Your truths are relative

On almost any subject you tackle, there will always be people who are outraged by your desire to explore, investigate or discuss something they feel is already set in stone. However, if a matter is settled beyond a shadow of doubt, no amount of discussion will change that.
If I were to table for debate the idea, ‘the world is flat, modern science has got it wrong’, you’d be less inclined to outrage and more towards a fit of giggles.  The reason for that is that there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary (if in the future the world is proven to be flat, I’ll eat my words).
Ideology is just that, a system of ideas, and while there are ‘facts’ that support them, the ideology is presented from one group’s perspective.  A perspective, is rarely irrefutable, and even more rarely a summary of the entire events. In a court of law, there is a reason that we provide many eye-witnesses (when able), expert testimony, and as much hard evidence as possible.  The reason for this is that ‘truth’ is relative.
In Australia, my high-school’s history books said that the country was settled in 1788.
To the Aboriginal natives of Australia, the land was inhabited 50,000 years ago and 1788 was the year of the white invaders.
Both are true from their own perspective and an understanding of that meant that my son’s history books have been revised to acknowledge both truths as historical fact.  Those changes only came from long and difficult discussion, but the outcome of those discussions was a shared truth that is now held both by Australia’s natives and its settlers.
In equality ideology, feminists point to a history where women spent millions of years without the same basic rights, choices and treatment as men.  They see this as clear and obvious proof of the ‘truth’ of patriarchy1:  A system created by men, to oppress2 women, to the benefit of men.
MRAspoint to a history where men have spent millions of years working to provide for the women they loved, and when necessary, dying to protect them.  They see this as clear and obvious proof of the ‘truth’ of male disposability.
History has taught me that its only use is to learn from it, and improve upon it.  
Progress comes from acknowledging our past and moving forwards, stagnation comes from continuing to live in it.  Therefore I would argue that we must acknowledge and learn from both the feminist and MRA perspectives of truth.
Choice and freedom are vital to the human condition; it is inherently wrong to rob any group of that because of their gender. However, you can only be dissatisfied with your lack of choices and freedom if you’re alive, and as history is written in the blood of an incalculable number of men who died so their wives and daughters could go on to live, perhaps we could pause to consider both sides of the same story.
Some people struggle with my perspective but as a student of history I can attest to finding:
·        Countless examples of women being disempowered3
·        Countless examples of men spending their lives providing for women and children
·        Countless examples of men dying to protect the women they loved
·        No examples of an ‘oppressive class’ (eg American, European, Roman, or Egyptian slave owners) willing to spend a lifetime in service, providing for those they oppressed
·        No examples of an oppressive class wilfully and repeatedly sacrificing their own health or their lives, on behalf of those they oppressed.
But that’s my position, and what’s most important is that you form an educated one of your own.
1 Feminism defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. 
2 Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority
3  Disempower: make (a person or group) less powerful or confident
—Source – google definitions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *