The Battle for the Soul of Feminism
What is feminism? What ISN'T feminism? These are vital questions, and controversy has swirled around them for years. This controversy is no storm in a teacup, for I can assure you that much rides upon the outcome.
When a non-feminist encounters a feminist, the mood is sooner or later bound to get testy. To state that another way, each party carries a psychic atmosphere of her own, and these atmospheres are bound to clash. The encompassing social ambience will not accomodate both of them; one or the other must yield. As they say in the old western movies, "this town ain't big enough for both of us."
The unspoken tension between feminist and non-feminist will eventually come to a head and show itself openly. This regularly happens in a small way, in the social microcosm. It has not yet happened in a grand, conclusive way, in the societal macrocosm, although it is our job to accelerate the arrival of that day. But on whatever scale it occurs, the confrontation rides upon a mutual assessment between these two parties or, if you will, between these two principles.
Hence the typical pattern of interchange between a feminist and a non-feminist. The non-feminist will make known her feelings about feminism and the feminist will, mildly or otherwise, "get defensive". So what is happening in these discussions? Clearly, the talkers are talking past each other because they are talking about two different things. The feminist's "feminism" is NOT the same thing as the non-feminist's "feminism". Each conversant has a different mental picture of what the word feminism signifies in real world terms.
The non-feminist looks upon feminism as the less desirable option; that is what makes him not a feminist. Meanwhile, the feminist looks upon feminism as something sacred, and for that reason looks upon the non-feminist standpoint as akin to sacrilege. Please bear these points in mind.
Again I put it to you: what is feminism, and what ISN'T feminism? We need to address that pesky little question with exactitude in order to reach any over-arching conclusion about feminism's desirability or lack of it. Therefore feminism, the object under examination, must be pinned down, immobilized, and forced to become a definite something; only in that way does it become examinable and susceptible to evaluation. So answers need to arrive, and they need to arrive from authoritative sources. Consequently, the question of authority itself comes to the fore, as does the question of questioning authority.
Briefly then, who has authority to tell the world what feminism is or is not? Does the feminist have such authority? Does the non-feminist have such authority? Or do they each in their own way have such authority?
In the present talk, my contention is that any person at all may at least presume to speak with authority on the question of what is or isn't feminism. Anybody may set up shop in this trade, and there are no licensing requirements. Self-declared participation in feminism itself is no prerequisite for this. If that word (feminism) points to any discoverable object at all, we must allow that the pathways of discovery are manifold and not subject to any monopoly. Anybody may compete in this market, although success will vary according to the governing criteria. So, it is the governing criteria which are now under consideration.
"But wait!", I hear some feminist interject. "Only a feminist has any true authority to say what feminism is or is not, because only a feminist has participated in feminism and truly LIVED feminism. No outsider has any authority to tell ME what feminism is or is not!"
I would reply, that your communal experience among self-styled feminists grants you no authority but to speak of what you and others underwent in your time together, and what you felt and concluded from this. Your particular viewpoint and your especial path of knowledge are in no sense privileged. Neither is it taken on faith that you would evaluate your position honestly. Hence, your authority is merely clubbish, a compound of social memories mingled with selective awareness and possibly wishful thinking. And while these club memories might constitute authority of a parochial sort, there are other forms of authority, from other sources, which must not be neglected. Do not forget that others can view your club from an outward aspect—does that count for nothing?
"But wait!", I hear that feminist interject again. "I have studied feminism for years, and I have read all the books, and I have earned a degree in women's studies. Don't tell me your authority equals mine, mister!"
I would reply, that if in addition to hanging out with supposed feminists, you boast of a scholastic or intellectual authority, you must remember that you aren't the only one who can read books and think about things. Others, very different from you, are avid readers and thinkers also—and they do not have the same emotional filters that you have. So they are free to follow their own unblinkered genius, to quaff from fountains of knowledge that would not occur to you, to generalize, to factor-analyze, to string the dots together and formulate conclusions that might differ markedly from your own.
"But wait!", our feminist chimes in for a third time. "I am a WOMAN! How dare you tell me what feminism is or is not!"
I would reply: "Quite right, you are a woman. And I am a Sagittarius."
