Why Feminism Inevitably Leads to Socialism

[stu2002]

It has been said that feminism is ultimately about female empowerment, not gender equality. The subtle difference being that feminists aren't trying to stand on equal ground with men, but taking as much as power as they can to boost their public influence. Regardless, I think there's a much more central point to be made about feminism: it thrives on empowerment, not self-empowerment. Follow me to understand why this is such a big deal.


One of the most important political revolutions going on right now in America is the Tea Party Movement. While currently directionless, the Tea Party people spell out the danger behind government entitlement programs: they increase bureaucracy, unaccountability, spending, corruption and welfare-ism. With that in mind we need to look at which entitlement philosophies are destroying, not just America, but the whole of Western society. Feminism is one of them.

The underlying doctrine of feminism is the idea that women are suppressed by a patriarchy. For women to escape this suppression, feminists argue, the government needs to enact affirmative action-oriented policies to even out the gender competition in business, school, agencies and homes. Europe is already busy doing all of this. In Sweden the Leftist-Green coalition is suggesting even private businesses should be subject to gender-based affirmative action. Since Europe, and Scandinavia in particular, prides itself with a huge public sector, every aspect of the life of its citizens can be gender-regulated through taxatation policies. America is not far behind.

We already know feminism is born out of anarchic feminist theory, but few people recognize the danger in letting feminism become a populist phenomenon in Western society. Feminism will inevitably lead to socialism, because it's deeply rooted in an entitlement-based philosophy. Feminism assumes women as individuals are incapable of rising up against its oppressive environment to fulfill themselves. Instead it wants the government to do it for them. Just like racial-based affirmative action oddly assumes racial minorities are too incompetent to organize and create a better future for themselves, gender-based affirmative action paves way for never-ending welfare programs, specially designed for women.

In Scandinavia we are already seeing hilarious examples of what this can do. Physical requirements for fire fighting education is lowered for women. Who cares if you're strong enough to lift a burning log, you just made the work place more equal! At Swedish universities women have entered safely into certain educational fields to adjust the gender balance statistics, even if it led to men being systematically discriminated. Swedish social service is famous for never giving the father the right in justice court over guardianship. We can see that the idea of feminism being a raw female power movement is a truism, but most clearly that it's not about a group of people advancing their own interests - the government is supposed to do it for them.

This is why feminism originally spawned out of leftism, and why right-oriented political groups now desperately try to prove they are populist feminists too. Leftists would gladly support the feminist mission, because it means more entitlement programs in every sector of society-it'll keep bureaucrats busy for centuries. Rightists try to jump on the bandwagon now, because when feminism hits it home in America like it's already doing in Northern Europe, it's going to generate large portions of important voters, just like mass immigration already is doing. Wait five or ten years and every serious political candidate will have to decide whether to cut or increase entitlements for "suppressed" women in every imaginable work field. The cutters won't be popular.

Continue

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/virtus/why-feminism-inevitably-leads-to-socialism/

[moostraks]

Any oppressed group that then manages to get government to use their oppression as a means of exacting retribution eventually just ushers in a new era of tyranny with a different face as the oppressor. It matters not whom the face of government is as long as the end result is the power of a minority over the majority. This seems like gender baiting with no true understanding of who is profitting at this point in time from the policies being enacted.

(I am sorry if I sound like a broken record but...)The greater problem being faced now is that with two parties vying to be head of household no one wants to have or raise families which are the future of the nation. What children are being brought into the world are being (in large part) dumped into government indoctrination camps.

Those who do not cooperate with the system are a threat and are having their children stolen by social services and reprogrammed before they will 'allow' the parents to, upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, have their children returned to them. This ensures the safety of the tyrants by keeping citizens in line. Once you get in the government's sights they seldom relent unless you can manage to inflict enough reciprocal pain.:mad::mad::mad:

[MelissaWV]

Make requirements gender, color, and everything-other-than-relevant-job-skill blind, and this wouldn't happen. Of course, things dragged on so long that there are now "rights" groups for just about everyone in some capacity, and those groups have clout (and the media's ear), so it behooves them to keep fighting for more "rights" forever.

And yep, moose is right. All this division plays right into the hands of Government which loves pretending to be a superhero in any situation. It "saves" children from bad people, it "helps" make workplaces more "equal," it "protects" women from being picked on, and so on. Give me a break. :(

[fisharmor]

(I am sorry if I sound like a broken record but...)The greater problem being faced now is that with two parties vying to be head of household no one wants to have or raise families which are the future of the nation. What children are being brought into the world are being (in large part) dumped into government indoctrination camps.

Well that broken record needs to be left running at least until people stop asking women at parties "what do you do?" and instead start with asking "do you work?"

The part that mystifies me is how in the 1970s through 1990s, there were organized groups throwing us off the scent of the real problem before the real problem became really serious. There were still a good number of stay-at-home moms through the 80's.

