Steinheim Article- If Men could Menstruate
If Men Could Menstruate
Steinheim brought out a valid point in her hysterical article entitled, “If Men Could Menstruate”.In essence she stated that whatever characteristics a dominant group has will be used to explain why that group is dominant. The same goes for the inferior group. In seeing this, one can think about how often this is done. Commercials that argue for or against something either give characteristics of the said object for why it is better or worse than another said object. Political candidates run on being liberal and pro-choice, yet to show superiority, their opponents use those same characteristics to explain why that person does not fit the job. Throughout history, the superior groups have justified its position by the characteristics not found in the inferior groups. Steinheim gave the example of black men getting the labor work because they were “stronger” and the black women getting the labor work because they were weak. The best statement after that was that “Logic has nothing to do with oppression”.
It is amazing how far a double standard can go. Even if you think about pants and how they have changed over the years. It used to be when women wore skin tight jeans they are inviting a man to them, but when men wear “skinny” jeans it’s now cool. Or the classic one where if women have a lot of men they are said to be a slut or a ho, but a man turns up with women he’s a pimp, rolling stone, Big Mac,or simply has a lot of swag. The way events are used through the language of the superior group is actually very much relative, but for some reason other groups lazily call it common sense.
The fact that relative events are merely bundles of persuasive language that is accepted as reality is the main theme of this article. The events are relative because different individuals experience them in different ways. However the group that is able to quickly form language to describe that event wins. Steinheim gave the example of the power of giving
Steinheim brought out a valid point in her hysterical article entitled, “If Men Could Menstruate”.In essence she stated that whatever characteristics a dominant group has will be used to explain why that group is dominant. The same goes for the inferior group. In seeing this, one can think about how often this is done. Commercials that argue for or against something either give characteristics of the said object for why it is better or worse than another said object. Political candidates run on being liberal and pro-choice, yet to show superiority, their opponents use those same characteristics to explain why that person does not fit the job. Throughout history, the superior groups have justified its position by the characteristics not found in the inferior groups. Steinheim gave the example of black men getting the labor work because they were “stronger” and the black women getting the labor work because they were weak. The best statement after that was that “Logic has nothing to do with oppression”.
It is amazing how far a double standard can go. Even if you think about pants and how they have changed over the years. It used to be when women wore skin tight jeans they are inviting a man to them, but when men wear “skinny” jeans it’s now cool. Or the classic one where if women have a lot of men they are said to be a slut or a ho, but a man turns up with women he’s a pimp, rolling stone, Big Mac,or simply has a lot of swag. The way events are used through the language of the superior group is actually very much relative, but for some reason other groups lazily call it common sense.
The fact that relative events are merely bundles of persuasive language that is accepted as reality is the main theme of this article. The events are relative because different individuals experience them in different ways. However the group that is able to quickly form language to describe that event wins. Steinheim gave the example of the power of giving