Many people still believe that feminism is only about total freedom of choice. That it’s only about valuing all vocations and making sure no one is abused.
No doubt, many women who call themselves feminist do sincerely believe these things, but the movement itself doesn’t even pretend to hide its real agenda. It is not about choice, and one only need listen to its proponents to hear its agenda:
Gloria Feldt, a leading feminist activist and former CEO of Planned Parenthood, was interviewed by the NY Times, clearly stating the truth about feminism. Why are feminists still defending what is being openly taught?
In case you missed it, here’s what Feldt is saying:'They make it harder for the rest of us to remedy the inequities that remain. We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women. It should be acceptable criticism to point out that, although everyone has the right to make their own life decisions, choosing to “opt out” reinforces stereotypes about women’s priorities that we’ve been working for decades to shatter, so just cut it out. And, the “individual choice” women have to become stay-at-home moms becomes precarious when they try to return to the workplace and find their earning power and options reduced. If we could see child-rearing as a necessary task and not an identity, and if we could collectively recognize that facilitating it benefits us all, we would go much further in guaranteeing women’s choices than we do when we are expected to uncritically celebrate every individual’s decisions.' From Where is the Female Steve Jobs
“Technically women have a choice but if you make the choice to be a stay at home mom you destroy everything feminism has worked to gain so we must criticize (and that should be acceptable) the women who choose to stay home with their children. Oh, and raising children is just a task that anyone can do.”
Perhaps you don’t realize how important it is that we understand its true colors and recognize its dangers to the family and ultimately to all of us.
I get really impatient with the defense of feminism and the accusations that anyone who disagrees with the feminist movement is simply 'uninformed', a 'gender traitor', or a 'misogynist' when there is such blatant evidence of the feminist agenda splattered across the NY Times, and everywhere else you care to look. The reality is, feminism is dangerous and degrading, not only to men, but to women as well. Feminism is actually misoginistic, and you only need to look at the evidence to see that this statement is correct.
There is no reason to get upset at those of us who oppose the true agenda behind feminism. It is precisely because I desire to defend women and children and families that I fight so vehemently against it. I know the typical replies: “Because of feminism women can vote and women can work and women can do such and such.”
Actually, feminism did not get women the right to vote, those were the suffragists who succeeded in winning women that right:
The suffrage movement was not a united movement. It was a coalition of different people and organizations that worked together for a few intense years around the common goal of votes for women. Approximately 95 percent of the participants in the movement were organized under the umbrella of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.
And this is just one example of how the feminist movement skews reality in their favor in order to spread their propaganda.
If you are a rational, skeptical, and intelligent person, you should be able to figure out that feminism is NOT about equality for women. It has not hidden this fact from the public eye, but because they are as good as any religion in making people believe in their propaganda that people get caught up in the movement without even questioning it. And that is not very skeptical or rational.
Let me be clear that I do not deny that nothing good has ever come out of the feminist agenda, but the harm far outweighs the benefits.
If you are truly concerned with equal rights for ALL, and agree that no gender deserves to be held in higher esteem, or have more value placed on them, then you should not call yourself a feminist. The truth is, you are a humanist and should be proud to call yourself one. Calling yourself a feminist tells me that you are either ignorantly unaware of what feminism really is, or that you approve of, and advocate for, oppression and inequality based on gender. Either way, calling yourself a feminist does not reflect you in a positive light, except among your fellow feminists. Is that what you truly want?
Reference:
http://uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/feminism/suffrage.htm
This post: http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=582
ReplyDeleteIs oft-cited as a reason why these narrow minded 'freethought'bloggers say I'm a 'misogynist'... Even though, I actually state:
"There are many socially variable definitions of what feminism is, but ultimately, it is the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.
I have no problem with that as the basis for an argument, nor do I wish to challenge it. In fact, as an Atheist, this is what I want too. As an atheist I believe: “that EVERYONE should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as each other and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.”
Unfortunately, they want more than equality and fairness for ALL. They want superiority and special treatment, even to those already in positions of power and privilege.
This hatred of women and the feminine that feminism displays is something that has been on the tip of my tongue for a while now, but something about it seemed so counter-intuitive that I've kept from vocalizing it.
ReplyDeleteIt's as if stating it turns one's position against feminism into that of a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic. I'm not sure why I have this apprehension though, when opposing feminism already gets enough hate tossed at one...
