Tuesday, November 13, 2012

One More Time -- Women Were NOT "Oppressed" When They Were Not Permitted to Vote



Here I go, reposting stuff again. It is good to do that, because repetition makes things sink in. I call it the drumbeat principle.

We all know that the feminists like to bang on and on about "feminism got women the vote." In fact, it is one of their favorite items when they are throwing the talking-point trick at you. And that's ALL it is -- a talking point. "Getting women the vote" is not feminism qua feminism. It is just, well. . . getting women the vote.

Feminism, and "getting women the vote", are conceptually different items. They are detachable from each other. The essence of feminism itself does not at all reside in the business of  "getting women the vote". That particular chapter of history was only a landmark along feminism's road, and only a means to an end.  But it was not the road per se, nor was it the end of the road.

So, it is entirely possible to have supported women's suffrage back in the day, and yet not have been a feminist. The women's suffrage campaign was in no way dependent on feminism's core agenda, and the fact that many people identifiable as "feminist" supported that campaign does nothing to undermine the truth of this. Still,  I grant you that it camouflages said truth -- and feminism's propaganda mythos has capitalized on that effect. 

However, we must realize that feminism depended utterly on getting the vote for women. Since feminism is the project to increase the power of women, it was imperative to introduce female voters into the political algebra. The empowerment of women would necessarily be stymied at a certain level if this did not occur, and so feminism's advancement was vitally linked to the success of the women's suffrage movement. It was a necessary stage in feminism's historical trajectory.

In the end, feminism acted the part of a self-serving parasite within the historical narrative of women's suffrage. And you may be a "liberal" who feels that women's suffrage was a noble cause, or you may be a "conservative" who feels otherwise, but either way you can take certain intellectual steps and see the pragmatic need, in feminist terms, of promoting such a campaign.

Therefore, when you are verbally attacking feminism and somebody flings in your face the idea that "feminism got women the vote", you needn't be impressed. Such a thing carries no force of argument. It is only an emotional manipulation trick, and the serpent hissing in the woodpile should be audible to you. 

All right, here is the re-posted part of the present entry:


This video (and the article it comes from) is gadfly material. And I love to be a gadfly occasionally, if you haven't noticed. The feminist horse needs all the gadflies it can get, until it is metaphorically bitten to death. Or if you prefer, call this death by a thousand cuts. I mean, if the so-called "hate speech" is kept to a very, very low threshhold, it becomes impossible to call it hate speech. Instead, you might call it "get-under-their-skin speech" -- it makes them dance, it makes them squirm, but there ain't diddly-doo-bop they can do about it. Or at any rate, not without showing their hand. The point is to apply social heat and pressure slowly -- call it the crock pot principle. What the hell are they going to do, pass laws against "get-under-their-skin-speech"? No matter what they do, you can ALWAYS stay just an inch outside of any boundary they set, and you will make your message perfectly clear while keeping out of range. So you are always pushing the envelope, a bit here, a bit there, drawing them further and further from the center of their world, and deeper and deeper into the desert where you can ambush them.

As for the video -- a lot of people hated it, but there is no "misogyny" about it. I proposed an outrageous idea -- a "you wouldn't dare say that" thesis which indeed I dared to say!  That much is true. But there is no "misogyny" in stating that women of the nineteenth century were not "oppressed" when they were denied the voting franchise. The so-called oppression, you see, was never factual but only theoretical -- by virtue of a "theory" concocted ex post facto and then retrojected. To put that another way, the "oppression" was an ideological artifact of later times, crafted as a rhetorical weapon for those same times. But it never existed, in a purely objective way, at the time of the actual situation.

And remember that plenty of women, in olden times, not only didn't give a hoot about gaining the franchise, but often actively opposed it. Furthermore, not all men opposed the franchise for women. Some did, and some didn't. So in the end, we are entitled to say that certain people (male and female both) supported women's suffrage, and that certain other people (likewise male and female both) did not. Accordingly, the notion that women of the nineteenth century were somehow "oppressed" because they couldn't vote, is shown to be highly problematic.

Misogynist? Who, me? No, there is not a speck of misogyny about anything I've said here, because no hatred of women is stated or implied, ever, in any form. And if you feel otherwise, then you are frankly an emotionalistic, chickenshit little ninny.

Now, if I the present writer were to propose that the nineteenth amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed, and that women be banned from the polling stations, then in the present historical context you might have a case that I had proposed an "oppressive" measure. And you would have a stronger case that I was "misogynistic" to float such an idea -- but it would still be a weak case.

But if such a measure were indeed carried through, then assuming that women en masse had loudly opposed it, you might plausibly argue -- in THAT historical context -- that women were "oppressed".

However, I the present writer propose no such measure. Let that be officially known and entered in the record. And let the feminists stop crowing that feminism delivered women from "oppression" when it  allegedly secured them the franchise. Feminism did not deliver women from that oppression -- it created that oppression!

Now, go and watch the video in order to round out what is written here.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home