And I repeat: ANYBODY may presume to say what feminism is, or what feminism is not. It adds no weight to your claim to merely call yourself a feminist. It gives you no head start in the game. After all, anybody can say "I am a feminist". Talk is cheap, and whether you call yourself a feminist, or call yourself a two-headed Patagonian, has no bearing on your claim to expertise.
And again I say, that a lot rides upon the outcome of this controversy. We must eventually decide in very exact terms what feminism is or is not, and the question is so important that I have given it a special name which hints at the magnitude of it. I call this question the battle for feminism's soul, and I wish to make known why I do so. And as I have already suggested, we seek not only to discover what feminism IS . .. but to determine whether it is right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, noble or ignoble.
I would therefore have you understand, that no mere working definition of feminism can ever be considered separately from the question of feminism's inherent desirability or lack of such.
So in the end, we aim to establish two things: firstly, what feminism IS. . . and secondly, whether it is DESIRABLE. Up until now, the feminists have asserted a monopoly of discourse in this realm, thought-policing the avenues of conversation leading into it or out of it and transforming the world of respectable mainstream opinion into an echo chamber where only feminist questions are permitted to be raised, and only feminist answers permitted to be formulated.
Not surprisingly therefore, the feminists have concluded that feminism is desirable and honorable. However, they have consistently shrouded in fog the plain and simple definition of feminism, making available so many so-called "answers", and such inadequate ones, that there is effectively no answer at all. And that, I submit, is the weak point where we as counter-feminist seekers of truth must begin our drilling operations.
But a difficulty bars our way at the outset—in fact, a double-bind. For in order to discover if feminism is good or bad, we must first establish what it quintessentially is. But in order to establish what feminism quintessentially is, we must first discover whether it is good or bad. It is a chicken-and-egg game, and such dilemmas cannot be unriddled by a linear, deductive style of investigation. Rather, the entire picture must come into focus all at once, holistically. We must dive into the question from both ends at the same time.
Our style of investigation shall be, in the main, inductive rather than deductive. As the expositor, I already know how the story ends, so my method shall be to reveal the finale (or parts of it), and then fill you in, step by step, on WHY the story turns out that way.
So here is our first sneak preview, and I have said it many times: the radical quintessence of feminism is female supremacism. I mean that feminism and female supremacism are completely interchangeable terms; they are synonyms. Everything you need to know about feminism cascades from this, and if you don't know this at the outset, you will stumble blindly in a midnight maze of never-ending conundrums. But if you DO know this at the outset, you will have a map, a compass, and a blazing torch to light the way.
The second plot-spoiler both illuminates, and is illuminated by, the first. It is, that whatever is respectable about feminism is not original, and whatever is original about feminism is not respectable. I will not enlarge upon this now, because I want to keep the talk brief. So I am farming the work out to you, the reader. I would ask that you load this idea into your brain and try it on for size. Explore it. Experiment with it. Work with it. Play with it. See how, when and where it fits the facts of the world as you know them.
Briefly, the "nice" parts of feminism are not feminism's soul, because they do not quintessentially belong to feminism. Rather, they belong to the world at large, and to the realm of liberal humanist bromide. They belong to the generally received body of traditional opinions about fair play, common decency and the like, and if they were broken loose from feminism they could just as well sail under their own flag. Certainly, they do not require a new-fangled monikker like "feminism". And yet, they serve feminism as a masking device because they obscure the vital presence of that OTHER feminism, the not-nice kind whose sole purpose is to boost the female-supremacist agenda.
Already, I can hear a howl of protest. "No! That's NOT what feminism really is!"
And I would reply: "Bad luck! You've had YEARS to tell the world what feminism really is. Now it is the world's turn to tell feminism what feminism really is!"
So again: the radical quintessence of feminism is female supremacism. That is to say, female supremacism is the soul of feminism. It is, by any measure, more significant, interesting, original and consequential than liberal platitudes—and politically more profound in its implications, by an order of magnitude!
The battle for feminism's soul, is the battle to define feminism's core minima in both a moral and practical sense and, by so doing, gain effective control over feminism's narrative in pragmatic, real-world terms. It is the world's turn to tell feminism what feminism is, and this will come about by shifting the center of narrative authority away from feminism itself. If you are a self-declared feminist, your supposed "inside" knowledge of feminism is worth no more than the "outside" knowledge which others are able to bring forward—THEIR knowledge can be as quintessentially revelatory or determinative as any other.
