Date: Sep 11th, 2016
Motion: THW focus on the bad out of the mixed (hand)bag that feminism is
Role: PM (govt.)
We’re now living in the first sextile of the 21st century. Feminism is still a watchword that occasionally makes headlines, its way into articles or a case for this or that. What I give is a broadside against that ism, since I believe that it is past its prime, lost in the woods without a compass. My speech will have subheadings that branch out into the French Resistance, Newsrooms at Newspapers and Grinning Politics. So, lean back, listen to what I have to say and enjoy the ride. This is completely free of charges, or, should I say, complimentary.
The French Resistance
Feminism is a little like the French Resistance that was active from the days that France got occupied by the Axis power Germany in the early 1940’s. Feminists act like resistance members did. They like the idea of resistance more than direct action. They pass on coded messages, directions, maps, pamphlets and other stuff to each other in the form of genre literature. They like to discuss before any act of rebellion. Their heroine is a figure who was alive and well during the days of the Nazi occupation and who published her most famous opus right after the war, i.e. ”The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir. Feminists may work for the Man during the daylight hours, but when the evening comes, resistance members long for seeing one of their soulmates in the dark of the September night, lighting a cigarette and knocking some vin rouge back.
If we consider men nazis and women French Resistance members, there is one difference though. The real war ended in 1945, after which France got its sovereignty back. Feminist Resistance members, on the other hand, continue the war as if it had never ended (in 1945, or 1990, or 2015, for that matter), for the activity is so gratifying from an aesthetic point of view that they like the idea of an ongoing war and an occupier more than a solution and peacetime.
Newsrooms at Newspapers
I recently read a piece of news that declared, ”women of all ages favour men that are older than they are”. I asked myself, ”don’t the men have any say on that matter?” Then I realized that it’s a politically ”correct” choice. Editors in the decision rooms of newspapers in most Western countries want to formulate it in that way, since then they are able to imply that it’s women who make the choice and who are in command. In truth, it’s a ”two’s a company but three’s a crowd” situation, for also men are complicit in this deal in actively favouring younger women. If I show a given man pictures of a peer woman and a woman of a younger generation and ask him, ”which one of them is more attractive in your eyes”, chances are good that he’ll point his finger at the younger woman, and this can happen even at an age when the peer woman would be sexually fertile/mature and generally speaking pleasant. Editors don’t want to formulate headlines that read ”men favour younger women across the spectrum”, for if they did, in their minds they would ”snuff out” the remaining hope that there is for these early middle-aged women to couple up and marry.
Another question entirely was the fact that the age difference that women wanted to exist between themselves and the older men was in Finland only 3 years on average. As far as I’m concerned, three years is almost nothing, and it does not lead to differing coming-of-age experiences. If we take a man and a woman born in 1956/1959, 1966/1969, 1976/1979, 1986/1989 and 1996/1999 — regardless of the birth order — I consider them peers, as each of those pairs would essentially belong in the same generation, respectively. Newsrooms are for some reason indoctrinated with ”seraphising” all kinds of minorities or underdogs, even if it meant demonising those that are regarded as the majority or stronger parties. Newsrooms forget that the fact that you’re ”of majority” or ”strong” does not mean that you’re ”wrong” — at least I can’t see an equal sign between these two variables.
Considering that feminism is giving rise to more and more singles in general, as more and more men and women wander out there alone, you might think that it could adjust its aims and means to address this issue. But, no, the only thing that happens is that lonely people merely begin to rally behind partisan movements and claim that society favours families at their expense. They don’t see that it couldn’t be in the 180° opposite way. Then, the cart would begin to pull the donkey, and not the other way round. But my colleague, Minister, can go into that in greater detail.
The corrosive ism that I have been railing against gets things wrong, but it’s not yet consigned to the trashheap of history, a fate some other isms have faced in the recent past and past few decades. The damage that has been done is irreparable, according to some, and inevitable, according to others. You can make up your own mind as this debate continues.
Puheen kesto: 7 min 3 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Avauspuheeksi tämä on aika lailla omiaan, sillä siinä ei tarvitse vielä ottaa huomioon ”mitään”, ei keskeyttelijöitäkään. Tätäkin jotkut osaavat hyödyntää ja toiset eivät. Siksi puhe lataa tiskiin kolme pointtia, joista toinen on paras, koska siinä on selkeä argumentointi sisällä. Toisaalta toisen pointin referoima lehtiartikkeli (joka linkistä avautuu) on tosiasiallisesti varsin tasapuolinen ja esittää asioita ei pelkästään naisten vaan myös miesten kannalta pyrkien osittaiseen neutraaliuteen. Mutta se ei ”avaudu” keskustelun kulussa. Tämän puheen jälkeen saman puolen seuraajan on helppo tai vaikea, valmistautuneisuudesta riippuen, jatka samaa linjaa.