Now, we've been conditioned not to look at the real problem.
Heavy Metal / Gangster Rap is ruining our children.
Violent movies are ruining our children.
Video games are ruining our children.
Pornography is ruining our children.

Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that a two-income family has a ridiculous amount of money but no direction for the child. We have babies, and immediately start conditioning them to look to stuff for happiness, because both parents have been conditioned that they need to work for the stuff to make their kids happy.

Then we're surprised when kids get into the stuff they're not supposed to get into - it's all stuff in their minds, and if it makes them happy for another fleeting instant, what's the problem?

(My daughters are going to play video games because I will play with them... and we're starting with the Atari 2600, and they'll know that it runs on a MOS 6502 and that it was the single most influential microprocessor ever.)

[TonySutton]

I thought it was the rap music, gays and evolution...

[MelissaWV]

Well that broken record needs to be left running at least until people stop asking women at parties "what do you do?" and instead start with asking "do you work?"
...


Just personally, I prefer "what do you do?" to "do you work?". "Do you work?" seems to ask whether or not I function, while simultaneously making it seem that stay-at-home parents do not "work." Oh hell yeah they do :eek:

"What do you do?" could be "I raise triplets," which would be an excellent answer, or it could be "I work at the coffee shop down the street," or it could be "I go to school." It seems more general to me.

Of course, the worst one (and what I think you were getting at) is "What do you do for a living?" If you're a stay-at-home, I suppose you should answer "I leech off of my spouse! I suppose I'm a gold-digger, though all I've got is three kids and a mountain of laundry."

[moostraks]

Well that broken record needs to be left running at least until people stop asking women at parties "what do you do?" and instead start with asking "do you work?"

The part that mystifies me is how in the 1970s through 1990s, there were organized groups throwing us off the scent of the real problem before the real problem became really serious. There were still a good number of stay-at-home moms through the 80's.

Now, we've been conditioned not to look at the real problem.
Heavy Metal / Gangster Rap is ruining our children.
Violent movies are ruining our children.
Video games are ruining our children.
Pornography is ruining our children.

Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that a two-income family has a ridiculous amount of money but no direction for the child. We have babies, and immediately start conditioning them to look to stuff for happiness, because both parents have been conditioned that they need to work for the stuff to make their kids happy.

Then we're surprised when kids get into the stuff they're not supposed to get into - it's all stuff in their minds, and if it makes them happy for another fleeting instant, what's the problem?

(My daughters are going to play video games because I will play with them... and we're starting with the Atari 2600, and they'll know that it runs on a MOS 6502 and that it was the single most influential microprocessor ever.)

Ahh...glad someone isn't tired of hearing it,yet :p

Previously, as a single mom, I tried to overcompensate for an abusive biological father the court forced visitation with by giving things to replace my absence and their pain and boy did dd#1 turn out to be a problem. It laid the groundwork for a system that thrives on controling people to use her as a tool against the rest of our family and at 17 with one foot out the door she is just starting to really regret her decisions. I have regretted mine for awhile...

LOL about the Atari as I believe I have one buried here I thought about resurrecting from time to time. We don't have any video games anymore because the children didn't respect the priviledge. Also got rid of the personnal cd players.

[moostraks]

Just personally, I prefer "what do you do?" to "do you work?". "Do you work?" seems to ask whether or not I function, while simultaneously making it seem that stay-at-home parents do not "work." Oh hell yeah they do :eek:

"What do you do?" could be "I raise triplets," which would be an excellent answer, or it could be "I work at the coffee shop down the street," or it could be "I go to school." It seems more general to me.

Of course, the worst one (and what I think you were getting at) is "What do you do for a living?" If you're a stay-at-home, I suppose you should answer "I leech off of my spouse! I suppose I'm a gold-digger, though all I've got is three kids and a mountain of laundry."

lol!!! I tell dh I married him for his money as well. I got 7 children and if it ain't the laundry then it's the dishes. In a 100 year old house with no dishwasher but me at that!!!:p

[AuH20]

'Feminism' left the state in charge of our children.

[Natalie]

Yesterday in my Hispanic Cultures in the US class, we had to read some story which equated housewives to prostitutes. Then my teacher talked about all the ills of our "male-dominated Capitalistic society." The girl who is the President of the College Feminists is in my class and her and the teacher were going back and forth about gender inequality and all this crap. The Feminist girl was like "Women still don't get paid equally. We only make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes." So I raised my hand and was like, "If that's true, why would a company hire men at all? Wal-mart for example would save millions and millions of dollars in employee wages by hiring only women. The reason women make less over the course of their lifetime is they take time off of their careers to raise the kids." Nobody really replied to what I said, they just went on about maternity leave or something.