Accordingly, the nasty bits which outsiders may remark about feminism are not regrettable, accidental, outlying features. They are as much a part of "real" feminism as anything your friendly neighborhood Nice Feminist would urge you to believe. If these things are feminism's "excrescence", it is because they have been excreted, or forced out from the center, which makes the center their point of origin. Accordingly, our task as counter-feminist propagators of knowledge is to factor feminism's excrescence into its essence. Or as certain wits and wags will be quick to say: to feed feminism its own shit!
Yes. The world has long been an object of the feminist gaze, so it is time to flip the script, and make feminism an object for the world. They have been gazing into the abyss long enough; now the abyss is gazing into them.
Such is the battle for feminism's soul.
------------------------------------------------
If you found the foregoing profitable, you will unquestionably benefit from the following:
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=atlantis
When a non-feminist encounters a feminist, the mood is sooner or later bound to get testy. To state that another way, each party carries a psychic atmosphere of her own, and these atmospheres are bound to clash. The encompassing social ambience will not accomodate both of them; one or the other must yield. As they say in the old western movies, "this town ain't big enough for both of us."
The unspoken tension between feminist and non-feminist will eventually come to a head and show itself openly. This regularly happens in a small way, in the social microcosm. It has not yet happened in a grand, conclusive way, in the societal macrocosm, although it is our job to accelerate the arrival of that day. But on whatever scale it occurs, the confrontation rides upon a mutual assessment between these two parties or, if you will, between these two principles.
Hence the typical pattern of interchange between a feminist and a non-feminist. The non-feminist will make known her feelings about feminism and the feminist will, mildly or otherwise, "get defensive". So what is happening in these discussions? Clearly, the talkers are talking past each other because they are talking about two different things. The feminist's "feminism" is NOT the same thing as the non-feminist's "feminism". Each conversant has a different mental picture of what the word feminism signifies in real world terms.
The non-feminist looks upon feminism as the less desirable option; that is what makes him not a feminist. Meanwhile, the feminist looks upon feminism as something sacred, and for that reason looks upon the non-feminist standpoint as akin to sacrilege. Please bear these points in mind.
Again I put it to you: what is feminism, and what ISN'T feminism? We need to address that pesky little question with exactitude in order to reach any over-arching conclusion about feminism's desirability or lack of it. Therefore feminism, the object under examination, must be pinned down, immobilized, and forced to become a definite something; only in that way does it become examinable and susceptible to evaluation. So answers need to arrive, and they need to arrive from authoritative sources. Consequently, the question of authority itself comes to the fore, as does the question of questioning authority.
Briefly then, who has authority to tell the world what feminism is or is not? Does the feminist have such authority? Does the non-feminist have such authority? Or do they each in their own way have such authority?
In the present talk, my contention is that any person at all may at least presume to speak with authority on the question of what is or isn't feminism. Anybody may set up shop in this trade, and there are no licensing requirements. Self-declared participation in feminism itself is no prerequisite for this. If that word (feminism) points to any discoverable object at all, we must allow that the pathways of discovery are manifold and not subject to any monopoly. Anybody may compete in this market, although success will vary according to the governing criteria. So, it is the governing criteria which are now under consideration.
"But wait!", I hear some feminist interject. "Only a feminist has any true authority to say what feminism is or is not, because only a feminist has participated in feminism and truly LIVED feminism. No outsider has any authority to tell ME what feminism is or is not!"
I would reply, that your communal experience among self-styled feminists grants you no authority but to speak of what you and others underwent in your time together, and what you felt and concluded from this. Your particular viewpoint and your especial path of knowledge are in no sense privileged. Neither is it taken on faith that you would evaluate your position honestly. Hence, your authority is merely clubbish, a compound of social memories mingled with selective awareness and possibly wishful thinking. And while these club memories might constitute authority of a parochial sort, there are other forms of authority, from other sources, which must not be neglected. Do not forget that others can view your club from an outward aspect—does that count for nothing?
"But wait!", I hear that feminist interject again. "I have studied feminism for years, and I have read all the books, and I have earned a degree in women's studies. Don't tell me your authority equals mine, mister!"