I think "integralmath" on youtube put it best in one of his short videos.
Delete"Feminism is fine as long as it doesn't embrace professional victimhood."
Unfortunately most feminists do embrace it and act on it. Once you accept the concept of "patriarchy" as a complex, conspiracy theory against women, you can rationalize away everything by it.
It has all the tell-tale signs of a conspiracy theory, equal to the "of course the government lets you vote, they want to keep you content!" nonsense.
To imagine that there is a power-structure in place that can explain all womens plights away in an instant, is powerful mind-screw. After all, if you accept patriarchy you don't need to take responsibility for anything you do, because it's obviously the patriarchies fault if something goes wrong.
It's like christians believe in the devil as the representation of everything bad that has happened to them and that they are the victim of demonic forces.
Similarly in that context feminism is really like a religion.
*standing ovation*
ReplyDelete"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
ReplyDelete"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
I am an MRA and I am happy to hear that you have decided to take feminism head-on.
Women with male progeny need to pay attention to whats happening to boys and men. No good has come out of the Gender War. Like they say in the NFL "There are no winners in football. only survivors". There are no winners in the Gender War.
Doris Lessing way back in 2001
"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday.
"Great things have been achieved through feminism. We now have pretty much equality at least on the pay and opportunities front, though almost nothing has been done on child care, the real liberation.
"We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?
"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.
"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."
Lessing said the teacher tried to "catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish".
She added: "This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.
It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests."
One of the best examples of the paranoia you mention came in reponse to an article I saw recently which claimed that organizations, from corporations to countries, tended to fail shortly after a woman was put in charge. Apparently they had a good enough statistical case that feminists couldn't simply say 'bullshit' and move on, so their response was instead to say that men were obviously realizing that their organizations were about to fail, and putting women in charge deliberately so that they could take the blame. That's about as paranoid as it gets.
ReplyDelete"Calling yourself a feminist tells me that you are either ignorantly unaware of what feminism really is, or that you approve of, and advocate for, oppression and inequality based on gender."
ReplyDeleteSo true. Unfortunately, most people still think that feminism these days is simply about gender equality.
According to Wikipedia: "A feminist is an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women"
By this common definition, pretty much everybody in the western world is a feminist, including most MRA/PUA types. The self-proclaimed feminists however distinguish themselves from the rest of us by their refusal to deal with any female privilege.
Calling yourself "anti-feminist" plays into the feminist script, because the ignorant will automatically assume that you are against equality. You are right that we need to reframe the debate with a new term that will stress equal rights for all, not just women. I'm not sure that "humanist" is the right alternative however, for 2 reasons. First, it is a very broad term that covers much more than gender issues. Secondly, I consider "humanist" another tainted/hijacked description, because nowadays it also includes notions about "social justice" which in my humble opinion are just subjective opion, not something that automatically follows from a secular tolerant outlook on humanity.
Part 1.
ReplyDeleteOK First thing first. Feminism is not one ideology. There are three waves, first, each beginning in a certain time-period and existing continuously until the original thinkers of that wave are dead, or they have become irrelevant. For example, first-wave feminists were all about suffrage and the ability of married women to be considered legal persons separate from their husbands. It existed until that issue was settled. Second-wave feminism was focused around escaping the social dominance of men, and lead to some fairly extreme writers on the subject. This wave still exists because it is not irrelevant and people are still alive from the 1970s. Third wave feminism is the more modern movement which is much more broadly oriented toward equality for everyone--now that we have broken down a lot of the male-dominated social mores that forced women to remain barefoot and in the kitchen.
People in the comments are conflating second and third wave feminism. No. I will go farther than that. You people are committing a fallacy of equivocation. Second-wave feminism does not address issues of female privilege in child custody. Third wave feminism does.
There is also another issue. Namely, cherry-picking one person from every feminist thinker on the planet and using that single person--in a movement which, like the freethought movement, is best described as an effort to herd cats--to describe the agenda of the entire movement. Fallacy of over-generalization. As a quick example of how this works. Some feminists (of various philosophical traditions) dislike the profession of stripping because in it, women are objectified. Another strain of feminist thought approves of it, because stripping is a means by which women can actively use their sexuality to their advantage within society. The polemic here has extremists on both ends, and the polemic can become very interesting. In either case however--and just like in any journal of philosophy--an author or speaker might say something or advocate something for the express purpose creating a larger discussion about the topic.
