Post a response:
|
Imagine if instead of feminism, which expanded women's rights at the expense of children's, there had been puerism, which expanded boys' rights. Somehow I can't really imagine puerism hurting females' rights. Like would they have been like, "us boys can handle the world, you know who can't, females, like our mothers; so our fathers need to exercise less control over us and more control over our mothers"? Doesn't really seem to make sense. And even if females' rights were harmed, little girls would certainly benefit overall, as they are oppressed more by ageism than sexism. Reading it, I was thinking "would it have been better if there was a boys' movement instead, such an ethical dilemma, is ageism a greater evil than sexism?". But at first, I was thinking sexism was the greater evil, because females were oppressed for life. But now I'm thinking maybe ageism is a greater evil than sexism, similar to how it's a greater evil than racism, even though ethnic minorities are oppressed for life. Because ageism harms development and harms everyone, and racism affects less people significantly, as only people living somewhere where they are an ethnic minority are significantly oppressed. What's more, ethnic minorities are quite often immigrants, meaning that they kind of chose their fate. Honestly, I think the best way to approach the issue is to consider what feminism (assuming that it leads to women's liberation at the expense of children) and puerism (assuming that it leads to boys' liberation at the expense of females) would do to girls. And I think it's clear that little girls would benefit the most from puerism. And that feminism is actually worse than nothing, even if it did lead to them enjoying freedom as adults. It also made them less likely to survive to adulthood (note, obscured by medical advances), and less likely to be able to handle adult responsibility. It's not clear how it is for adolescent girls though. So now I think ageism is the greater evil. |