I would reply, that if in addition to hanging out with supposed feminists, you boast of a scholastic or intellectual authority, you must remember that you aren't the only one who can read books and think about things. Others, very different from you, are avid readers and thinkers also—and they do not have the same emotional filters that you have. So they are free to follow their own unblinkered genius, to quaff from fountains of knowledge that would not occur to you, to generalize, to factor-analyze, to string the dots together and formulate conclusions that might differ markedly from your own.
"But wait!", our feminist chimes in for a third time. "I am a WOMAN! How dare you tell me what feminism is or is not!"
I would reply: "Quite right, you are a woman. And I am a Sagittarius."
And I repeat: ANYBODY may presume to say what feminism is, or what feminism is not. It adds no weight to your claim to merely call yourself a feminist. It gives you no head start in the game. After all, anybody can say "I am a feminist". Talk is cheap, and whether you call yourself a feminist, or call yourself a two-headed Patagonian, has no bearing on your claim to expertise.
And again I say, that a lot rides upon the outcome of this controversy. We must eventually decide in very exact terms what feminism is or is not, and the question is so important that I have given it a special name which hints at the magnitude of it. I call this question the battle for feminism's soul, and I wish to make known why I do so. And as I have already suggested, we seek not only to discover what feminism IS . .. but to determine whether it is right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, noble or ignoble.
I would therefore have you understand, that no mere working definition of feminism can ever be considered separately from the question of feminism's inherent desirability or lack of such.
So in the end, we aim to establish two things: firstly, what feminism IS. . . and secondly, whether it is DESIRABLE. Up until now, the feminists have asserted a monopoly of discourse in this realm, thought-policing the avenues of conversation leading into it or out of it and transforming the world of respectable mainstream opinion into an echo chamber where only feminist questions are permitted to be raised, and only feminist answers permitted to be formulated.
Not surprisingly therefore, the feminists have concluded that feminism is desirable and honorable. However, they have consistently shrouded in fog the plain and simple definition of feminism, making available so many so-called "answers", and such inadequate ones, that there is effectively no answer at all. And that, I submit, is the weak point where we as counter-feminist seekers of truth must begin our drilling operations.
But a difficulty bars our way at the outset—in fact, a double-bind. For in order to discover if feminism is good or bad, we must first establish what it quintessentially is. But in order to establish what feminism quintessentially is, we must first discover whether it is good or bad. It is a chicken-and-egg game, and such dilemmas cannot be unriddled by a linear, deductive style of investigation. Rather, the entire picture must come into focus all at once, holistically. We must dive into the question from both ends at the same time.
Our style of investigation shall be, in the main, inductive rather than deductive. As the expositor, I already know how the story ends, so my method shall be to reveal the finale (or parts of it), and then fill you in, step by step, on WHY the story turns out that way.
So here is our first sneak preview, and I have said it many times: the radical quintessence of feminism is female supremacism. I mean that feminism and female supremacism are completely interchangeable terms; they are synonyms. Everything you need to know about feminism cascades from this, and if you don't know this at the outset, you will stumble blindly in a midnight maze of never-ending conundrums. But if you DO know this at the outset, you will have a map, a compass, and a blazing torch to light the way.
The second plot-spoiler both illuminates, and is illuminated by, the first. It is, that whatever is respectable about feminism is not original, and whatever is original about feminism is not respectable. I will not enlarge upon this now, because I want to keep the talk brief. So I am farming the work out to you, the reader. I would ask that you load this idea into your brain and try it on for size. Explore it. Experiment with it. Work with it. Play with it. See how, when and where it fits the facts of the world as you know them.
Briefly, the "nice" parts of feminism are not feminism's soul, because they do not quintessentially belong to feminism. Rather, they belong to the world at large, and to the realm of liberal humanist bromide. They belong to the generally received body of traditional opinions about fair play, common decency and the like, and if they were broken loose from feminism they could just as well sail under their own flag. Certainly, they do not require a new-fangled monikker like "feminism". And yet, they serve feminism as a masking device because they obscure the vital presence of that OTHER feminism, the not-nice kind whose sole purpose is to boost the female-supremacist agenda.
Already, I can hear a howl of protest. "No! That's NOT what feminism really is!"
