Activism to level the unequal empowerment of men relative to women is justifiable, although the way in which this unequal empowerment is rationalized or justified is also highly criticizable. But let us also admit that men, historically and prehistorically, drag the reality of their empowerment by placing themselves and being placed in the vortex of violence. The adult male, and sometimes not so adult, has been the most recognized for exercising war and violence; the massacre has appropriated that «mission,» although, also, men have been the most tortured and massacred (wherever they give, they take). Desensitization, for these elites, appeared reactively, and therefore, the emotional defects, behavioral aberrations, and the «need» to appear tough and inflexible. The description of the masculine as something monstrous is described in its label.
What the feminist movement overlooked was the «little heart» that men also carry within them. It should have focused not only on women’s liberation and the social role of the feminine, but also on men’s liberation from their own chains of fury and malevolence. It should have focused, first and foremost, on the redemption of men, who are perpetrators, but also victims. (Suicides and murders are much more common among men.) Educational understanding has the obligation to recognize sensitivity in men; love, affection, tenderness, and emotions must be acknowledged and reciprocated. A woman’s right to full empowerment cannot disregard a man’s right to fully experience his affective and emotional capacity, his capacity to love and be loved, which would definitively marginalize violence.
docpoetry
Comentarios recientes