A week ago, the conversation between Chizuko Ueno and three Peking University "wives" caused a fierce response on the Internet.
Piao also immediately expressed some preliminary views at that time.
To sum up, my position is nothing more than one sentence:
Under the patriarchal society, women originally only have that acre and a third of land, first unite to solve the main contradiction, do not raise the knife inward.
To put it bluntly, I don't like their questions, but I don't approve of blindly attacking them... Then I was also defined by some readers as "washing the wedding donkey"
Background reader comments
I've always had an attitude of trying to use my influence (though not much) to improve the environment for women, so attacking each other seems pointless to me.
You can disagree with what they do, but scolding them won't make things better.
Why are they so desperate for authority to seal it?
Why did they choose marriage but were so confused and unsure?
The twisting of these women is more worthy of our discussion.
I always think that we must recognize, acknowledge and embrace our own diversity before we can face this external environment that is not friendly to women more determinedly.
Therefore, I hope that the sisters will let go of emotions, put down taking sides, and let go of prejudice.
After a week of simmering heat, listen to the women themselves, including the crowd of people who are so called "wedding donkeys" at the center of the popular whirlpool.
At present, many young people advocate non-marriage, but in reality, the vast majority of women have always had a certain recognition and pursuit of marriage and childbearing.
There must be many little sisters around you who yearn for marriage.
Piao invited my old friend @skirt today, an equal rights fighter who boldly opens the wheat when he encounters injustice.
She has the vanguard of female consciousness, but at the same time she admits that she needs marriage.
She has been dating her boyfriend for many years and is about to enter marriage, how does she think of this conversation that was ridiculed by the group, as well as the insults such as "wife" and "wedding donkey"?
Here's what Mai gives her and hears what independent women who choose marriage think.
The following is @skirt's self-statement, this number has been authorized
After reading the interview, my feelings about the three girls at Peking University are actually "pitiful".
I don't approve of their questions, but I really understand the emotions of their questions, and these absurd questions all come from the premise that their subconscious actually believes in the "feminist contempt chain".
Not to mention her, many women who worship Chizuko Ueno in reality may also have this inferiority complex.
But that state of chaos itself is a very meaningful topic in feminism.
Quan Xixi painted a perfect portrait of the feminist, and then found that he did not fit this portrait, was at the bottom of the chain of contempt, and was not convinced, and then unconsciously spilled his anger on the painting.
She thought it was the painting's fault, but ignored that she had painted it herself.
Have you ever had the experience that when faced with a person who is absolutely superior in terms of social status and knowledge, on the one hand, you may have a lot of challenges and doubts about ta, and on the other hand, you can't help but flattery and curry favor.
These girls from Peking University, who seem to be sitting on the bed in their pajamas, easily came to have a sisterly party with Chizuko Ueno.
In fact, on a psychological level, they are demoted one level and do not put themselves on an equal footing.
They really feel that they are flawed, but they are also really not convinced of their flaws, which is why they have so much nonsense.
That subconscious pandering made me understand that they wanted to be (what they imagined) Chizuko Ueno than anyone else, but she realized that she couldn't do it, and secondly, she didn't realize that she didn't have to.
What makes me understand them better is the fermentation of the network behind.
Really, the invective of wedding donkeys and wives makes everything look like a ridiculous closed loop.
Such a public opinion field just confirms how difficult it is to become a so-called "right feminist" on the Internet.
Quan Xixi's self-proof sincerity, it is difficult to say that it is not affected by the ethos on the Internet that "unmarried and infertile single heroine" is the Bible.
Isn't it also dogmatic to assert that people are feminist backstabbing because of a few questions? Who is nobler than whom.
Quan Xixi's understanding of feminism may not be deep enough, but it is true that many people learn these grand isms, in fact, they start with a few superficial slogans.
I remember a popular article called "What is the use of being a feminist?" I think that's what Quan Xixi really wants to ask: feminist questions about individual practice in a patriarchal society.
This article is actually a large part of marriage, because this is the most immediate and probabilistic life challenge that feminism will face.
That article was widely praised because the author knew what she was doing, and she used her story to show how a scholar of gender issues fought for the possibility of equality in his post-marriage life, from mate selection criteria to premarital agreements, and then dissected the new issues after these efforts.
For example, she and her husband implemented the model of "outside the female protagonist and inside the male protagonist", but after implementing it, she found that this model did not really solve the gender dilemma, but only made her the "man" in the family.
If a woman is a situation, then her husband is the woman in this family.
And in the end, due to financial pressure, she still had to urge her husband to go out and find a job.
The matter of bringing a baby naturally fell on the mother's head, and it turned out that "our freedom is based on the freedom to exploit our mother-in-law." ”
Her questions are precise and her thinking is sincere, rather than fighting a "marriage defense battle" against an imaginary enemy like Quan Hee.
Quan Xixi is actually just a feminist and confused beginner, and there is really no need to talk too badly.
She is actually the epitome of most ordinary women who have not yet fully awakened.
Chizuko Ueno also said in the interview:
We all live in a half-hung era.
Feminism struggled day and night with countless pioneers, and finally blew some winds in this century.
Many girls are exploring new possibilities with a half-understanding, while fighting the inertia of patriarchal thinking, and it is inevitable that there will be some chaotic, inaccurate narratives in between, which is too normal, it is better to be tolerant of these narratives.
And the "ism" of the half-hanging era, as Ueno said, the biggest role is actually that it gives us language.
Don't underestimate this role, the right language is often a weapon to fight for demand little by little.
So how to use feminism to resist, to break free and get self-consistency?
Take the wedding donkey as an example.
I think contemporary women, becoming a wedding donkey is really a very easy thing.
Even if you are financially independent and cherish your career, as long as you choose marriage and give up a trace of your life for marriage, or struggle to say two good words about your marriage when others persuade you, then you are a "wedding donkey".
The word love brain is also a truth, love brain is the wedding donkey before marriage.
One of the things that struck me about the abuse of these two words was that it made me see how hard it is to be a structural weakling.
TV always plays women running away extremely cool, leaving men, life, career are ushering in a peak, self-worth is infinitely affirmed by the whole society.
For example, the popularity of self-driving aunts caters to the expectations of the structurally weak.
Then in reality, everyone seems to have become Nala overnight, and whenever you talk about your relationship problems on the Internet, a bunch of people ask you, "Why haven't your sisters run away?" ”
But I may be really unlucky, I am the kind of person who needs intimacy, especially love.
Although I can live normally alone, I can read dramas, work hard and eat well. But I do really enjoy love, and I like the closest emotional connection between people and people that comes with intimacy.
Being in love definitely hurts, but I've always felt that emotions, like all investments, are that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. The closer the relationship, the greater the happiness, and of course the corresponding pain.
As long as you are willing to take risks, it is okay to choose what kind of happiness you choose, right?
It is really sad if human beings are reduced to justifying their emotional needs.
Recently, there is a drama called "Summer Flower", which tells the story of a leukemia girl who fell in love at first sight with the male protagonist played by Yan Chengxu, and then frantically pursued love.
This setting is actually very dangerous, terminal illness elements For romance films, the slightest mistake will be scolded and old-fashioned.
But "Summer Flower" is magical, and no one scolds it for being vulgar.
In the past, the elements of terminal illness were used in this way: the female protagonist (or male protagonist) who loved like glue had a terminal illness, began to hide from each other, deliberately broke up, and tried to find a person in the wilderness to die silently.
But "Summer Flower" is the opposite (at least the first few episodes are the opposite).
It associates terminal illness with a girl's pursuit of love, and with female desire, and it tells the story of a girl desperately trying to get a handsome guy in her hands knowing that she is terminally ill.
I think those who are discussing the "morality" of doing this in the barrage, not that there is a mistake, but it is really boring. Because this play is about desire, why would you be a moral police officer in a drama that talks about desire?
And women in reality are blocked by this outdated logic.
Too many people bind you with morality, even you yourself begin to doubt whether you have those rights to enjoy pleasure, and even subconsciously check yourself first, "like a girl."
Fortunately, I am the kind of "immoral" person. If you know that your time is short, you must grasp every minute and every second, to love, to feel, to crazy confession.
What's more, the other party is still Yan Chengxu?
If you agree with my feelings above, then you can go back to what I call the problem of "weak under the structure".
Being an unmarried and sterile heroine can indeed put an end to the pain of many patriarchal societies, but at the same time, it is also likely to break off the intimate relationship between two aspects - love and parent-child affection (I know some people will say that not marrying does not mean not being in love, this will be said later).
