PDA

View Full Version : Feminism: No Longer About Equality




MichelleHeart
06-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Article here (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzA5MzBiNzU4YzNlMjA3NmFjNTBlMTZlOTI5ODJiMWI=).


Feministing’s Jessica Valenti has a new op-ed in the Washington Post, and she has decreed that to qualify as a feminist one must believe that American women are oppressed. She writes:

"Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end."

The article, titled “The fake feminism of Sarah Palin,” targets the Alaska governor for daring to call herself a feminist; Valenti also throws in shots at the Independent Women’s Forum, Kathryn Lopez, and Christina Hoff Sommers for failing to get just how much American women still suffer.

Valenti doesn’t explain why she thinks those of us on the Right are wrong when we argue that American women are doing pretty well. She merely argues that we inappropriately co-opt the language of feminism when making our case. For example, she writes:

"When members of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum argue against efforts to address pay inequity, they say the salary gap is a result of women’s informed choices — motherhood, for example — and that claims of discrimination turn women into victims. Conservatives have realized that women respond to seemingly feminist arguments."

Actually, Jessica, we’ve found that women respond to the truth. And it isn’t just the Right that’s done its homework and realized that the 77 percent wage gap claim is grossly misleading. Even the liberal American Association of University Women found that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the difference was explained by controlling for variables like career choices.

Does Valenti think it’s best to try to convince women that they are all doomed to make three quarters of what a man makes, thanks to systemic discrimination? Isn’t it better to help women understand how their decisions - about job selection, work hours, and time out of the workforce - affect their earning power, so they can make more informed decisions?

Valenti glosses over these issues in favor of blanket statements about how those on the right “time and again vote against women’s rights.” Yet the only policies that she references are abortion and gay marriage. Are positions on abortion and gay marriage the litmus test for the feminist movement?

If the feminist movement is really trying to champion women, then they need to realize that women care about a lot more than sex and reproduction issues. Valenti recoils from the idea of trying to rally women in support of a political movement when advancing “women’s causes” (i.e. abortion) isn’t part of the agenda. But those of us on the Right recognize that women are citizens first and foremost. Their biggest concerns aren’t abortion and the wage gap. Women care about the economy, unemployment, government debt, and national security.

And most women aren’t fixated on an us-vs.-them gender war. Women aren’t better off when men are worse off. I’m sure that Valenti celebrates the axing of each college men’s gymnastics program as a great victory for feminism - another win for Title 9! But most women don’t think like that. When men’s unemployment spiked, women suffered too. Women care about the education and employment prospects of their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons, just as much as they do about those of their mothers, sisters, daughters, and girlfriends.

I understand that Valenti conflates advancing women’s welfare with growing the welfare state. I’m sure she sincerely believes that women would be better off with much higher taxes and a bigger government that provided more generous transfer payments, including more preschool and daycare subsidies, generous paid leave time, all manners of education subsidies, housing subsidies, and free single-payer healthcare.

Is it impossible for her to get that there are some of us who sincerely believe that women are better off when government leaves us with more of our property and controls less of our decisionmaking about how to live our lives? Isn’t it possible, Jessica, that we think that the private sector is better and, yes, even fairer than government, which allocates resources through a corrupt political process?

Valenti may prefer to tar the Right as “anti-woman,” but she’s going to have a tough time winning many converts. There are a lot more women who look at the world as people and concerned citizens than as patriarchy-obsessed “feminists.”

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-02-2010, 08:23 PM
There is no such thing as women's rights, only human rights. I'm sure the Feminists are sure proud of themselves, denying fellow women the right to do what they want with their body. As Iceland currently the most Feminist nation in the world recently banned strip clubs, and any activities involving nudity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country

What a joke. I admire the women who are trying to make prostitution, and other such activities legal. People should be free to use their body how they want!

Notice the Orwellian headline? Female friendly, by denying females the right to use their bodies as they see fit...

ChaosControl
06-02-2010, 08:45 PM
Feminism hasn't been about Equality for 50 years.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
06-02-2010, 08:46 PM
Has it ever been?

TheFlashlight.org
06-02-2010, 08:56 PM
Hey women, now you HAVE to work instead of raising your kids. I guess you'll have to have fewer kids or dump them with a stranger at 3 months old. On the other hand, think of the productivity of the multi-gender compulsory workforce! And the tax revenue! Seems like a raw deal to me!

low preference guy
06-02-2010, 09:00 PM
lots of feminism is about hating men.

