The problem with modern artists of almost any sort is that they are faced with a choice, either they can try to imitate some genius, or they can try to invent something new. If they imitate the old they must face that they will never really be as good as the old, and most people will prefer the old to them. If they try to invent something new then very few, if any at all, will understand them, because the public is occupied completely by the old ways and ideas. Such is the modern artist's dilemma.Similarly, as Ingrid points out, the world suffers a great shortage of classical females, and so it would be hard to experience the classical world without males. That is just how it is, and the goal of feminists should not be to change history but to improve the future. The goal should not be to reject old texts for their supposed "patriarchal attributes", but rather to produce new and modern texts, feminist texts, known no less for quality.Feminism in short is any mindset which empowers, liberates or enlightens females, or gives them opportunities or rights to equal or surpass those of men. (At least that is how I define it.) And the right for a woman to read and possibly even like texts written by a man without rejection from the academic-feminist-clique is in itself a feminist thing. To not read Plato would make women poorer, when the objective is to make them richer. Therefore I think that to reject ideas and texts constructed by men is counterproductive, and more akin to "femi-fascism" than feminism. It kind of reminds me of a feminist, whose name I can't remember, who argued that the only 'authentic' feminists were lesbians. Which is equally absurd.P.S. Pardons for lengthy comment.
Post a Comment