Anyways, that is my worst class ever. We just learn about the struggle of illegal immigrants (except we're not allowed to call them that, they are"undocumented workers") and how little money they make and how it's all because of evil Capitalism. I sit there pulling my hair out the entire class period. Does my teacher really expect that they come here illegally with no skills and can't speak English and get paid $20 an hour to pick lettuce? Apparently.

[MelissaWV]

Yesterday in my Hispanic Cultures in the US class, we had to read some story which equated housewives to prostitutes. Then my teacher talked about all the ills of our "male-dominated Capitalistic society." The girl who is the President of the College Feminists is in my class and her and the teacher were going back and forth about gender inequality and all this crap. The Feminist girl was like "Women still don't get paid equally. We only make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes." So I raised my hand and was like, "If that's true, why would a company hire men at all? Wal-mart for example would save millions and millions of dollars in employee wages by hiring only women. The reason women make less over the course of their lifetime is they take time off of their careers to raise the kids." Nobody really replied to what I said, they just went on about maternity leave or something.

Anyways, that is my worst class ever. We just learn about the struggle of illegal immigrants (except we're not allowed to call them that, they are"undocumented workers") and how little money they make and how it's all because of evil Capitalism. I sit there pulling my hair out the entire class period. Does my teacher really expect that they come here illegally with no skills and can't speak English and get paid $20 an hour to pick lettuce? Apparently.

What a worthless idea for a class.

First off, traditional Hispanic families would not view a mother staying at home as a prostitute. It's a man-hating notion, springing from the idea that men see no value in the woman except for sex, for which they pay her, and children, for which she is also compensated. Of course, looking at divorce courts... who could blame someone for having that idea :(

Second, you should ask the teacher, politely, when the class will address the documented Hispanic people in the United States, the situation of being Hispanic and a natural-born citizen, and the Hispanics who hold regular everyday jobs and balance multiple cultures and languages while doing so. It seems to me that success is more attractive and educational than simply applying tunnel vision to the subject and addressing only the cliches.

You are spot-on about the wage differences, of course :)

[JaylieWoW]

'Feminism' left the state in charge of our children.

Quite so, summed up amply in the following statement...


"It takes a village to raise a child."

And, further...


Destroy the family and you destroy society. ~Vladimir Lenin


Lenin merely repeated what Socrates had said and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen the consequences of the experiment.


"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.* Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." — The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971


"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." ** -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

[amy31416]

I know it's a biased source, but it seems possible:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Feminism


Feminism originally was an expression used by suffragettes - who were predominantly pro-life[1][2][3] - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the United States and the United Kingdom. By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

If that's true, perhaps it's an interesting opportunity to infiltrate and do our part to reverse some of the damage.

[stu2002]

"If that's true, why would a company hire men at all? Wal-mart for example would save millions and millions of dollars in employee wages by hiring only women. The reason women make less over the course of their lifetime is they take time off of their careers to raise the kids." Nobody really replied to what I said, they just went on about maternity leave or something.

Excellent come back question

[angelatc]

Well that broken record needs to be left running at least until people stop asking women at parties "what do you do?" and instead start with asking "do you work?"


From an etiquette standpoint, both are improper... :D

[amy31416]

From an etiquette standpoint, both are improper... :D

Etiquette is just a tool of the commie-pinko-left-wing feminazis!

Just for that, I'm using my salad fork to eat spaghetti. :p

[Brian4Liberty]

As a gross generalization, females tend towards mommy government, men towards daddy government. The Democrats are the mommies, the Republicans the daddies. Pretty simple. As political power becomes more balanced between the sexes, Mommy-style socialism increases.

(Of course everyone here is an exception to that generalization, as we don't want Mommy or Daddy authoritarianism.)

[MelissaWV]

Etiquette is just a tool of the commie-pinko-left-wing feminazis!

Just for that, I'm using my salad fork to eat spaghetti. :p

Salad fork + dessert spoon = spaghetti win.

You get delicate twirls (as opposed to using the soup spoon, which usually gives you just a massive knot of noodles), and you piss off all the snobs at the table. I always feel a little sad when people serve strand pasta without a spoon. :(

[ChaosControl]

Yesterday in my Hispanic Cultures in the US class, we had to read some story which equated housewives to prostitutes. Then my teacher talked about all the ills of our "male-dominated Capitalistic society." The girl who is the President of the College Feminists is in my class and her and the teacher were going back and forth about gender inequality and all this crap. The Feminist girl was like "Women still don't get paid equally. We only make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes." So I raised my hand and was like, "If that's true, why would a company hire men at all? Wal-mart for example would save millions and millions of dollars in employee wages by hiring only women. The reason women make less over the course of their lifetime is they take time off of their careers to raise the kids." Nobody really replied to what I said, they just went on about maternity leave or something.