And I would reply: "Bad luck! You've had YEARS to tell the world what feminism really is. Now it is the world's turn to tell feminism what feminism really is!"
So again: the radical quintessence of feminism is female supremacism. That is to say, female supremacism is the soul of feminism. It is, by any measure, more significant, interesting, original and consequential than liberal platitudes—and politically more profound in its implications, by an order of magnitude!
The battle for feminism's soul, is the battle to define feminism's core minima in both a moral and practical sense and, by so doing, gain effective control over feminism's narrative in pragmatic, real-world terms. It is the world's turn to tell feminism what feminism is, and this will come about by shifting the center of narrative authority away from feminism itself. If you are a self-declared feminist, your supposed "inside" knowledge of feminism is worth no more than the "outside" knowledge which others are able to bring forward—THEIR knowledge can be as quintessentially revelatory or determinative as any other.
Accordingly, the nasty bits which outsiders may remark about feminism are not regrettable, accidental, outlying features. They are as much a part of "real" feminism as anything your friendly neighborhood Nice Feminist would urge you to believe. If these things are feminism's "excrescence", it is because they have been excreted, or forced out from the center, which makes the center their point of origin. Accordingly, our task as counter-feminist propagators of knowledge is to factor feminism's excrescence into its essence. Or as certain wits and wags will be quick to say: to feed feminism its own shit!
Yes. The world has long been an object of the feminist gaze, so it is time to flip the script, and make feminism an object for the world. They have been gazing into the abyss long enough; now the abyss is gazing into them.
Such is the battle for feminism's soul.
------------------------------------------------
If you found the foregoing profitable, you will unquestionably benefit from the following:
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=atlantis
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:55 AM
26 Comments:
"Yes. The world has long been an object of the feminist gaze, so it is time to flip the script, and make feminism an object for the world. They have been gazing into the void long enough; now the void is gazing into them."
Odd,I was just thinking about that old saying last night, the one about looking into the abyss....
Oh, and bravo, very nice piece,Fidel.
I feel inclined to say feminism has no soul, just a black hole.
BRAVO Dr Fidelbogen PhD !
@anonymous
feminism is a black hole - once you start getting sucked into it, it is very hard to escape it!
(Harder for women than men anyway)!
"Odd,I was just thinking about that old saying last night, the one about looking into the abyss...."
I too was thinking about it last night, while I was writing. It was late, I was tired, and I incorrectly used the word "void". I will amend this.
I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and I believe that the definition of feminism is the absolute key.
Regarding your definition, I could agree about the female supremacist bit, but at the end we would find that it is arguable, therefore it leave us in the same place. We have to find the true feminist cornerstone. Something that any possible definition of feminism must include, implicitly or explicitly. The missing verb in "I <>, therefore I am a feminist"
My approach is that the feminism core is nothing else than pushing for women's rights.
That does not directly imply female supremacy, but it does imply, at least, that women's issues are more prioritary for feminism than men's
Therefore, we can safely conclude that whatever feminism is, it is *not* about equality.
Is it really necessary to define it further? Would feminism be where it is today if everyone had known this simple fact? If we could remove "equality" from any definition of feminism would it be supported by so many people?
We have to remove the dissonance. Expose feminism for what it is (not), and stop chasing a moving target.
"My approach is that the feminism core is nothing else than pushing for women's rights."
Yes.. I can see your point here. Although it seems to me that the word "rights" is problematic. I'm not sure it would immobilize the target, because people would keep arguing over the meaning of "rights".
". . .we can safely conclude that whatever feminism is, it is *not* about equality."
Again, I see a problem with semantics. "Equality" is the biggest semantic headache that ever was, and if we persist in using feminist terminology (validating it, I mean), then I'm afraid it will be headache after headache with no end.
Another thing: if you propose "pushing for women's rights" as the core of feminism, too many people will just say, "you bet, pushing for women's rights, you think that is a bad thing?"
I'll get back with some more thoughts later. Right now, I must begin posting the podcast version of this post. . :)
@Manu:
Rather than using the word "rights", I would say "advantages".
Thus: "I push for women's advantages, therefore I am a feminist."
Or as I have written elsewhere, feminism combines hatred of men with advocacy for women. These two things, taken together, add up to female supremacism.
