One of the rules of this life is that you do not judge people by the words you say, but by what they do. Feminism, at least the version promulgated by the elite in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is the voice of the establishment.
It is generally sweet, nicely groomed, respectable women: Ladies if you will, who issue the fatwas and edits of feminism: it is not restricted to the radicals within the wimmin’s studies department and the left-wing political potibureaux.
But it is intolerant of any other way of living.
Feminism has become a theology. A false one. Which stinks: this blog mainly deals with Christian issues but when I see the casualties of the casual criminalization of masculinity most days one has to wonder if the high church of feminism is causing more harm than good.
Another reason is that #WomenAgainstFeminism is essentially right. There is a hard core of misandry and victim-culture in modern feminism that is deeply disturbing. #WomenAgainstFeminism is in part a reaction to the #YesAllWomen campaign, which began in reaction to the murder rampage of Elliot Rodger last May. The lonely misogynist – who killed two women and four men, before killing himself – was cast as a symbol of the worldwide war against women. As one Facebook comment (quoted in Time by Sarah Miller) said: “If you don’t think this is about misogyny there is something wrong with you.”
Modern feminism has split into two distinct strands. The mild-mannered mainstream version, having achieved most of its objectives for equality (and then some: upward of 60 per cent of postsecondary graduates are now women) is focusing its efforts on ever more elitist issues, such as the lopsided gender split in Silicon Valley and the shortage of women on corporate boards. Will all due respect to the problems of the one per cent, I do not think these are the types of issues that will send young women to the barricades.
The leftist, postmodernist strand of feminism insists that women are still oppressed, and the world’s still stacked against us, and there is basically no difference between the rape epidemic in India and the one in North America. One example of this thinking is The Guardian’s Jessica Valenti, who, in response to #WomenAgainstFeminism, wrote: “[D]enying that women are a victimized class is simply wrong. What else would you call a segment of the population who are systematically discriminated against in school, work and politics? How would you describe a population whose bodies are objectified to the point of dehumanization? Women are harassed, attacked and sexually assaulted with alarming regularity in America and around the world.” This is a belief system rather than a depiction of reality, and, as with all belief systems, there’s no point arguing about it with the faithful.
Views like this wouldn’t matter much, except that they have real-life consequences, as Cathy Young has pointed out in Time. One is the destructive “rape culture” myth that has gripped campuses across North America, along with the meme – utterly fictitious – that one in five women will be sexually assaulted by the time she gets her degree. This claim is on the face of it absurd, but it has spawned an epidemic of victimology and abuse of due process that will take a generation to undo.
Some other comments.
Feminism is not efficient. When a society is under stress, it simply does not need political officers (read human resources) and such. It needs people who are qualified, who are prepared to do the long hours, and have someone at home minding the kids. It needs husbands: it will make do with single men and the gay, but it really does not want to handle work life balance.
You do not want a surgeon clocking off in the middle of procedure to pick up her kids. Professionals need wives, and any system that does not honour that role is going to fail.
You mean… men can be nurses, too? I thought only women can do that! There’s no physical advantage to greater upper-body strength, practical advantage to longer hours or greater shift flexibility, or academic advantage to mathematical abilities among nurses… oh, wait. Oh, dear. You mean… when schools are deciding whether to lay off the female math teacher with an English degree, or the male math teacher with a Math degree, they lay off the female one? You mean… men can do almost anything women can do… only better? You mean… men are bigger, stronger, smarter, more flexible, and more productive than women are, and that these traits translate to being preferential hires? Oh my gosh! You mean… men and women aren’t the same?
Luckily, there is something that women do better than men, but I can’t think of it right now. It must not be very important. What are all of these unemployed women going to do at home, while their husbands are at work? *sigh* I suppose they’ll all have to retrain as construction workers or security guards, or something. This is a real blow to all of the progress we women have made. I’m devastated. Who could have seen this coming? Whatever happened to The End of Men? Life is not fair!
Which brings me to the thing I despise most about feminism. It is not their contempt towards men, their disavowal of any distress men have. It is the lie they tell young women and girls that they can do anything, that biology does not matter.
I don’t think the illegitimacy rates and the death of marriage in the lower classes, which is starting to affect the middle classes, can simply be blamed on poverty or even lack of knowledge about human sexual reproduction. It’s stupidity, lack of future time orientation, race, marital chaos, poverty, lack of knowledge and other factors. Marriage will become the exception, rather than the rule, in the future due to the feminist exaltation of female CEOs and the few hyper-achieving women and the disregard for the middle-class girl who works at a middle-class profession. The gamers are hedonists but they’re on to something here. There’s this strain of love for alphas (whether female or male) while betas (the middle class) is considered a threat, in the eyes of feminism. Omegas? Who cares about them.Low-status to middle class women do not have a lot of choices and cannot pursue a princess entitled lifestyle like upper-class women can, or better yet, “Having it all“, while not burning out and coming out half-decent. They have this small to mid-sized deck given to them in life and their choice of husbands is not as long as for other women. This whole choice addiction can only apply to high-status women. Other girls, who are perhaps middle-class or plain in looks or something else that makes them not the cream of the crop, either choose wisely (e.g. go for common-law marriage or cohabitation where both father and mother are present, since marriage may not be affordable to them), or end up as single mothers (e.g. pursuing choice addiction).
Not every girl can live in security, behind gated communities and being protected by her feminist family, corporations and sectors of the government. Not every girl can afford day-care and buying luxury items or getting expensive vacations or whatnot. Is any girl who is below UMC unmarriageable all of the sudden? This is perhaps one of the reasons young middle-class guys are starting to marry less to their middle-class female counterparts and following the foot steps of their underclass brothers. Not only is it not affordable, she’s not UMC or above. He’s also not UMC or above. So why should they marry?
Legal marriage, as a whole, unfortunately has become dangerous for average Joes and is losing its appeal for average Janes.
Biology matters. Kids do better with both parents. Young woman, your best move is to choose a man who you lust mightily for and wife him up. By trading your youth and fertility for his loyalty, together you can build a life. I have seen, in my generation, the results of feminist propaganda, and it is dust and ashes.
Hat tip to Vanessa (Alte), Alcest, and JB, who found the link to the Globe and Mail.
