K. Stefanowska: racism, sexism and feminism

However, the hands of farmers, who were buried in the ground and delicate plants, were not strong adequate to wear dense bricks, and their skin, accustomed to contact with the ground, was destroyed rapidly under the influence of mortar. The houses that farmers built were no good, but the houses of the city were already tired due to the fact that the bricklayers continued to do their job. But it began very rapidly to deficiency fresh vegetables, diseases appeared, children were given anemia, doctors had their hands full. The neighbouring city, however, yet got wind of this business and vegetables appeared again in our city's stores, but they were no longer as good as before: the city - the supplier of the best products left for himself, and exported vegetables of inferior quality, which additionally preserved chemicals to last a long journey and inactive looked good at the store exhibitions.

Farmers yet learned to build good houses and their buildings did not deviate from those who built masons. People get utilized to imported vegetables, to the fact that they don't give as much vitamins and minerals as they utilized to, and that children are just born weaker, and everyone gets sicker. Life continued to be an eternal track, only from time to time 1 of the masons stopped, closed his eyes, and with a painful longing breathed in the odor of fresh, fertile land that he erstwhile sown to bear fruit, and which he now dug and poured with concrete.

***

So much fairy tale, time for morals and explanation. The mystery is why farmers felt inferior to masons and felt that they had to become the same as them. There is no good explanation for this, and this is evident in the above story. But today's planet is not about the problem of changing the profession with which we identify, and the problem is much, much deeper. But before I get to the bottom of this, let's just halt for a second with the problem of racism.

What is this phenomenon? To put it briefly, this is simply a worse treatment of a certain race (ra-ism). A modern consequence to this problem seems to be the trend in which the “racial diversity” in schools, universities, associations or companies are trying to force themselves to introduce in spite of the deficiency of appropriate competences. In reality, however, it is an emphasis on the individuality of people due to the colour of the skin or other, analogous criterion. Why? I now ask the Honourable Reader for a brief thought experimentation - what colour is your best friend? You know? possibly you know right away, but it's more likely that you'll remember after a while, and possibly you won't be able to say it at all. Why? That's due to the fact that it doesn't truly matter, due to the fact that in a relation with a friend, it's about time, conversation, confession, not 1 item of appearance. And if we want to talk about real equality, about how many black people work in your office, you shouldn't be able to give a fast and certain answer, even though you know these people, you know what they do, and what names they have. And that's due to the fact that it's not a race that counts, but a man, his personality, his mind, his abilities, and so on. The hiring of people according to the racial key is just a actual racism that emphasizes at all step who has what colour the skin, which only deepens divisions and strengthens the sense of belonging to their race.

The exact same line of reasoning can be seen in today's version of feminism (is it a coincidence that the words ‘racism’ and ‘feminism’ actually sound similar? And since 1 of them is utilized to name an evil and harmful phenomenon, why should the another mean something positive?), which well illustrates the creation of language breakers in the form of feminists: inventors, lecturers, jumpers, publishers and so on. Does this give us greater equality and justice?

I'm going to a lecture, and I'm listening to a lecturer -- individual who's teaching due to the fact that he knows something I want to know. And it doesn't substance what this person's gender, age, color... has something crucial to say, so I'm going to perceive to her, I'm going to a lecture that introduces me to a lecturer. And now abruptly it turns out that a female can no longer be a teacher (ah, this equality and conflict for women's rights) and must be a lecturer, or something completely different, in addition to sounding strange, so possibly worse? Another? Before this was introduced, the sex of the lecturer did not matter, now it does, due to the fact that we request to know whether to invitation a lecturer or a lecturer to the lecture. Is equality created by highlighting others?

Right, equality. Women have dropped off beautiful dresses and put their pants on as an equal sign and are happy (some) that we have equality. Really? Where are the men wearing skirts and dresses (I'm not talking about all LGBT+ disguises who don't feel men)? If a ‘normal’ female wearing pants erstwhile a skirt depending on her desire loses nothing of her femininity, why does a ‘normal’ man not wear pants erstwhile a time a skirt in the name of equality?

The men did not change so diametrically, but the women left the home fires, the children returned to the nursery, put their pants on and went to work determined to strive for equality, that is, to be like men. Which means an indirect confession that men are, however, superior beings... that is, feminism.

Who, when, why and how did he convince the farmers that they were inferior to the masons?

Karolina Stefanowska