Brooklyn Red Leg
06-02-2010, 09:02 PM
What a joke. I admire the women who are trying to make prostitution, and other such activities legal. People should be free to use their body how they want!

Notice the Orwellian headline? Female friendly, by denying females the right to use their bodies as they see fit...

^This. Very much, this!

Warrior_of_Freedom
06-02-2010, 09:21 PM
I wouldn't mind staying home while a woman works :D

nate895
06-02-2010, 09:29 PM
I wouldn't mind staying home while a woman works :D

When should I schedule your castration?

RM918
06-02-2010, 09:37 PM
Unfortunately a lot of it these days is less about broad equality and more about a specific agenda to benefit their fellows while spitting of the face of their 'enemies'. It's all about victimization and, like the scores of other political movements, is about taking over the government and using its power in favor of their agenda.

Some of them haven't let all the rhetoric explode their egos and send them on a power trip, however. iFeminists, for one, is a very good group.

Vessol
06-02-2010, 09:39 PM
Has it ever been?

IMO, it was for a short while.

MichelleHeart
06-02-2010, 09:59 PM
When should I schedule your castration?

Make a joke like this, and the feminists would laugh, but make a joke about sowing a girl's vagina shut or cutting off a girl's breasts, and they'd be howling. Their double standards never cease to amaze me.

Personally, I prefer the people at Men's News Daily, who have a lot more in common with the classical feminists than the neofeminists do, even though their focus is on issues and laws that harm men. Their activism is much needed in today's society.

I've never been one to ridicule those who don't follow standard gender roles, but today's feminists take things to the extreme. Men and women should act the way they want to act, but feminists seem to want to force masculinization upon women and force feminization upon men, which is just as bad as forcing masculinization upon men and forcing feminization upon women.

My rule: Just be yourself.

JeNNiF00F00
06-02-2010, 10:01 PM
Has it ever been?

No its about outdoing the man on everything. :D

hotbrownsauce
06-02-2010, 11:20 PM
John Stossel had a women on weeks ago discussing feminism. The person on his show wrote a whole book about how feminism is no longer about women rights and that they will never be satisfied and she went on to quote statistics and other data.

I might have it recorded still. If I manage to find the episode and book I'll post the info here tonight.

HamsomeGuy
06-03-2010, 04:05 AM
http://img.moronail.net/img/3/6/1636.jpg

YouTube - Meet Dick Masterson the Most Chauvinistic Man Alive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJRwIf1FF0)

lynnf
06-03-2010, 04:22 AM
When should I schedule your castration?

already happened, chemically. look at all the soy in processed foods -> estrogen-like qualities of soy -> reduced testosterone in men

voila -> chemical castration

eat only bread or crackers? read the label, it has soy oil in it.

lynn

hotbrownsauce
06-03-2010, 11:16 AM
I think this was the book. I could be wrong but this sounds familiar.

Politically Incorrect Guide To Women, Sex and Feminism
By Carrie L. Lukas

TC95
06-03-2010, 11:30 AM
Has it ever been?

Nope. Never.

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

MelissaWV
06-03-2010, 11:46 AM
:rolleyes:

Psst. NOW and the like are organizations that are suffering from "what's next?" syndrome. What happens if an organization achieves its goals, or close enough to it that there's nothing left to REALLY get mad about and make the news over? It has to justify its existence in order to continue to bring in money and remain relevant. This is why everything's racist, sexist, or whatever else.

I believe in human rights, as someone else posted earlier. Barring women from voting, for instance, is not a great idea any moreso than barring "blacks" or short people or non-landowners is. I'm sure some of you disagree on that last front, but if we're all to be ruled by the idiots that get elected, then we should all have a chance to vote on them, with very little exception. Somewhere along the line, though, all the "rights" groups began seeing their goal as legislation. Gay rights is about ensuring the states change to allow them to marry legally. "Colored people" rights (hey, it's THEIR name choice, not mine) are now much more about Affirmative Action and crying "racism" at every opportunity. Women's rights are about forcing employers to hold a job for a woman who's become pregnant, forcing businesses to have special rooms and refrigerators for women who breastfeed, and trying to push for women and men to make "equal pay."

Logic has been thrown out the window.

Gay rights groups should take their arguments to individual companies. Imagine if an insurance company did extend benefits to partners to the same extent it gives them to married couples? Hell, auto insurance currently offers policies to cover pets. Wouldn't it be nice to have all your health and life insurance issues possibly recognized as those of a family unit if you have cohabitated for a certain amount of time? Even longterm roommates are sometimes closer than "family." This doesn't require legislation. The question of hospital visitation is a bit different, and should be resolvable via living wills.

