Feminism VS Vedas Notes On Gender Holidays

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

My 5 kopecks post-holiday hysteria.

This year I noticed “new trends” in congratulations on gender holidays.

On February 23, the feed in messengers and social networks was filled with pictures with congratulations of girls on the men's holiday on behalf of the girls. In the context of “we are all women veterans”, “what would men do without us”, etc.

Since, by the will of fate, I am a member of several parent groups in Wotsap, there was a lot of hell, but the trend attracted attention.

On March 8, the picture also looked a little different. Congratulations to "real women" are kind, gentle, beautiful, and not somehow misoandrock feminists. In social networks, men and women expressed fierce hatred of feminists, citing really terrible examples of “their activity”, explaining radicalism, of course, by the absence of a “normal man” and bad external data.

The tape brought Olga Valyaeva's posts a couple of times, denouncing feminism as more harmful than useful. The author's mathematical education was not shaken by a long skirt. Although the text is replete with emotional arguments (about a soft female heart, and a world that will collapse if a woman suddenly ceases to be a woman, etc.), it contains the main theses of public relations to this mysterious phenomenon in a rather structured manner. That is, it is so good that it can be disassembled into quotes.

"Does it make the world brighter and cleaner?" - the author asks pathetically.

Yes! “- I answer with joy.

"Who benefits from this?" - Olga asks.

“Yes, these are those whom he will not harass and insult now,” I suppose hesitantly.

Further quotation.

“But what are the equal rights? What is it all about? When the responsibilities are completely different. If the rights are equal, then both must be given the right to give birth. Will it work? And then what is all this for? Everyone is concerned about their rights and completely forgot about their responsibilities. Why spend so much effort and money on this? All people already have equal rights before God. But the responsibilities are different, the properties of nature are different”

Here I, of course, take back the words about mathematical education. Unless this is a clever trick from sophistry with the substitution of concepts. But, just in case, I explain - yes, it happens that the duties are different, but the rights are equal. Nobody deprived of the right to give birth to men. But women are often charged with a duty. Despite the fact that this is our sacred right.

What feminists are talking about is not about equal rights before God and not about sacred rights, but about equal civil rights.

“Everyone is concerned about their rights” - it would be great if this were true. Maybe lawlessness and lawlessness would have been less. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

"Everyone has completely forgotten about their duties" is also not true. I remember.

The next argument is that feminism is harmful to health. Rather, the Family Institute. Undermines gradually. Precisely by emancipation.

It is difficult to disagree with this. If the institution of the family rests on the dominance of one and the dependence of the other, then the independence of this very other, of course, will undermine the foundations.

And how to build a family on a different basis, it seems that the Vedas did not write about it. But everything looks very scary:

“And the same is how they set us up - drink as much as you want, sleep with just anyone, change your partner if he doesn't come up; walk, live for yourself, have an abortion when you don't want children; Drink again, plow like a horse, for the sake of fashionable clothes, endure. Be patient here, but do not tolerate at home, at home download your license, at home behave as you like, and if he does not like it, then he is free! You have the right to be accepted as you are. Cheat for profit. Do it yourself. If Botox. Be cool. Be free. Be strong. What kind of a strong family is there? With whom? And what should it hold on to? On a clear schedule, who is sitting with the child today, and who is preparing dinner?"

Although, in some places, even nothing. That's about the fact that "you have the right to be accepted …".- it would even be very nice, in my opinion. And "who is sitting with the child today, and who is preparing dinner" is also not scary. Further, it is difficult for me to separate the author's personal fears from the collective ones. Botox, freedom, cool and that's it. And the discourse "fashionable clothes" is always a terrible lack of spirituality, I remember from my Soviet childhood.

More about the threat of feminism, it seems not. But there is analytical research - who benefits from it? Or rather not profitable. In the sense of a strong family. And the author convincingly proves that a strong seven is not beneficial primarily to whom? To the state! Therefore, the state does not support the institution of the family, and feminism, apparently, is the opposite. For if all women marry Vedic men, the tax system, insurance system, pension fund, kindergartens and other profitable businesses will be ruined. They will simply become unnecessary.

And the most credible argument:

“The family is capable of protecting any member of its family, especially a woman. Look at Caucasian families. Try someone to offend a daughter from such a family!"

Oh, how much I can tell Olga about someone who is trying to offend his daughter, wife in a Caucasian family! Brothers, fathers, husbands. Does a woman feel much safer when she is abused by loved ones?