I should add that "feminism" is more than just the sum of women who call themselves "feminists". It is a social organism with a life of its own. . .
Dr Fidelbogen, check this out;
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1153
I am the poster known as Robert.
I think it doesn't matter what word we use, as long as it means something like "help" and it is positive towards women.
To be useful, it has to be something that any feminist, whatever that means, would proudly stamp in a T-shirt and wear it.
I chose "rights" exactly because of that, and if someone say "you bet, pushing for women's rights, you think that is a bad thing?" then I would say: "Ok, I'll tell you my opinion, but first you have to admit that you cannot claim that you push for women's rights and, at the same time, that you do it for equality".
And I don't mind the definition of equality you use. Collective or individual, opportunity or outcome. In order to be feminist you have to be concerned by women more than men, even by the tiniest bit, and that means
that feminism is not about equality.
How much easier the debate would be if we could all agree on this and officially destroy the feminist monopoly on equality!!
"Dr Fidelbogen, check this out;
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1153"
Thank you. I did indeed check it out. And not only that, but I left a brief comment of my own.
@Manu:
I need to continue developing my 'female supremacism' thesis, for the sake of what I hope to reveal about how feminism works.
But. . could I persuade you to write a guest post for this blog, explaining your theory at greater length? I think that readers would find it interesting . . .
I hate to disrupt you boys in the midst of your great discussion of what women have been doing for the past 40 or 50 years. However, I think I will anyway.
Female supremacy? Really? I reade through countless rambling paragraphs wondering when you were going to enlighten me as to what this long hidden definition of a feminist really was, only to find that your theorem had led you to female supremacist? *yawn*
Ever read one single statistic on pay scale differences between men and women? Perhaps you have read a book or two in regards to the volume of women who are currently attending college while also raising children, single mothers, that is, because the fine upstanding men who impregnated them (shocking that they didn't do that on their own, I know) vanished when they found out there was going to be a baby.
Are we superior? Quite frankly, some of us probably are superior to some men. I have met some pretty pathetic men in my life. However, some of us are lazy, whiny bitches who don't deserve a hand up to help get off the sofa where they have been watching reality tv shows. Some men are incredibly responsible, strong men with fair minds and a willingness to deal with every person as an individual.
You, after reading this blog, I feel certain, are not one of those individuals. For whatever reason, I suspect it is a bad experience with a woman who was stronger than you in your past, you feel the need to lash out in a falsely intelligent manner against all women who try to set things right for women in the workplace, the justice system and the government.
@Wicked Shawn
". . lash out . . . against all women who try to set things right for women in the workplace, the justice system and the government."
Please cite the "chapter and verse" in the adjoining blog post where this occurs.
From one woman to another, that's crap. You act like women didn't have a choice in the sexual act, like it wasn't a risk they were taking. Simple solution: don't have premarital sex and get rid of divorce.
You pander to the selfish idea, so common amongst feminists, that female rights ought to take precedence before all else, that includes children, and spouses. (Screw the kids or spouse, what is important is my life, my body, my sex-life, my wants, my, my, my, my - it's always all about you, how you are being victimized, undervalued in the workplace, enslaved, etc... gimme a break)
You can talk about the disadvantages of women working in the world, and the feminists would tell you that is b/c there is a female oppression of women going on - as if though staying at home and raising your children is a worthless and valueless occupation. There are few greater vocations; what is important in the world is not important in the eyes of God, and vice versa.
If there is a disadvantage to women in the work place, it ought to give you a clue in - hmmm, maybe b/c you aren't supposed to be competing against men for jobs (or competing against men for anything else for that matter). Women have a job to do that no one else in the world can do, don't undervalue it just because there is no paycheck. (And for those of you who think being a homemaker is an easy, lazy job, that is either b/c you aren't a mother, aren't a good mother, or you have abortions or use contraceptives. Women that get married and do what they were made for, work hard - and, what I consider the most difficult thing to come to terms with - way to go, feminist, you've tainted nearly all of society - is that for all the hard work, we don't get hard cash in hand for it.)
You (feminists) created the problem of the single woman having to raise a kid on her own - historically, you vied for divorce, you vied for having a personal choice on keeping the kid. Way back in the day, when the patriarchy was firmly around, it was rare that that would happen. Well, now you made your bed, don't bitch about having to lie in it. And another thing, feminism tells men, "f-u, we don't need you, this is my body, I can decide whether or not to keep the kid or kill it, you are just around to fulfill my desires, beyond that, you are nothing."
