Male Chauvinism, Masculinity and Logic
I have encountered following traits as socially being interchangeable:
- Male Chauvinism
- Masculinity
- Logic
If you don’t follow this list, try reading it from below. Examples:
Men are logical while women are not.
Men don’t cry.
Women are emotional.
Girls are’t good at Maths.
I mean to say, it is fairly obvious that masculinity is confused with logical thinking. This has historically been understood, and it is easy to find proofs of it in historical texts. I will not dwell into it further.
No, the point of concern here is how often masculinity and male chauvinism are confused. For example, these are sentences I have heard from my friends over time:
- A man should control his woman’s mind. It shouldn’t be allowed to wander too much.
- It is better if your woman sees the world through your eyes.
- A younger girl is better because she will trust you more than herself.
- Women crave a commanding authority.
As such, a ‘masculine’ liberal is a man who forces freedom upon the women (and not shares it). A ‘masculine’ conservative is a man who doesn’t think freedom is for women.
It is easy to digress from here into a discussion about women’s rights. But that would be missing the subtle charge laid upon men to be ‘masculine’. Or rather, accept the authority of those who are more masculine. By forcing a man to govern over a women, and thus derive masculine identity from it, one forces a man to accept an order. That the indicter, by the very fact of being a part of such an order before the latter, is proven to be more masculine becomes an essential side effect.
Of course, once indiction is completed, one needs to find another victim to boss around and include in the hierarchy.