Anyways, that is my worst class ever. We just learn about the struggle of illegal immigrants (except we're not allowed to call them that, they are"undocumented workers") and how little money they make and how it's all because of evil Capitalism. I sit there pulling my hair out the entire class period. Does my teacher really expect that they come here illegally with no skills and can't speak English and get paid $20 an hour to pick lettuce? Apparently.

With classes like that, no wonder college kids are so brainwashed. Seems if we really want a chance to educate people towards liberty we need to take back the schools from the totalitarian left.

[amy31416]

With classes like that, no wonder college kids are so brainwashed. Seems if we really want a chance to educate people towards liberty we need to take back the schools from the totalitarian left.

Good idea, but quite an uphill battle--I only had one conservative professor that I knew of. And from working in the field, I can't say that I've run into any conservatives or libertarians that I know of.

[ChaosControl]

Good idea, but quite an uphill battle--I only had one conservative professor that I knew of. And from working in the field, I can't say that I've run into any conservatives or libertarians that I know of.

I went to a private college and majored in business so luckily the majority of my professors were conservatives, but even within that segment there were liberal ones too. They manage to spread their plague even into the areas that you would seem to think least likely. We need to spread life back into the system, even one person in an area otherwise dominated by totalitarians can make a difference. It is an uphill battle, but it is one that must be fought.

Anyway on the topic, yes modern day feminism is a danger.
The word itself makes no sense really. Nothing is feminine about feminism, if anything it is the opposite. It isn't about women wanting equality anymore, maybe long ago in its roots it was, but that is no longer the goal. It seems to me its about power and pretty much about wanting to be a man and yet hating men at the same time. The whole thing has no logic to it at all. I can't stand the common feminist.

[silentshout]

With classes like that, no wonder college kids are so brainwashed. Seems if we really want a chance to educate people towards liberty we need to take back the schools from the totalitarian left.

I had quite a few libertarian professors, but I went to a more conservative school. And I was pretty much a socialist in college, lol..but they were great professors.

[kylejack]

It has been said that feminism is ultimately about female empowerment, not gender equality. The subtle difference being that feminists aren't trying to stand on equal ground with men, but taking as much as power as they can to boost their public influence.
You don't know a lot about feminism, do you? Its about equality.


The underlying doctrine of feminism is the idea that women are suppressed by a patriarchy.
Correct!


For women to escape this suppression, feminists argue, the government needs to enact affirmative action-oriented policies to even out the gender competition in business, school, agencies and homes.
Some feminists believe that and some do not. It is not innate to feminism. There are feminist anarchists who would certainly disagree.


We already know feminism is born out of anarchic feminist theory, but few people recognize the danger in letting feminism become a populist phenomenon in Western society. Feminism will inevitably lead to socialism, because it's deeply rooted in an entitlement-based philosophy. Feminism assumes women as individuals are incapable of rising up against its oppressive environment to fulfill themselves. Instead it wants the government to do it for them.
Again, you are not speaking for all feminists.

[amy31416]

I went to a private college and majored in business so luckily the majority of my professors were conservatives, but even within that segment there were liberal ones too. They manage to spread their plague even into the areas that you would seem to think least likely. We need to spread life back into the system, even one person in an area otherwise dominated by totalitarians can make a difference. It is an uphill battle, but it is one that must be fought.

Anyway on the topic, yes modern day feminism is a danger.
The word itself makes no sense really. Nothing is feminine about feminism, if anything it is the opposite. It isn't about women wanting equality anymore, maybe long ago in its roots it was, but that is no longer the goal. It seems to me its about power and pretty much about wanting to be a man and yet hating men at the same time. The whole thing has no logic to it at all. I can't stand the common feminist.

It is obvious to me that feminism is part of the problem, but I consider it more of a symptom, just as affirmative action.

Upon giving it some thought, I can't see going after feminism/feminists as anything more than a "whack-a-mole" strategy.

We need to strike at the roots of these things, affirmative action, feminism, political correctness, etc.--I suspect that they all stem from the same ideology--so how do we go after that, whatever it is, and stop getting sidetracked by specific applications?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The hell with any "ism" people should be able to choose to live and die without choosing an "ism." Why can't people live their lives without people trying to change them? There should be a neon sigh that reads MIND YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, LEAVE PEOPLE THE FUCK ALONE. LIVE YOUR LIFE THE WAY YOU WANT, AND DON'T FUCK WITH OTHERS OR ELSE THEY MIGHT FUCK WITH YOU. That's the only "ism" I'm about. The govt makes it so we muST all choose an "ism," though. cause' if you don't, then the ones that do can write all of the legislation to basically tell you how to live while hiding behind the skirt of the police/army. That's saying, WE WILL FUCK WITH YOU, BUT IF YOU FUCK WITH US, WE WILL SEND IN THE CLONE ARMY TO FUCK YOU UP

[TC95]

YouTube - Rockefeller's Fund Women's Liberation Movement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHKI93W_eg)