With so much misunderstanding between men and women right now, it’s really nice to come across a video that helps promote a greater understanding between the sexes.
Norah Vincent is a female, lesbian and feminist who dressed as a man for eighteen months as a human experiment. She wanted to see what it was really like to be a man, and so Norah put herself through a mini become-a-man bootcamp and became “Ned”.
The results were pretty interesting.
1.) Norah became much more empathetic to the difficulties of being a man in the modern world. Norah now has much more compassion for men and men’s issues, not less.
2.) After being a man for 18 months, Norah became depressed and wanted to hurt herself. Was this because of the added stress she faced as a man? or was it because she felt bad about lying about her identity as she says in the interview? Maybe it was a combination of both?
3.) At minute 18:32 in the video the interviewer asks Norah if she liked being a woman before she was Ned? To which she responded, “I did, but I like it more now because I think it is more of a privilege.” That’s right, a person who has had the rare opportunity to live as both sexes says it is a PRIVILEGE to be a woman in Western society.
Divisive Language + Modern Social Movements = “Divide and Conquer”
I like social movements that offer solutions and bring people together, not social movements that are divisive.
The idea that women should have all equal rights to men is of course a wonderful idea, but that is not what most of Feminism has become. So why call ourselves after one sex and say it is about both sexes when we can simply use a better word that doesn’t create division?
For example, why not call ourselves “Equalists” so that the average man can join the movement as well? And so that we can work together, and side by side, in making sure all persons are treated fairly and respectfully regardless of gender?
If Equalist isn’t the right word, maybe another one is?
The point is words matter and we have to recognize that feminism is a divisive word, and because division can never offer us the solutions we need, I think we should abandon it.
It’s very similar to Black Lives Matter. BLM is a divisive concept. I know they are not saying their lives matter more, but what do we do when a white person is brutalized the the police? When a white child has a flash grenade blown up in it’s face? Nothing? Those lives don’t matter? There is no rally call for their suffering and injustice? And that isn’t supposed to create resentment and division? Why can’t we have a name or slogan that represents everyone who is involved and not just one group?
BLM is a divisive approach, and while “black lives matter” are just words, look at how powerful they are at creating a division among us!
The irony is the minorities’ lot never improves without the support of the majority, and so by alienating the majority, the term only serves to help shoot the minority that uses it in the foot.
I think the golden rule we need to follow with any social or justice movement is this:
No matter who is being treated most unfairly it should always be about making sure ALL people are treated fairly.
If we follow that mantra we cannot be divided and no one can be left behind.