särartstänk och ert nu får det vara nog med jämställdheten!

Jag vill ha friheten att disponera mitt liv efter vad jag känner för. Så ge fan i att tala om för mig vad ni anser att jag är menad till att göra.

Kommentarer

har aldrig skrifvit att pappor vore farliga för sina barn ...
Möjligen tror jag att barn behöfva sina mammor de tre första åren och att dagis är farligt för dem.

Jag läste t o m evolutionstheorie på dagis och drunknade nästan.
Möjligen att barn behöfva mammor de tre första åren och att dagis är farligt för dem.

När jag var der läste jag evolutionstheorie och höll på att drunkna p g a urblåst simring.


Käns denna låten igen, förresten? Gillar ännu mycket!
HGL sa…
20.11 och 20.14 är exempler på hvad som händer när commentaren visas sent ... sorry för fördoubblingen!
Citerar Chesterton:

What' Wrong With the World
Feminism, or the mistake about woman, ch. II

THE UNIVERSAL STICK

Cast your eye round the room in which you sit, and select some three or four things that have been with man almost since his beginning; which at least we hear of early in the centuries and often among the tribes. Let me suppose that you see a knife on the table, a stick in the corner, or a fire on the hearth. About each of these you will notice one speciality; that not one of them is special. Each of these ancestral things is a universal thing; made to supply many different needs; and while tottering pedants nose about to find the cause and origin of some old custom, the truth is that it had fifty causes or a hundred origins. The knife is meant to cut wood, to cut cheese, to cut pencils, to cut throats; for a myriad ingenious or innocent human objects. The stick is meant partly to hold a man up, partly to knock a man down; partly to point with like a finger-post, partly to balance with like a balancing pole, partly to trifle with like a cigarette, partly to kill with like a club of a giant; it is a crutch and a cudgel; an elongated finger and an extra leg. The case is the same, of course, with the fire; about which the strangest modern views have arisen. A queer fancy seems to be current that a fire exists to warm people. It exists to warm people, to light their darkness, to raise their spirits, to toast their muffins, to air their rooms, to cook their chestnuts, to tell stories to their children, to make checkered shadows on their walls, to boil their hurried kettles, and to be the red heart of a man's house and that hearth for which, as the great heathens said, a man should die.
Now it is the great mark of our modernity that people are always proposing substitutes for these old things; and these substitutes always answer one purpose where the old thing answered ten. The modern man will wave a cigarette instead of a stick; he will cut his pencil with a little screwing pencil-sharpener instead of a knife; and he will even boldly offer to be warmed by hot water pipes instead of a fire. I have my doubts about pencil-sharpeners even for sharpening pencils; and about hot water pipes even for heat. But when we think of all those other requirements that these institutions answered, there opens before us the whole horrible harlequinade of our civilization. We see as in a vision a world where a man tries to cut his throat with a pencil-sharpener; where a man must learn single-stick with a cigarette; where a man must try to toast muffins at electric lamps, and see red and golden castles in the surface of hot water pipes.
The principle of which I speak can be seen everywhere in a comparison between the ancient and universal things and the modern and specialist things. The object of a theodolite is to lie level; the object of a stick is to swing loose at any angle; to whirl like the very wheel of liberty. The object of a lancet is to lance; when used for slashing, gashing, ripping, lopping off heads and limbs, it is a disappointing instrument. The object of an electric light is merely to light (a despicable modesty); and the object of an asbestos stove . . . I wonder what is the object of an asbestos stove? If a man found a coil of rope in a desert he could at least think of all the things that can be done with a coil of rope; and some of them might even be practical. He could tow a boat or lasso a horse. He could play cat's-cradle, or pick oakum. He could construct a rope-ladder for an eloping heiress, or cord her boxes for a travelling maiden aunt. He could learn to tie a bow, or he could hang himself. Far otherwise with the unfortunate traveller who should find a telephone in the desert. You can telephone with a telephone; you cannot do anything else with it. And though this is one of the wildest joys of life, it falls by one degree from its full delirium when there is nobody to answer you. The contention is, in brief, that you must pull up a hundred roots, and not one, before you uproot any of these hoary and simple expedients. It is only with great difficulty that a modern scientific sociologist can be got to see that any old method has a leg to stand on. But almost every old method has four or five legs to stand on. Almost all the old institutions are quadrupeds; and some of them are centipedes.
Consider these cases, old and new, and you will observe the operation of a general tendency. Everywhere there was one big thing that served six purposes; everywhere now there are six small things; or, rather (and there is the trouble), there are just five and a half. Nevertheless, we will not say that this separation and specialism is entirely useless or inexcusable. I have often thanked God for the telephone; I may any day thank God for the lancet; and there is none of these brilliant and narrow inventions (except, of course, the asbestos stove) which might not be at some moment necessary and lovely. But I do not think the most austere upholder of specialism will deny that there is in these old, many-sided institutions an element of unity and universality which may well be preserved in its due proportion and place. Spiritually, at least, it will be admitted that some all-round balance is needed to equalize the extravagance of experts. It would not be difficult to carry the parable of the knife and stick into higher regions. Religion, the immortal maiden, has been a maid-of-all-work as well as a servant of mankind. She provided men at once with the theoretic laws of an unalterable cosmos and also with the practical rules of the rapid and thrilling game of morality. She taught logic to the student and told fairy tales to the children; it was her business to confront the nameless gods whose fears are