How can you (logically) have the audacity to turn right around and then claim, "I decided to keep the kid, you are required to be around to help raise it"? Huh? No, you rescinded that privilege when you told them they didn't have any rights with regards to the unborn child.
Woman are not victimized - don't be answering and defending for all women, I don't want it or need it. As far as I am concerned, the whole feminist movement and the "independent woman" was a bad idea in the first place - you aren't doing society, both men and women, any favors by trying to put yourself on the same level as men. The argument, one which I can't disagree with, is that feminism has ceased to be about "equality," and is now about supremacy - and it is. Men being whipped is presented as a joke in the media, movies and sit-coms, but nevertheless, the fundamental belief it supports is that it should be that way, that women should wear the pants in the family and society, and should have the upper hand. It's so obvious that feminists work for that, and argue for "women's rights" (argue for your own dang rights, b/c they aren't mine) in order to effect that. How can you possibly be blind to what is going on?
@trent13:
I have noticed, in reading through her comment and then studying my own blog post, that points of contact between the comment and what I actually said, are few and weak. She clearly has her own agenda, just as, admittedly, I have mine!
WS serves as illustration of the very syndrome I was referring to early in the essay. "Her" feminism is clearly not "my" feminism, and HER talk almost completely talks past MY talk. In other words, her talk is almost completely irrelevant to the discussion. She is knee-jerking; mentally blocking; emotionally filtering.
Anyway, Trent13, your angle of insight is welcome, as always. And for the record, to anybody reading this, I am clearly not forcing Trent to say what she is saying. In fact, I would need to force her to NOT say what she is saying! ;)
But I would never dream of doing that, since I would never dream of silencing wimyn's voices! Right, feminists? :)
Hey Trent, I hope ya didn't scare Wicked Shawn away. I was hoping she'd stay a few rounds! ;)
Oh, by the way, I just loved THIS little goody:
" . . . I suspect it is a bad experience with a woman who was stronger than you in your past, you feel the need to lash out. ."
It sounds like a more sophisticated version of the old chestnut "you can't handle a strong, powerful woman." !
I have no idea if I would be able to handle a strong, powerful woman, having never met one.
I figured she wouldn't be back for seconds...
I'm afraid I cannot say much more about it. I made a post related to this idea in my blog (in spanish), here a few months ago, inspired by this post in Personas, no género
@Trent13:
". . (And for those of you who think being a homemaker is an easy, lazy job. ."
That's an interesting point you have brought up. Among feminists, you will find two main schools of thought.
One school says just the opposite of what you are suggesting; they say that women's work is real work, necessary work, or "unpaid shit work". And from this they rationalize their campaign to socially re-engineer the domestic sphere of life. (By making the "personal" into something "political".)
The other school of feminist thought says. . well. . roughly what you imply, to wit; that housework is an "easy, lazy job."
The feminists, true to their predictable M.O., switch back and forth between these versions. Whatever their convenience requires. (It all depends on who they are talking to, and what they are trying to squeeze out of them at that particular moment.)
The versions are, of course, mutually exclusive.
@Manu:
I half-understand Spanish, so I will take a run at reading your article.
Meanwhile. . would you be interested in doing an English translation?
Use the mail link at upper right if you want to discuss this. . :)
Of course, they will say it is necessary, and perhaps even noble, but not because of some greater purpose but because it is done by women, and, naturally, *everything* that women do (didn't you know?) is like some sort of a miracle, and men are daaaaaammmnnned lucky women are around to wipe their butts.
Any glorification they would ascribe to motherhood has more to do with their trying to empower women as these goddess creatures, rather than seeing that in the Eternal scheme of things, motherhood is noble because of our responsibility and involvement in raising our children to be good citizens who will keep the Faith, save their souls, and in turn be good parents to their kids. (That's not to say that men are not involved or irresponsible, of course, but they aren't meant to perform the functions of a mother.)
