Thanks, Trish. Everything that you say about feminist hypocrisy is true. I can add to that.
It's true that feminism is not a coherent philosophical worldview or even a coherent political ideology. This is why so many feminists insist that there's no such thing as feminism at all—only a "diverse" yet “inclusive” range of "feminisms" or of "women's voices." And yet there's at least one thing that they all have in common. One of my professors defined feminism as "a movement to make the world a better place." That's not, of course, a definition. After all, every movement makes the same claim. The defining feature feminism is surely that it’s a movement to make the world a better place for women (and if that makes it a worse place for men or even for children, so be it).
As for “sameness” and “difference,” that’s somewhat complicated. The language evolved. Early “second-wave” feminists (especially in America) used the word “equality” as a synonym for “sameness.” That’s how Betty Friedan, for example, could argue that it should be easy to integrate women into the paid workforce. She assumed that most women were, like her, bored and stifled at home. The only obstacle to their “liberation” from what she once called a “comfortable concentration camp” was atavistic disapproval from ignorant or old-fashioned men.
Then, it became clear that women really were different from men in one important way, not the same as men. Apart from anything else, after all, most women wanted children. So the workplace had to adjust schedules to accommodate mothers (a solution that led to the problem of women working shorter hours than men and earning less money than men).
And then, it became clear to a new feminist generation that part-time or flex-time would never be good enough. The real problem was men per se, not schedules. Male co-workers were not only excluding their female colleagues from power lunches and private clubs but harassing and raping these women. Solving that problem, feminists decided, would require extensive legislation. And that, in turn, would require a massive political campaign to influence the legislators. The message was no longer about sexual equality. It was about men and women being not only different from each other but so different—men being inherently evil as oppressors and women inherently good as victims—that only the segregation of women or the incarceration of men would suffice. Taken to its logical conclusion, eventually, this legitimated the vigilantism of MeToo and the abolition of due process for accused men under Obama’s version of Title IX (which is now being reinstated under Biden, albeit with protections for transgender women, after a brief interlude of sexual equality under Trump).
Before concluding, I should add that early feminists tried very hard to prevent scientific or social-scientific studies on differences between men and women. They worried that any differences would favor men, not women. By the 1980s, however, they had changed their minds. Now, feminists began to believe that sexual differences would favor women, not men. They began to insist on research with that in mind.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Paul. I would say that feminism's most brilliantly evil move was the late 1960s rebranding as "women's liberation". From that time onward, even though use of the name "women's lib" has died down, feminism has been able to play a game where feminism is believed, by default, to represent the needs and goals of women as a group. This has made both makes their numbers/support appear larger than it is, gaining them political power, while putting individual women in a position where it appears to them that feminism's goals are the norm for women. Since women have an instinct toward being in the good graces of the group, this is a very effective technique for getting women in line who might otherwise question feminist politics.
Overall, I believe feminism is as detrimental to women as it is to men. It paints false pictures of both men's and women's human nature, motives and goals. By claiming to stick up for one sex against the other, they also reate a gender divide for feminism to further exploit.
Not only have feminists turned sexual envy (which is probably universal) into sexual hatred (which is not), they have also made victimology the ultimate paradigm of public discourse--that is, of every woke ideology that relies, directly or indirectly, on philosophical dualism. "We" are virtuous victims who deserve liberation; "they" are vicious (and irredeemable) victimizers who deserve nothing but contempt and punishment. Consequently, our society is not only hopelessly fragmented but also profoundly polarized.
Thanks for this Paul. I had't thought of the motive behind some of feminism's vapid complaints about men being connected to the desire to circumvent the power lunch dilemma!
] Actually, Tom, there was nothing “vapid” about that demand. It was a logical implication of sexual equality at work. My point in that comment was only that early feminists were naïve in assuming that merely being hired would solve the problems of women who wanted careers beyond the home. It took time before women—and men—realized what one demand after another would entail. After half a century, some women are beginning to wonder where they belong. (It took longer than that, in fact, because lower-class women had already worked in factories or even mines during the mid-nineteenth century, which led to laws protecting them, and middle-class women in schools, hospitals, settlement houses and mission fields. By the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, especially during wartime, millions of women were working in offices. Even so, it took a long time for women (and men) to realize what career women would require and the price that everyone would pay as a result. Early feminists had assumed that men had “all the power” because society taught men to be “autonomous” and women to depend on men. The reality is much more complicated for men and much more ambiguous for women. As Trish points out so well, feminists have left behind a trail of double messages and double standards.