on all flesh, and also to see the streets were spotted with silver and scarlet, that there was a day for wearing ribbons or an hour for ringing bells. The large uses of religion have been broken up into lesser specialities, just as the uses of the hearth have been broken up into hot water pipes and electric bulbs. The romance of ritual and colored emblem has been taken over by that narrowest of all trades, modern art (the sort called art for art's sake), and men are in modern practice informed that they may use all symbols so long as they mean nothing by them. The romance of conscience has been dried up into the science of ethics; which may well be called decency for decency's sake, decency unborn of cosmic energies and barren of artistic flower. The cry to the dim gods, cut off from ethics and cosmology, has become mere Psychical Research. Everything has been sundered from everything else, and everything has grown cold. Soon we shall hear of specialists dividing the tune from the words of a song, on the ground that they spoil each other; and I did once meet a man who openly advocated the separation of almonds and raisins. This world is all one wild divorce court; nevertheless, there are many who still hear in their souls the thunder of authority of human habit; those whom Man hath joined let no man sunder.
This book must avoid religion, but there must (I say) be many, religious and irreligious, who will concede that this power of answering many purposes was a sort of strength which should not wholly die out of our lives. As a part of personal character, even the moderns will agree that many-sidedness is a merit and a merit that may easily be overlooked. This balance and universality has been the vision of many groups of men in many ages. It was the Liberal Education of Aristotle; the jack-of-all-trades artistry of Leonardo da Vinci and his friends; the august amateurishness of the Cavalier Person of Quality like Sir William Temple or the great Earl of Dorset. It has appeared in literature in our time in the most erratic and opposite shapes, set to almost inaudible music by Walter Pater and enunciated through a foghorn by Walt Whitman. But the great mass of men have always been unable to achieve this literal universality, because of the nature of their work in the world. Not, let it be noted, because of the existence of their work. Leonardo da Vinci must have worked pretty hard; on the other hand, many a government office clerk, village constable or elusive plumber may do (to all human appearance) no work at all, and yet show no signs of the Aristotelian universalism. What makes it difficult for the average man to be a universalist is that the average man has to be a specialist; he has not only to learn one trade, but to learn it so well as to uphold him in a more or less ruthless society. This is generally true of males from the first hunter to the last electrical engineer; each has not merely to act, but to excel. Nimrod has not only to be a mighty hunter before the Lord, but also a mighty hunter before the other hunters. The electrical engineer has to be a very electrical engineer, or he is outstripped by engineers yet more electrical. Those very miracles of the human mind on which the modern world prides itself, and rightly in the main, would be impossible without a certain concentration which disturbs the pure balance of reason more than does religious bigotry. No creed can be so limiting as that awful adjuration that the cobbler must not go beyond his last. So the largest and wildest shots of our world are but in one direction and with a defined trajectory: the gunner cannot go beyond his shot, and his shot so often falls short; the astronomer cannot go beyond his telescope and his telescope goes such a little way. All these are like men who have stood on the high peak of a mountain and seen the horizon like a single ring and who then descend down different paths towards different towns, traveling slow or fast. It is right; there must be people traveling to different towns; there must be specialists; but shall no one behold the horizon? Shall all mankind be specialist surgeons or peculiar plumbers; shall all humanity be monomaniac? Tradition has decided that only half of humanity shall be monomaniac. It has decided that in every home there shall be a tradesman and a Jack-of-all-trades. But it has also decided, among other things, that the Jack of-all-trades shall be a Jill-of-all-trades. It has decided, rightly or wrongly, that this specialism and this universalism shall be divided between the sexes. Cleverness shall be left for men and wisdom for women. For cleverness kills wisdom; that is one of the few sad and certain things.
But for women this ideal of comprehensive capacity (or common-sense) must long ago have been washed away. It must have melted in the frightful furnaces of ambition and eager technicality. A man must be partly a one-idead man, because he is a one-weaponed man--and he is flung naked into the fight. The world's demand comes to him direct; to his wife indirectly. In short, he must (as the books on Success say) give "his best"; and what a small part of a man "his best" is! His second and third best are often much better. If he is the first violin he must fiddle for life; he must not remember that he is a fine fourth bagpipe, a fair fifteenth billiard-cue, a foil, a fountain pen, a hand at whist, a gun, and an image of God.

From next chapter:

The final fact which fixes this is a sufficiently plain one. Supposing it to be conceded that humanity has acted at least not unnaturally in dividing itself into two halves, respectively typifying the ideals of special talent and of general sanity (since they are genuinely difficult to combine completely in one mind), it is not difficult to see why the line of cleavage has followed the line of sex, or why the female became the emblem of the universal and the male of the special and superior. Two gigantic facts of nature fixed it thus: first, that the woman who frequently fulfilled her functions literally could not be specially prominent in experiment and adventure; and second, that the same natural operation surrounded her with very young children, who require to be taught not so much anything as everything. Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world.

source

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Man måste ju få prata om sex som är problematiskt?

Sextips för jämställda heteromän

Gästblogg: Hur man fördelar talutrymme kollaborativt, eller Hur man pratar som en tjej och gillar det