I don't agree that this option is "miserable" and "miserable", but I think everyone has gone into another misunderstanding, that is, this option is definitely not "super handsome" and "sassy".
"The Cultivation of a Common Girl"
Options are options, a contest between pros and cons.
So feminists entering marriage is not a backstab at all, because for the weak under the structure, it is already embattled.
How you choose, you are choosing pain, and you can only measure which kind of pain you can accept better.
Feminism is about helping you see the pain in the choice, which is what Ueno-sensei said, "Let the experience have its name," so that you don't naively think that the choice you're facing is "sugar or shit."
Feminism allows real options to emerge.
Are you more able to accept the suffering of a patriarchal society, or the suffering of dying alone?
Take me as an example: what choices does a woman who really needs long-term stable intimacy and lives in a patriarchal society leave me?
I certainly hope that this relationship does not need any system to sustain it.
But the patriarchal reality is that if I don't hand over a piece of evidence, no man would want to be "in love forever without evidence" like me.
I am not Ma Yili, not Yao Anna, I did not have a prosperous beauty when I was young, and I will probably not have the financial resources to raise a little white face when I am old, and the possibility of "falling in love for a lifetime" is almost non-existent for me.
Some people will surely say that even with the institution of marriage, men may not be able to provide long-term stability.
That's true.
But as I said, the choice is to assess the risks and weigh the pros and cons.
I thought about it seriously and came to the conclusion that for me, a woman with independent financial means and a long-term relationship, the institution of marriage may do more good than harm.
This is only my personal feeling, because analyzing the pros and cons itself is a very subjective matter and is not responsible for anyone.
It's just that if there are sisters with similar conditions to me, they may also be able to listen to my analysis.
In my shallow understanding of the sexes in marriage, I think that women's emotions are indeed difficult to be bound by a marriage constraint, and what keeps women in marriage is often children and money that cannot be controlled, and if these two scruples are not present, most women are "not in love can leave".
Aunt Su Min, who traveled by car, also resolutely left because her children grew up and did not have this concern, and she was able to earn money as an Internet celebrity.
But male emotions under the patriarchal system will be bound to a certain extent by the marriage certificate.
The reason is very simple, the emotional education of men has always been bound to the "responsibility" and "responsibility" of the family, and these words are integrated into their understanding of love.
Although the marriage contract cannot increase the resistance of their lower body, the "sense of responsibility" symbolized by the paper thing can allow men with reasonable brains to actively avoid temptation.
I remember that on "Talk Show Conference", Yang Mengen proposed to his girlfriend, saying that there are no absolutely good people in the world, only civilized people who are restrained, and he is willing to be restrained for her.
There was a lot of crying at the scene, why?
Because this is the most sincere confession a man can give, it is not that I love you, but that I am willing to be constrained for you, and I am willing to take on this responsibility for you.
Marriage does not mean anything to a woman, because in a woman, sex is associated with love, while love has nothing to do with marriage.
But marriage makes sense for men, because in men, sex has nothing to do with love, but the responsibility symbolized by marriage can unify the two.
Most women think that love or not love is 1 and 0, but men can think that love, premarital love, post-marital love, is 0.25, 0.5, 1.
Sleeping with only one woman for the rest of his life is a commitment that is super solemn, super serious, super loved, and super brave for men.
It's not that Yang Mengen doesn't love his girlfriend, on the contrary, being responsible is what he thinks, the greatest sublimation of love.
You have to give him such a sense of ritual while he is on top, which is the same principle as wearing a top hat.
If you want to say that this is a kind of husband-taming technique, I think there is nothing wrong with knowing husband, as long as you can be sure that you are really the driver who can grasp the advance and retreat at any time, rather than relying on the kind of "control" that knows how to cater to the other party, such as being forced to have a child against Dink's will to tie up the other party.
The result of restraint is what we often ridicule as "married men are boring."
But boring is just the proof that the peacock closes the screen for you, for you, this is the benefit of marriage.
And what about the disadvantages?
You can probably think of a bunch of answers from the public: domestic violence, infidelity, and even murder and cooking like the recent boiling Hong Kong celebrity case.
I think the most extreme risks above have little to do with "marriage".
Whether you choose free love without marriage or bonded love, as long as the intimacy between the sexes exists, these things have a probability of existing.
Even more pessimistic, intimacy is not needed, and as long as there are physical differences between the sexes, violent injuries will always exist, such as the barbecue restaurant incident.