It is not as if the sex, male or female, is noble or better than the other simply because it is. They want to claim that females are intrinsically the most perfect sex. As far as I'm concerned, human nature is flawed, men should lead (b/c God said so, it's in Genesis) and doing one's duty (not as society says, but as God dictates) is the only way to not burn forever, and ever, and ever. And really, from what I have seen, there is a perfection to this order that hasn't been matched by any other society - to me that is just another proof of its validity. So whatever, they all, both sides of the feminist - domestic argument, can jump in a lake. Really, it's unbelievably tragic that these women raise children; they have a lot to answer for.
@Trent13:
Thank you, you have nailed feminism bang on the nose! :)
Rather than using the word "rights", I would say "advantages".
Thus: "I push for women's advantages, therefore I am a feminist."
-----
You are on track but the correct word is privileges. In America our country was founded on clear cut principals and definitions of rights vs. privleges. In short rights are synonymous with responsibilites where as privleges are "rights" given without responsibilities taken to obtain them, this could be as simple as having to work to obtain what is given.
Rights are also directly related to property both bodily and otherwise. Much of feminism pertains to property rights as well though these "rights" are actually privileges because children are not actually the property of women they they have the privilege of them being designated as such both pre and post conception after divorce.
The male body is also the property of women. So going back to responsibiliy being synonomous with rights, you can see how male responsibility to provide his body and the fruits of it's labors to women without the associated right to the male over property associated with these rights is a gross injustice.
So when we deal with feminism the venacular should be differentiating and identifying the relation of Rights, Privileges, Responsibility and Property.
These are all words and definitions that were clearly defined by our Founding Fathers in my country The United States of America. These teachings are key to understanding they tyranny of feminism.
To Wicked Shawn: YOU SAY:
"Ever read one single statistic on pay scale differences between men and women?"
Oh yes, more so than most I would say. The difference is the "Raw Wage Gap" and has nothing to do with "getting paid less for the same job". In fact it could be said, getting paid less for not only doing less work as a gender in terms of representation in the workforce and hours worked but also a result of doing different work.
You see,there are no laws that put men before women but THERE ARE LAWS that put women before men. This is what feminists call reverse discrimination, Affirmative Action and Title IX among many other special women only and women first initiatives.
All of these are designed to combat some sort of natural advantage men have caused by our oppression of women.
"Perhaps you have read a book or two in regards to the volume of women who are currently attending college"
Yes I have actually and currently women obtain 60% of college degrees and are disproportionately represented as attendees to higher education in general. In fact there is so much momentum behind this that the problem is expected to get much worse. Do you think we can remove women first social and legislative policies that put their welfare and position above that of men?
How about changing the current stance of achieving unequal outcome by unequal means i.e. female supremacist laws to simply creating equal opportunity?
"single mothers, that is, because the fine upstanding men who impregnated them (shocking that they didn't do that on their own, I know) vanished when they found out there was going to be a baby."
With all due respect to female "choices" don't you think that since women hold the ultimate choice of whether to conceive or not conceive by killing the fetus men should be given equal rights to decide the same? In fact given the control and choices women have over conception I'd say conception and the ramifications of such are now their responsibility.
It may come as a surprise to you but abortion about property rights and not a woman's health. It is framed "her body her choice".
It essence why would you expect men to take responsibility for conception when they have no rights over it. Remember that rights and responsibilities go hand and hand. Men have no rights in conception and therefore should have no responsibility. Feminism works by creating rights or what is in actuality privileges that are enabled by the responsibilities of men to enable them.
You see, abortion and conception pertains to property rights which women have established over their own bodies, the body of the child both pre and post conception and the body of a man and the fruits of it's working labor.
In contrast to women, Men have no property rights to our own bodies. Don't you think we should? Men's bodies, it's associated property are actually the property of the State by force of Selective Service draft registration and through forced provision of the fruits of his labor to women outside the contract of marriage.
In reference to the single mothers of which you speak this is a recent occurrence which took place with second wave feminism and is a direct result of it. Not surprisingly this was the time of the American Cultural Revolution, Female Sexual Liberation and Second Wave Feminism.
As a result 40% of all births in the U.S. are to single women, here is the graph:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S9KUZA0bukI/AAAAAAAAAbA/GIi5TjovN8M/s1600/fertility.jpg
Now I ask you to contemplate your statement as to what the real causes of single motherhood are.
Take a look at my blog at
rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com for more...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home