Next is a text about the benefits of being a "real woman"

“A woman does not need to earn money, she has everything she needs. This means that she does not need the right to receive the same amount, to work the same amount. She can realize all her talents in the family. Teach, heal, decorate, cook, educate."

I am absolutely sure that Olga Valyaeva and I live in different countries. And the point is not even that I am in Russia, but she is in Bali (?). Just in different realities.

I directly see the picture - I came to Olga Valyaeva's seminar and said: “I won't pay you, Olga! You are a woman. Why do you need to earn money? And Olga, lowering her gaze, replies: “And really, what am I? I have a husband! I will go home and realize my talents in my family.”

Although I am 100% sure that Olga will use her civil rights in this case no worse than any feminist.

Why does a woman “don't need the right to receive the same amount”? !!!

Is it possible that a Vedic wife, having received the right to equal pay, will immediately cease to be a Vedic one? This is all - hair, skirts, soft-loving-heart, is it just from the lack of the right to “receive the same amount”?

In fact, I see that women, adherents of “traditional”, patriarchal views and anti-feminist sentiments, take great pleasure in using the rights that women have received, thanks to the activities of feminists of the past. Reaping the results of the struggle for women's rights. They receive education, have passports, enjoy property rights, and get married of their choice. They even make money with their creativity, like Olga. And they do not miss the opportunity to throw a stone into the feminist garden.

Further, the author, apparently also feeling awkward for trying to pull the medieval Indian realities and views on the modern Russian landscape, gets better.

“In a strong and harmonious family, women's rights are not infringed upon. She is not beaten there, she can study and create, she is not property and not a prisoner. It was like that before. But earlier - it is not 100 years ago or even 200. The Scriptures say that the age of degradation began 5000 years ago. Therefore, it is foolish to say that it was worse before. Where it was good before, we simply cannot remember. And the scriptures are remembered."

Oh, that's it! So the Institute of the Family was not destroyed by feminists?

“The chapel, excuse me, am I too? No, that was before you, in the 16th century. (with.)"

It turns out that this theory has not worked for 5000 years!

That's what I'm looking at, some kind of garbage turns out.

Because if you rely on reliable and accessible sources, then the institution of the family does not at all look so delightful and pastoral. Our grandmothers, villagers, were typical Vedic women in the sense that they did not wear trousers, did not cut their hair, did not contradict their husband, gave birth to children, fed their families, did not hold money in their hands.

Was everyone happy? Does not look like. They worked hard, gave birth a lot, endured even more. Few women did not suffer from uterine prolapse due to frequent childbirth, excessive physical labor, “spousal violence”. And how they still managed to realize their talents in the family - only God knows.

I don’t know if it makes sense to refer to the scriptures if they are no longer relevant for 5,000 years.

And, if we live in a different reality, we need to work with the circumstances that are. And change this reality if it does not suit us. Both feminists and Vedic psychologists are trying to do this. Each in its own way.

Feminists offer something that has not yet been in human experience (well, let's say). This new thing is scary, but it can work. And what Vedic psychology has been proposing for 5000 years has not worked for some reason (Kali Yuga, probably). Although, I know that it can be successfully applied in a single family.

Another collective fear, (though in the second circle) - "it is not necessary to artificially protect women, otherwise then it will be necessary to protect men." This is a very difficult logical scheme for my understanding. But let's say it is. Logics. And what is so frightening in this layman? Although, in my opinion, it is necessary to protect the one whose rights have been violated. And if they violated the rights of men, then yes. I myself will go to the defense. Right.

“And protecting women is a business and a task for men who love them. Fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, grandchildren, nephews. Then they have for the sake of what and for whom to be men. And then there are no distortions. And then no one needs feminism as a phenomenon."

Here I just want to embrace the author in a fit of unanimity. Yes! Sure! But not really.

It is gratifying that more and more men we see as feminists. I am even convinced that a loving man will not tolerate sexism, discrimination against women. That a loving man is unlikely to be a macho, a rapist, etc.

Ie feminism is not needed as a phenomenon only in a wonderful society of such wonderful men!

I am also convinced that a Vedic woman can only be happily married to a feminist husband!

And only when he overcomes his fear of the masculine.

Since I really like to bring the irreconcilable into a truce, I will try to combine the current trends in gender holidays.

February 23 is the day when women try on the role of “Defender of the Fatherland”, identify with their masculinity, often divorced from consciousness.

And on March 8th, men try to integrate their split-off and split-off femininity.

Ideally, I see this as a sacred marriage of a Vedic woman with a feminist.

All you need is love!