The NAACP and such should flourish as a private organization that embraces discrimination, since that's what it's been for quite some time now. They should definitely get together with the United Negro College Fund and hand out scholarships to deserving "colored" youth, and promote cultural events, and things along those lines. No legislation is necessary.

Women's rights groups should stop being man-haters, and embrace the fact that each of them didn't just spring spontaneously from an egg. Men are struggling right now with custody issues in the court systems. Affirmative Action is making a lot of women look like morons and alienating male co-workers (Hmph! SHE got the promotion because SHE'S a woman; it has nothing to do with her being qualified!). Lobby for color and gender -blind tests in order to qualify for a final interview for a job. Speak to employers about options for women on maternity leave (such as telecommuting) and benefits (such as paid daycare and extended maternity leave), and rate them on their "family-friendly" level. This would be great information for men, too, who should be eligible for paternity leave (obviously shorter than maternity leave, which takes into account the physical problems associated with pregnancy) in order to bond with their newborn.

None of those things require legislation. They require education and information, which is what these groups should be up to... not lobbying their pet legislators for new laws and courting the media for more coverage.

Natalie
06-03-2010, 12:09 PM
A really good book on this subject is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism. It was so good, I read the whole thing in two days. Definitely an eye opener.

Natalie
06-03-2010, 12:14 PM
I think this was the book. I could be wrong but this sounds familiar.

Politically Incorrect Guide To Women, Sex and Feminism
By Carrie L. Lukas

Oops, I didn't see you just posted that because I'm posting from my phone.

Brian4Liberty
06-03-2010, 12:58 PM
When should I schedule your castration?

They scheduled and implemented that a long time ago...


already happened, chemically.

:D

Seriously, TPTB were more than happy to turn single worker households into two worker households, and keep the household income the same through inflation. People are pretty much blind to that fact.

What is somewhat interesting is that woman entering the workforce naturally migrated into office jobs. They now dominate in many bureaucratic areas of large corporations and government. Those jobs have remained fairly stable. In the meantime, the more male oriented jobs have been outsourced (and in-sourced via cheaper immigrant workers) until most adult males end up spending a lot of time unemployed.

Almost every couple that I know has the female always working, and the males sporadically working.

kahless
06-03-2010, 01:27 PM
The movement has destroyed families and institution of marriage especially if there is children involved. You cannot have long term marriages when one spouse knows they can make the other subserviant with child support and alimony for 18+ years and forced into being the occassional visitor to their children. So many childrens and parents (particularly men's) lives have been destroyed through greed of the system by not staying out of family life rather than having both as equal parents.

You can thank feminism for that.

lynnf
06-03-2010, 05:00 PM
The movement has destroyed families and institution of marriage especially if there is children involved. You cannot have long term marriages when one spouse knows they can make the other subserviant with child support and alimony for 18+ years and forced into being the occassional visitor to their children. So many childrens and parents (particularly men's) lives have been destroyed through greed of the system by not staying out of family life rather than having both as equal parents.

You can thank feminism for that.

you are so right,
but feminism is just the puppet, the strings are pulled by the elite for their own purpose, as other posts in this thread show.

weakening the family suppresses their potential opposition, keeps the masses busy fighting to survive and therefore they don't have the time to cause trouble for those in charge. divorce/separation causes twice as many houses or apartments to be needed, along with other needs like appliances, keeping the landlords/bankers in the green, too. there's a financial incentive for splitting all the way around except for the victim (which can be of either gender). in a divorce, the first one to strike has the tremendous advantage.

lynn

Distinguished Gentleman
06-03-2010, 05:25 PM
I remember hearing about a study that concluded women women were significantly happier in the 50's than modern day, but men had stayed about the same.

My experiences in life have taught me that woman are pretty damn capable in most fields, minus (generally) the lunatic ambition that brings about the best and worst in men. The real question for feminists is whether their cultural gains have brought something more noble, natural, or joyous for their gender; I suspect not.

Also, the Federal Reserve system is a culprit in destroying families. Inflation diminished 84% of the dollar since the fifties, discouraging savings and encouraging debt. When interests rates are artificially low, people live above their means. When it's corrected higher, it becomes more desirable for a second member of the family to have a job to pay off the ballooning interest. That cycle has been going on for quite a while.