There is much truth in this but we can add a bit more by asking the question why? Why do feminists behave this way, seeking to obscure sex differences when convenient but not when inconvenient in the first place? It comes down to the sins of envy and pride. Feminist women, like other women, have certain strengths and weaknesses. The petty, back stabbing, group bullying, passive aggressive attack mode of feminist women is very much a trait of how women approach conflict and power generally. That is the opposite of how men approach such issues. The problem is that that form of petty approach to conflict and power tends to give results that are not as personally satisfying and certainly not as decisive and noble as when one guy kicks another's butt in a fight for all to see...or even wins a intellectual battle based on reason and superior arguments. As such feminist women are envious of men in many ways. Feminist women misperceive the reality of men (think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence) as being so much better than their own experience. If you look at Commissions on the Status of Women, for example, they constantly SELECTIVELY compare the status of women to their PERCEPTION of the status of men. They don't try to do a holistic and balanced assessment of the status of each...only in a strategic sense of how they can get more of what men have...but without seeing the costs/responsibilities that the men endure alongside that benefit. For example...we hear about the horrible trauma of having to risk pregnancy and how having to carry and a child to term, wanted or otherwise, is effectively a human rights offense, but not a peep is made about the men who have to risk their lives drafted into war to fight whether they like it or not. Both war and pregnancy are much less risky than they used to be thanks to technological advances, but can anyone really say that women have it worse for having to endure pregnancy than men have when fighting in war? Of course not. The same is true with women wanting equal pay for equal work, but only when the work is completely redefined to suit the woman in a way that is the opposite of equal. Feminist women want to have their cake and eat it too. Most of them, in their hearts, probably yearn to be men...but if they could become one, would be the type of man who bullies others using physical strength and fails to live up to his personal responsibilities. They yearn for what they THINK men have while failing to see and appreciate the benefits of being a woman. This is why we see the most staunch feminists being found amongst the lesbian community...which also is the part of society most prone to committing sexual harassment bar none! Where the pride comes in is the absolute refusal to admit when one is wrong or has faults to be worked on. How much of feminism is about celebrating how wonderful women are and how no woman should ever be criticized for anything...even the exact same conduct and traits that are regularly excoriated in men? Envy and pride are the root of feminism but it plays out in traits that are biologically accentuated in women.
Awe-inspiring article it demonstrates the convoluted and extremely twisted use of feminist logic, to which they seem to be totally blind to what they are doing.
The hostility to the formation of men's awareness groups and the attempts to sabotage any attempt is evident in my considered opinion as to why Feminist groups do not want men sharing information and experiences just in case they discover they are being duped.
Exploring Feminist theory I have read many books. I have read these books but didn't understand and in my attempts to understand and make logical sense caused headaches.
Very true! Still, understated. Men have always loved women more than women have loved men. The only way that one is 'better' than the other is that men are better at being men than are women, and women are better at being women than are men.
I don't understand the attraction of women's physical sports. Men are so obviously better at them than are women as witnessed by the fact that there are no women in the highest ranks of men's sports and why so many men cheat to get into women's sports by pretending to be women. Sports and jobs that require physical size, strength, quickness, and stamina are better suited to men. Those that require guile, care, and nurturing can be done by women. Men are not equipped or suited to bear and nurse children. Women are not equipped or suited to prepare children for adult life nor to physically protect them.
It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes a loving man and woman. It is obvious that children raised in a single-parent household are less equipped to function optimally in later life. It is perhaps too soon to tell whether children raised by single-sex couples are at a similar disadvantage, but the outcome of that arrangement is not wholly unpredictable. Any more, with the long warfare against families and rampant feminist ideation (not unrelated), stable two-sex families are as rare as stable single-sex ones.
When I recently said to a close gay friend that I don't see females repairing the streets or renovating the office block nearby, his reply was something like 'they are not strong enough'... to which I replied with something like, 'then we don't have equality do we!!'.....
