_edited.png)
Concepts such as "hidden history" and "esoteric knowledge," which are excluded from scientific examinations of the past, are presented in a mystic and mysterious atmosphere rather than as historical realities. Such information remains outside traditional academic research and is often marketed as encrypted, hard to access, or available only to specific groups. However, this presentation is shaped more by people's romantic interest in the past than by historical reality itself.
These concepts are often blended with words considered "feminine" or "motherhood" for specific reasons, adapting to contemporary popular discourses. While this approach may superficially appear to contribute to the struggle for gender equality, it actually undermines it. Such concepts, while glorifying the feminine powers of modern times, deepen the dichotomies rather than addressing the issues related to male dominance.
In today's discussions, the simultaneous use of masculine (male dominance) and feminine (feminine values) concepts is common. However, the relationship between these two concepts often creates an oxymoron; that is, when combined, they generate semantic contradictions due to their opposing natures. For example, a masculine approach is generally associated with power, control, and authority, while a feminine approach is more closely identified with compassion, care, and emotion. Presenting these two opposing concepts together complicates rather than facilitates the struggle for gender equality.
In this process, the claim that a different reality is created from a "patriarchal," that is, male-dominated perspective, gives rise to the illusion of viewing history as something that only belongs to the past.
While racist or supremacist discourses are excluded from social discussions due to their masculine content, an environment is created where feminine elements are glorified, leading to a different form of domination. The post-truth era does not offer a profound critique of the essence of these complex concepts, reducing the resulting discourses to a mere conceptual duality.
The post-truth era often addresses issues on a superficial and conceptual level, which prevents a sufficiently in-depth inquiry into the origins of a concept. For instance, the issue of gender equality is often approached through a dichotomy where masculine and feminine concepts are presented in opposition. However, this ends up simplifying the differences rather than contributing to the resolution of the problem. Criticizing male dominance merely because it is male or glorifying feminine elements solely because they are feminine prevents us from understanding the essence of the concepts.
At this point, it is essential to avoid directly evaluating a masculine or feminine concept as either negative or positive. To accurately understand a concept's impact on social reality, it is necessary to delve into its historical, social, and cultural origins. However, the post-truth era fails to provide meaningful critiques of these origins, resulting in different concepts being superficially contributed to social discussions as if they were blended in a sieve. Thus, many contents identified as masculine or feminine are presented in a dichotomy, stripped of their context.
Presenting concepts such as motherhood as part of an "overall goodness" may initially seem like a stance against a patriarchal society. However, such approaches can harm gender equality. This is because gender roles are reproduced as fixed and unchangeable roles. When motherhood is presented as a sacred or superior role, it can lead to the neglect of women's roles in other social spheres. This implies that a discourse that appears to glorify feminine values can, in fact, harm the struggle for gender equality.
Conservative circles tend to use these feminine values to traditionalize modernity. This creates a social structure in which women are confined to specific roles, undermining the struggle for gender equality. On the other hand, radicals initiate more intense discussions on gender equality by developing antitheses against these feminine values. Both approaches take masculine and feminine concepts to extremes, leaving scientific facts and social gains overshadowed by these debates.
The problem cannot be solved merely by addressing the oppositions between masculine and feminine concepts or completely disregarding these poles. Social sciences must conduct a more comprehensive analysis of gender equality and other social issues. All components should be addressed in a cyclical manner, and this linear way of thinking should be instrumentalized. Thus, issues are evaluated not only through the opposition of masculine or feminine concepts but from a broader perspective.
In conclusion, discussions on gender and related concepts must avoid polarization and adopt a holistic approach. Neither masculine nor feminine concepts should be viewed as purely positive or negative; instead, they should be analyzed while considering their historical, cultural, and social contexts. This will help establish a more solid foundation for scientific reality and gender equality.
Comments