There is a big difference between the words "smart" and "educated". In fact, a PhD degree does not give any guarantees that people know or understand more.
On the contrary, there is often even more sexism, chauvinism and various kinds of snobbery in the academic environment. People are beginning to separate themselves from some cattle. As a result, many biases are formed. For example, that with the advent of a child, a woman becomes a stupid "mother". Allegedly, hormones capture her, and she loses her last brain.
There is no paradox in the fact that sexism is flourishing in the academic environment. The philosophy taught at the university was created by misogynistic men at a time when women were not considered complete. Men have written a hell of a lot of fiction about this.
And in the world literature, a man is looking for the meaning of life, and a woman is looking for a man.
The university environment has absorbed all this. Although women philosophers and women theologians have existed since the Middle Ages, we know practically nothing about them. Their books are published only by women's publications.
As a result, we see an average, not even an old professor who thinks that a woman is an ornament of the collective and flutters like a butterfly over his philosophical works. Or sincerely believes that women exist to please a man and clean up after him.
This attitude can be traced in the podcast Podcast‑Nastya Krasilnikova's research on the sexual exploitation of schoolgirls and schoolchildren at the summer environmental school «Students". The children's intellectual camp was taught by people with higher education, some had several degrees. It's hard to imagine a more intelligent party. And these same people slept with 13-14‑year-old students, in fact their subordinates, and really did not understand what the problem was. Maybe they've read books about romances with 14-16‑year-old girls. So why would an adult man of 30 not hook up with Juliet? From their point of view, the situation is not even devoid of a romantic flair. It doesn't occur to them that the age difference is monstrous.
And then the mutual responsibility begins, which is characteristic of most associations. You will not accuse the professor with whom you work or to whom you take the exam of violence or harassment. After all, as soon as you do this, most likely, you will have problems.
A system where you can fuck little girls is trying to justify itself.
Another example is professors and university professors who married their 18-19—year‑old female students three times. I see in this only the patriarchal desire of a man to subjugate a woman and control her. No matter what such people say about love, I am convinced that hierarchical relationships are not happy. A woman who has been broken on her knee in a relationship sooner or later grows up and realizes that her identity has actually been stolen. Therefore, for me, the big question is why people who claim to be intellectuals do not understand the simple thing that happiness is impossible outside of equal partnerships.
To understand this, words and knowledge are not enough, a feeling must appear. Perhaps this can be called emotional intelligence. Its origin is not helped by smart books, it takes time to learn to feel what can be done and what cannot be done.
When I was a teenager, couples in my city were considered cool, for example, a 14‑year‑old girl and a 30-year-old coach. And it seemed to me that such a relationship is simply monstrous. At the same time, I could not formulate what was wrong with them.
There was only an emotional feeling of perversion, as if I got my hands dirty.
I didn't have words and feminstallations, only a feeling that it was impossible to do so. But it was only me, and others approved of such a relationship. My friend from a parallel class boasted about everything that she was dating an adult man. I also told the head of the circle where we went together. I was waiting for a forty-year-old woman to respond to this. She said, "Very cool."
In the village, in a completely non‑academic environment, no one knew that it was impossible to sleep with 14-year-old girls. But even in the intellectual environment they did not know. It turns out that there is no difference between a conditional redneck environment and elite Moscow schools. They live in the power of patriarchal attitudes. But now more and more people are saying why it is not worth entering into a hierarchical relationship with a subordinate or a student. There is hope that people will at least think about what they are doing.
At school, in labor lessons, girls were taught to cook, and then carry food to boys. I was 14 years old, and I didn't understand why I had to cook if I didn't want to. In response, I was told that I was an abnormal woman and would never get married. Well, my husband has been cooking for me for 15 years of marriage. But that's not even the point. I was the only one out of a huge number of girls who asked questions.
That's what schools should teach. Not meaningless knowledge that is absolutely unnecessary, not sexist literature and philosophy. The school should teach critical thinking and the ability to ask questions.
And in general, everyone: both girls and boys. So that children would ask: "Who said that I should obey a man? Who came up with all these rules?"
All this husk crumbles when you just ask.
But, unfortunately, academic education is not like that. It is completely at the mercy of the authorities. No one turns on their head and asks questions like: "Is it really possible to have sex with a teenager?" or "Is the uncle really in love with me or just wants sex from me?"
That's what you need to teach. Unfortunately, this is not enough in schools, and we have what we have.
