If you have to argue, argue with logic.
Chimamanda Adichie asked Hilary Clinton why she has decided to identify herself first as a wife and mother before listing her professional achievements. Whereas her husband Bill Clinton has not made any mention of his marital or parental status on his own profile.
Now, someone attempted to flip the script and wrote: "Just Imagine if a man had told a celebrity that he felt 'a little bit upset' that she chose to define herself by her career."
Unfortunately the analogy does not work. I said it then and I am saying it again, now.
The point here is not Chimamanda's being upset, it's about the reason why she is upset.
The analogy presented in the quote above doesn't work because the context surrounding the man's question is not the same as the one surrounding Chimamanda's question.
Chimamanda's question is not sexist. But the man's question in the example is sexist.
An appropriate analogy would be one that involves a man asking another man why he is not playing by patriarchal narratives.
Chimamanda and Hilary are both women who should be playing for the same team. So that interviewer needs a man like himself whom he believes should be playing for the same team as himself.
A proper analogy would have been a man asking another man who had listed father and husband on his bio, like Barrack Obama and John Legend have done, why they were not playing by patriarchal narratives and putting their careers first, instead.
Because the whole issue is all about "why are you buying into a narrative that doesn't elevate you?"
Patriarchy does not elevate women, so Chimamanda has a reason to be upset with Hilary's decision.
Patriarchy does not elevate women so it doesn't make sense for a man (team patriarchy) to ask a woman (team feminist) to play by patriarchal rules and be upset that she isn't when it's clear to both of them that the woman is aware of the disadvantage of playing by those rules.
Patriarchy elevates men more than feminism does, as feminism deprives men of patriarchal privileges, so it makes sense for a man to be upset that a man has decided to play by rules that do not favour him in full.
Did I explain myself?
Chimamanda Adichie asked Hilary Clinton why she has decided to identify herself first as a wife and mother before listing her professional achievements. Whereas her husband Bill Clinton has not made any mention of his marital or parental status on his own profile.
Now, someone attempted to flip the script and wrote: "Just Imagine if a man had told a celebrity that he felt 'a little bit upset' that she chose to define herself by her career."
Unfortunately the analogy does not work. I said it then and I am saying it again, now.
The point here is not Chimamanda's being upset, it's about the reason why she is upset.
The analogy presented in the quote above doesn't work because the context surrounding the man's question is not the same as the one surrounding Chimamanda's question.
Chimamanda's question is not sexist. But the man's question in the example is sexist.
An appropriate analogy would be one that involves a man asking another man why he is not playing by patriarchal narratives.
Chimamanda and Hilary are both women who should be playing for the same team. So that interviewer needs a man like himself whom he believes should be playing for the same team as himself.
A proper analogy would have been a man asking another man who had listed father and husband on his bio, like Barrack Obama and John Legend have done, why they were not playing by patriarchal narratives and putting their careers first, instead.
Because the whole issue is all about "why are you buying into a narrative that doesn't elevate you?"
Patriarchy does not elevate women, so Chimamanda has a reason to be upset with Hilary's decision.
Patriarchy does not elevate women so it doesn't make sense for a man (team patriarchy) to ask a woman (team feminist) to play by patriarchal rules and be upset that she isn't when it's clear to both of them that the woman is aware of the disadvantage of playing by those rules.
Patriarchy elevates men more than feminism does, as feminism deprives men of patriarchal privileges, so it makes sense for a man to be upset that a man has decided to play by rules that do not favour him in full.
Did I explain myself?
No comments:
Post a Comment