"No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer."
What I want to know, is why sexism consists exlusively under the purview of women. When they grandly proclaim that to be a women is hard and to be a man is easy, where is the consideration that they demand for themselves? Men are to treat them as equals, I hear you say. Then I ask, what would be considered equality under these conditions? Are men to treat women how they treat other women, as they treat men, as men treat women, as men treat men, or as something brand new, something that goes beyond the sexes, biology, nature and frankly, sense? Ironically, it's the only possibility as we are all, so different and so alike. It's a series of self-aware paradoxes that the majority of people tweeting seems to become utterly oblivious of in their rampaging serial-contrarian complaints. Not only is a state of non-sexism impossible for it is in our genetic code to view the other gender differently, but if such a state is desired, a non-state, so to speak, where all is equal and all is considered and forgotten at once in the brashest form of double-think, then how can we ever achieve it if we go to such lenghts, as seen in these posts, to seperate the two genders as to make one the scape-goat for the state of the other?
We all look at sexism with a frown on our face, for whatever reason we individually feel that it somehow incriminates or incapacitates us, but show me a society, a world, where women and men were treated the very same and I'll show you a world without sentient thought. Sexism seems to be defined as differential behaviour of the two sexes when one takes umbrage and catergorically decides to interpret it as an inherent fault of the other gender. Sexist in itself, the paradoxes are endless.
The thing is that you'd have to be sexless in order not to be sexist for it's all so very subjective, and we are all different due to so many different factors, one of them being sex. So then it's sexist to reform your way of thinking in order to better encompass the other gender and how you treat them for that invites the implication that you think you have to treat them in a softer, more pandering manner for they cannot handle what you have to hand out, thus a sexist notion. It's sexist to ignore them and act in a brusque, stereotypical fashion without consideration of the difference in gender, for to ignore the need of the other, to see them as equally able to take and receive as you might implies that the sensibilities of others are beyond your capacity of understanding and that you so will not go to greater lengths in order to understand what might offend or please the other gender, thus a sexist notion. And it is uniformly sexist to claim that the other gender is beholden, and yes even responsible, for your useless complaints, a sexist notion.
We are different, but we've managed to survive together, for very obvious reasons, for quite some time now. What these women and men seem to fail to understand is that both sides need to give ground, and that said ground will only be given unwillingly, and that finally if achieved, it will accomplish nothing for it's in how we differentiate that the spark of interest, attraction and thus, life itself lies.