Feminism (and all other forms of extremism)

I recently had a conversation with one of my female friends who is a self-described feminist. We were arguing about the prospect of hitting a girl. I had poked some fun at her clumsiness and she slapped me across my face playfully. I then proceeded return the favor (jokingly), and to that I was given the angry retort: "Don't you know you mustn't hit a girl?" That particular statement lead to a long discussion about feminism. Let me say this: I am not anti-feminist per se. I am very much an advocate for the equality of sexes and for increased women's rights and freedoms. However, I am often very irritated and become very much irked when I am faced by the modern feminist movement, or post-feminist movement as some may refer to it. Here we see not a group of women who seek equality amidst a world dominated by males, but we see women who, having largely attained their freedoms and gained their equality, seek more; supremacy of their sex, for lack of better expression. I am also quite peeved by those women who speak of equality of gender, and purport the same stereotypes that dominate in our very masculo-centric society.

Historically, the first wave of feminism was a group of marginalized English women who fought for the right to vote in the late 1900's. Women's rights have come a long way since then. Subsequent waves of feminism have ensured that women everywhere share much the same freedoms and rights as men do. More and more, women are being treated as equals to men in the workplace, in public spheres and in society as a whole. I admit that there is still a bias amongst men, and that there is still much to be done to ensure that women have an equal standing as men do in all aspects of life. However, the modern feminist movement is ridiculous, and their ideologies are much the opposite to the notion of equity.

There are contradictions in modern feminist doctrine. Modern feminists claim that women should be given equal opportunity to employment as men, including more physically demanding jobs such as construction, police-work, fire-fighting and others. They claim that the notion that men are "more physically capable" of carrying out these jobs than women is a fallacy, and that women should be given equal consideration. As a matter of fact, speaking in broadly general terms, it is a physiological fact that women's bodies. IN GENERAL, are made up in such a way that they are not as physically apt as men for certain tasks. This is why in sports the men's and women's divisions are separate. HOWEVER, it is indeed also true that many women are indeed just-as-or-more-capable-than men at some physical activities; there are many fine female police officers, firefighters and the like, and so I agree that there should be more equality in that respect. NOW, lets relate this to the issue of men striking women. As a tradition, it has always been considered a sin for a man to strike a woman because of perceived differences in physical makeup. However, based on the previous logic, isn't there a case that a woman should be just as physically capable of handling violence as a man? (Incidentally, I personally refrain from hitting women because I was raised as a gentleman, a concept which, admittedly, inadvertently contributes to the male supremacist stereotype, but which i see as right because I definitely recognize the GENERAL physical disparities between men and women). There are approximately 5000 reported cases in North America each year of men who are abused by their wives; are we saying that it is wrong for them to physically defend themselves "because their wives are women?". If Serena Williams and Michael J. Fox got into a fight, would you say that the dimunitive sitcom star, being the "physically superior being", should refrain from striking the physically-gifted tennis pro ? Don't misinterpret me readers, I am not at all trying to justify violence against women, I am simply saying that, in certain cases, whilst I myself would refrain from it because of personal doctrine, there are cases where it would be logically acceptable principle of a man were to hit a woman. The point here is that it is contradictory to defend women's rights on grounds of physical equality, and by the same token defend their rights on grounds of physical disparity. Just something to think about....

And now I move to female supremacists. How is their doctrine different from male chauvinism? I disagree totally with modern feminist doctrine in much the same way as I disagree with black supremacist groups, or other previously marginalized groups that seek to "get back" at society by forming groups that marginalize those who previously marginalized them. Do two wrongs make a right? Modern Feminists use whining and complaining about the past as a hollow justification of why women should be our leaders. I believe our leaders should be our leaders not because they are man or woman, but because they are good leaders...and just as a matter of principle, I am a sucker for a good argument, using flawless logic and untainted common sense to advance a position. And while I will neither subscribe to nor support a totally male-dominated society I am more inclined to look favorably upon a male supremacist argument, simply because of the fact that men do control the world; they control history, they control wealth and they control the way the world is run. And this is not as a matter of necessity; it is simply as a matter of fact. To those feminists who seek a female dominated world, as well well as to male chauvinists, I say this: in much the same way as there is much room for equality of sexes in MANY aspects of life, there are also certain things which will always be better suited for men, just as there will always be certain things that are better suited for women.

But anyway these are just my thoughts...what do you think ?