There is no risk that cannot be avoided, and there is no meaning to measure.
But there are other, more general harms that are tangibly tied to "marriage" and can be considered.
For example, "housework" after marriage, which is the deepest and most common exploitation of women in marriage.
From laundry and cooking to raising children, "housework" consumes the time and energy of married women, using the family as a concentration camp, depriving them of their sociality and becoming free labor.
And like Sisyphus pushing stones, the clean table will be dirty, and the coaxed child will cry, which is day after day, without end.
So I understand very well the women who are reluctant to enter into marriage.
But for those who still need a relationship, I would say don't panic too much, feminism will strike.
It teaches us to see the risks of marriage, so we have the opportunity to control them.
Or take my own experience as an example.
In all my communication with my boyfriend, "equality" is definitely a high-frequency word.
I would explain why I didn't need him to pay for every trip, would tell him that I think men can also say "no", and would emphasize that my helping him cook supper is as much credit to the family as he is for staying up late and working overtime.
At this time, it is especially important to use feminism to draw its own ceding borders and maintain independence.
So you see, feminism is realistically instructive, and it's all at work when you're choosing a partner, when you're preparing for foreseeable risks.
Just because "isms" cannot reach that perfectly imagined world overnight, the weak under this world cannot be deprived of the right to have desires.
To put it bluntly, you have to choose which kind of misfortune you can accept better, to put it bluntly, that is, to admit the fact that you are relatively weak at present, and then find the optimal solution.
The other day I saw a news that a mother was pregnant and could not give birth smoothly, and she could not anesthesia for physical reasons, so she could only give birth to a cesarean section.
The comments below are all about saying that she deserves it, knowing that her body cannot be anesthetized and she is pregnant.
Isn't it ridiculous that women can't choose to be mothers now? Or, when a person chooses pain, can't she think that "the pain of not having children is higher than the pain of childbirth"?
And, do you know that she really has a choice between "born and not"?
I think this kind of thinking that "your pain is because of your choice, so you deserve it" is the greatest harm of the weak to the weak.
"Women" are obviously adding to all misfortunes, but the above thinking seems to make them the only misfortune.
Many girls like to watch some videos of middle-aged women in their forties and fifties sharing their unmarried and infertile lives alone, which really opens up a new possibility in life.
But I also hope that people don't just look at this aspect of happiness before making a decision.
Think more about those hidden under the mainstream tone of the Internet, comprehensive and real life dilemmas.
For example, is the real life of seventy or eighty-year-old people living alone who are difficult to speak, and the elderly without children, are the treatment of medical institutions or nursing institutions different from those of elderly people with children?
Of course, the most important thing is whether you can really give up the need for love and affection.
Station B has an observation variety show of "Summer of the Eaves", in which Liu Xuehua, a Qiong Yao girl who has been popular on both sides of the strait, shows her old age and solitary life in the past 10 years.
You could say that she is completely out of touch with the modern lifestyle, most electronics will not be used, will not order takeaway, will not go online and play games.
She has gained an inner peace that most people don't have, and you must be silently thinking about this state in your heart.
But what if you were to live this way too?
We who have long been accustomed to living in the Internet age and relying on electronic products to degrade our ability to live are definitely unbearable.
In the same way, if you want to choose celibacy, then you can't just look at the sassy examples of those cool heroines, but you must really understand what preparations you need to do to deal with the entire second half of your life without relying on the marriage system and offspring.
I'm not hinting at any answers, I'm saying that as a structurally weak person, life is really hard to do, and there is no standard answer, you have to be cautious and comprehensive.
Therefore, today I solemnly show you the female side of seeking marriage.
To face some pain, but also to face up to your own needs.
Those who regard pain as deserved, and easily call people "married donkeys," are those who naively think that life is "sugar or shit."
Where is there such a beautiful thing, life is often to choose which flavor of shit.
Do not blame the suffering of the weak, for the weak, suffering is something that cannot be avoided.
Choice does not mean voluntary, after all, it is not we who set the options.
Feminism is not meant to limit ourselves, but to learn how to make more choices for ourselves.
Choosing marriage does not mean stupidity and inferiority, and it may be the best thing in many women's lives.
For me, perhaps the boys I choose will never fully understand women.
But feminism gave me the confidence to not be afraid of divorce.
Then I can step into this river, can't I?