A great deal of academic dialogue happens by way of intellectual trolling, whereby someone makes a logical case for a position that could initially be viewed as insane and essentially challenging the community to disprove them.
Third... well, I hate to say it, but Squirrel was not intellectually honest in her initial post. She removed the statement regarding stay at home moms from its surrounding context and meaning in order to support a political point that could not stand on its own merits without the distortion. She did not even include the original question. Here it is:
"Q. How do women who flee the work force have an impact on those who do not?"
Then, she proceeded to misrepresent the original statement by highlighting certain portions of it, and then constructing her own strawman version of it that did not bear any resemblance to the original meaning or intent of said statement.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteBeing critical about a woman's choice to be a stay-at-home mom is not the same thing as not wanting them to exist. Gloria Feldt was saying "we need to have this discussion". The fact of the matter is, being a stay at home mom DOES reduce the earning power of a woman. It DOES make her dependent on a male. It DOES reinforce the stereotype that woman must be nurturers and make it more difficult to make progress when it comes to reducing male privilege. These are facts. The question is, what do we do with these facts? The question women should ask themselves when faced with this decision is "are the other consequences of the decision worth it to you?". And yes, men and woman are equally capable of being stay-at-home parents, so why is it that for the most part women do it? Why is it seen as part of the female identity and thus defaults to her, instead of being rationally considered when parents divide the labor of child-rearing?
In the words of Feldt:
"Q. Is it realistic to hope that an individual woman will act for the good of all women?
Ms. Feldt: Well, you can’t beat people over the head with it, but there needs to be a discussion. At the rate we’re going, it will take 70 years for women to reach parity with men in influential leadership roles."
But dont let little things like intellectual honesty or the truth get in the way of polemic. We cannot have that. Now for the nonsequiter with regard to feminism not giving women the vote:
Part 3
ReplyDeleteWhat you basically said was "Philosophical movement X had nothing to do with human rights movement N, because the political leg-work for human rights movement N was performed by specific organization Y"
That makes no sense. Feminism started out as an intellectual thing first, then became a political thing, motivated by said intellectual thing. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was nothing called "feminism" because it did not have a name yet. They called themselves suffragists. What the suffragists shared was a common belief in the political, legal, and economic agency of women, when at the time married women were considered their husband's property or wards for all practical and legal purposes. It is only in retrospect that first wave feminism is called that, because it started the philosophical tradition that became modern feminism.
Could someone please explain to me why it's okay to define feminism by its fanatics when we do this with *no other group* in society (yes, including atheism... people are *finally* starting to recognize atheism for what it *actually* is, and not what Joseph Stalin and Ayn Rand made it out to be)?
ReplyDeleteI never understood this. Feminism is as Wikipedia and Benjamin Allen say, at least as I understand it. I recognize that misandrists use Feminism as a cover for their misandry, but then I would say they are a minority, they would not identify with Third-Wave (sex-positive, pro-choice) Feminism, and Feminists of the third wave do not accept them as feminists.
I'm sorry Squirrel, but I really do think you're wrong about feminism. I really do think you've somehow managed to miss the boat.
Ever heard of Femen?
Google them. Tell me what you think. Do you think feminists would recognize Femen as feminists? I'd argue that *most* Third-Wave Feminists *would*, and proudly. Aside from their cutting down a giant cross recently (as a protest in support of Pussy Riot), do you think they are feminists *you* could support?
I don't think those you say should "stop calling themselves feminists" should do that. Perhaps, instead, you should consider why they (who do sound a lot like Humanists, as you so rightly point out) would be part of the movement you describe, if the movement *really is*, in *total*, as you describe it.
Misandrists don't define feminism any more than Joseph Stalin defines atheism. If you are against defining other groups (such as atheism) by its fanatics, then why are you okay with doing that very thing to feminism?
(Also... just in case this thing decides to post me as Anonymous even though I asked it to use my WordPress account, my handle is NateHevens, which is my name, Nathan Hevenstone, shortened. My WordPress blog is under the NateHevens handle.)
Are these feminists fighting for equal rights for everyone? If they are, I would support them but then I would also say they are not feminists but humanists. If they're not, I wouldn't support them.
DeleteThe problem IMO is not that feminism is defined by their radicals, is that even the moderates only care and fight for women, and yet proclaim their movement is about for equality.