Oh really!

Polarity is important between genders and in my opinion, it will stay for a very long time, if not forever.

Oh really!
Photo by Cherry Laithang / Unsplash

If feminism is a thing then masculism or masculinism or mennism is equally legit.

In my opinion both are flawed and shallow concepts tossed forth by frustrated representatives of respective genders who are unable to contain it. Now you know who gets frustrated more often (pun).

You can learn all the chivalry and courtship from Jane Austen’s novels. You will also find progressive and strong female characters gave in to stronger male characters.

The times when chivalry was "something", world was less feminist, polarity between men and women was higher and women were more "oppressed".

Men were more of "providers" and women were more "supportive".

Now, since polarity of gender is decreasing, so is the respect of one gender for the other and that makes total sense.

Also keep note that respect == distance, almost always.

If polarity decreases even further then there would be no chivalry at all as no one puts shows of courtliness for fellow men.

Polarity is important between genders and in my opinion it will stay, for a very long time, if not forever. Men's super hero instincts will keep shining in front of women and it has been always like this and women will keep falling for stronger/provider/confident and “rude” men.

The more equal we become the more mess we will create. Basically, Entropy!

If women are oppressed and doomed to be supportive then by that logic, men are oppressed and doomed to be providers.

“When you become a C.E.O. and you’re a woman, you are looked at differently. . . . You are held to a different standard. There’s no question about it,” Nooyi said during the “Freakonomics” interview. “I think this group of women C.E.O.s, all of us, are going through that right now. Hopefully, as the numbers get bigger—and I hope they do—nobody’s looking at us as women C.E.O.s but just as leaders of big enterprises. I hope that day comes sooner than later.”

There is nothing to panic about this statement. Tying it with women and feminism is confirmation bias. It just means that people were freaked out in worlds first cinema when they see a train coming out of screen towards them. Now, they are used to it so they don’t freak out.

I agree that weaker and lesser men are intimidated by strong women but cases of women complaining and demeaning men who are not good “providers” easily out weigh those men.

If it’s okay for a woman to be strong then why is it not okay for a man to be weak?

Why is being strong tied to being CEO/having power?

I know it sounds typical mennist comment and exactly that’s what I want to point out that both concepts are flawed. I think we should be worried about how to make genders less equal and maintain dignity of human race in front of animals.

Moreover, statistically speaking, number of men who “compromised” on their dreams just to “provide” is way higher than the number of women who did so just to “support” and the ratio is increasing everyday.

Just like seven deadly sins here is a list for a “wanna be thinking” mind.

Talking of which, by the way, here is one of the most meaningful clip on the internet. I really hope you manage to connect with the meaning. Have a listen.

PS: Pardon my poor editing, written and published on a mobile phone.