MelissaWV
06-03-2010, 05:28 PM
I remember hearing about a study that concluded women women were significantly happier in the 50's than modern day, but men had stayed about the same.

My experiences in life have taught me that woman are pretty damn capable in most fields, minus (generally) the lunatic ambition that brings about the best and worse in men. The real question for feminists is whether their cultural gains have brought something more noble, natural, or joyous for their gender; I suspect not.

Also, the Federal Reserve system is a culprit in destroying families. Inflation diminished 84% of the dollar since the fifties, discouraging savings and encouraging debt. When interests rates are artificially low, people live above their means. When it's corrected higher, it becomes more desirable for a second member of the family to have a job to pay off the ballooning interest. That cycle has been going on for quite a while.

For the gender in general? I can't speak to that and would be incredibly suspicious of anyone who claimed that they could ;)

Personally, though, I'm happy with the freedoms I have, and dissatisfied with the impositions on businesses and individuals meant to "help" me as if it's a given I need the assistance. I would not have been a happy camper in the 50s.

Distinguished Gentleman
06-03-2010, 06:16 PM
Melissa,

I mean this as a compliment. By virtue of posting on the RonPaulForums, your not exactly the "general" female. Maybe you're more in the mold of Rose Wilder Lane:D

My point was that double dipping between motherhood and a nine to five is likely making life a little more miserable for some. It wouldn't surprise me if their were other factors as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html

Pretty interesting article on it.

MelissaWV
06-03-2010, 08:41 PM
Melissa,

I mean this as a compliment. By virtue of posting on the RonPaulForums, your not exactly the "general" female. Maybe you're more in the mold of Rose Wilder Lane:D

My point was that double dipping between motherhood and a nine to five is likely making life a little more miserable for some. It wouldn't surprise me if their were other factors as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html

Pretty interesting article on it.

lol Compliment accepted.

What I mean, though, is that in the 1950's things would be far grimmer for me. I don't think up and leaving my husband would have been viewed favorably. Not having children, being almost 30, and divorced? Scandal! I like wearing jeans when it's appropriate, and I don't really favor those dresses. I have not-married relationships, and some of them are with women. I work and I buy my own things. I save, I deal with my own finances, and I concern myself with the intimate workings of politics and its related branches. I have no fear of telling someone they're wrong, regardless of their genitalia. I'm of an objectionably dark color during the summer.

On the bright side, the cars were way better ;)

Natalie
06-03-2010, 08:50 PM
Modern feminist groups are such hypocrites. They are always like "my body, my choice." So following that logic, they should be the most ardent supporters of ending drug prohibition. But choosing whether or not to carry a baby to term is the only thing they really care about women having a choice on. Also, if modern Feminism was really about gender equality or whatever, you'd think feminist groups would embrace Ann Coulter. She's almost 50, never been married, no kids, attended a prestigious University and is extremely successful in her career. Sounds like the feminist dream. Except they hate her because she is a pro-life "conservative." Which goes to show that modern Feminism is just a big front for Socialism.

Brian4Liberty
06-03-2010, 08:51 PM
Also, the Federal Reserve system is a culprit in destroying families. Inflation diminished 84% of the dollar since the fifties, discouraging savings and encouraging debt. When interests rates are artificially low, people live above their means. When it's corrected higher, it becomes more desirable for a second member of the family to have a job to pay off the ballooning interest. That cycle has been going on for quite a while.

I would point out that there are two scenarios working here to the disadvantage of the middle-class. We all know about standard monetary inflation and what that does to the common man. Wages have also inflated over this period, but it is a suspicious coincidence that the introduction of the majority of the female population to the workplace resulted in a 50% cut in inflation adjusted wages. In other words, we have gone from single earner families to double earner families, without an extra inflation adjusted dollar to show for it.

Theocrat
06-03-2010, 09:36 PM
Modern feminist groups are such hypocrites. They are always like "my body, my choice." So following that logic, they should be the most ardent supporters of ending drug prohibition. But choosing whether or not to carry a baby to term is the only thing they really care about women having a choice on. Also, if modern Feminism was really about gender equality or whatever, you'd think feminist groups would embrace Ann Coulter. She's almost 50, never been married, no kids, attended a prestigious University and is extremely successful in her career. Sounds like the feminist dream. Except they hate her because she is a pro-life "conservative." Which goes to show that modern Feminism is just a big front for Socialism.

That's a great insight, Natalie. :)