I'm thankful to blogs like this, that bring a clarity of thinking, a clarity of seeing things rather than drinking down mud all the time. Once upon a time I would have accepted this kind of thinking as being alright; but, despite my doubting it sometimes, I also believe that because there are enough people talking and thinking about the current situation that, this brings about change... i've seen small miracles when involved in group therapy..
The more realistic the mind, the more mature the mind. The more idealistic the mind, the more immature the mind. Feminists are predominately idealistic and as such, predominately immature.
The ideology of feminism is worse than worthless. It is a detriment to Nature and to civil and samaritan society.
A coherent philosophy of feminism began with the enlightenment, when women fought for reforms rooted in liberty and natural rights as they pertain to both men and women. Feminism has won much for women, including influencing the Indian government to end widow burning. The antifeminist Islamic organization, the Taliban has banned education for girls in Afghanistan. In the West, feminism had affected every sphere of contemporary life, sports, divorce laws, sexual traditions, organized religion etc.…. However, some believe feminism has gone too far and become too radical? In Europe feminism is based on the fact that women’s physical differences from men have led to certain specific vulnerabilities for them as a class. The focus is on material problems rooted in physical differences, the physical dangers women can find themselves in with men by virtue of the power imbalance based on physical size and strength. English feminists would not generally be on board with liberal feminists in the U.S. who oddly deny the role of biology. Reactionary feminists in the U.S. do focus on sex differences, which is gratifying to the political right, and viewers of YouTube channels with an anti-feminism slant. Both groups believe what is natural is good, and so often it is, but not always. Contraception is not natural, but for a 36-year-old woman with nine children and in poor health, it is a Godsend. To return to the world of our grandmothers would be akin to returning to the dark ages. There is a growing infrastructure on social media networks that are now articulating the problems men and boys face. Increasingly, men are educating each other, and providing guidance for the challenges they face. Any movement that provides wise counsel for groups of women or men can only be a good thing, although as soon as these movements become ideologies, wisdom is lost, and problems follow. We see this in the fourth wave of feminism and the Me-Too Movement, where necessary boundaries have also given way to overly rigid and neurotic defenses. It is incumbent upon women to take responsibility for their role in trading glamour and sexuality for leveraging up. Finally, we have to always work toward balance on both sides, it is not an arrival point.
Thanks, Trish. Everything that you say about feminist hypocrisy is true. I can add to that.
It's true that feminism is not a coherent philosophical worldview or even a coherent political ideology. This is why so many feminists insist that there's no such thing as feminism at all—only a "diverse" yet “inclusive” range of "feminisms" or of "women's voices." And yet there's at least one thing that they all have in common. One of my professors defined feminism as "a movement to make the world a better place." That's not, of course, a definition. After all, every movement makes the same claim. The defining feature feminism is surely that it’s a movement to make the world a better place for women (and if that makes it a worse place for men or even for children, so be it).
As for “sameness” and “difference,” that’s somewhat complicated. The language evolved. Early “second-wave” feminists (especially in America) used the word “equality” as a synonym for “sameness.” That’s how Betty Friedan, for example, could argue that it should be easy to integrate women into the paid workforce. She assumed that most women were, like her, bored and stifled at home. The only obstacle to their “liberation” from what she once called a “comfortable concentration camp” was atavistic disapproval from ignorant or old-fashioned men.
Then, it became clear that women really were different from men in one important way, not the same as men. Apart from anything else, after all, most women wanted children. So the workplace had to adjust schedules to accommodate mothers (a solution that led to the problem of women working shorter hours than men and earning less money than men).
And then, it became clear to a new feminist generation that part-time or flex-time would never be good enough. The real problem was men per se, not schedules. Male co-workers were not only excluding their female colleagues from power lunches and private clubs but harassing and raping these women. Solving that problem, feminists decided, would require extensive legislation. And that, in turn, would require a massive political campaign to influence the legislators. The message was no longer about sexual equality. It was about men and women being not only different from each other but so different—men being inherently evil as oppressors and women inherently good as victims—that only the segregation of women or the incarceration of men would suffice. Taken to its logical conclusion, eventually, this legitimated the vigilantism of MeToo and the abolition of due process for accused men under Obama’s version of Title IX (which is now being reinstated under Biden, albeit with protections for transgender women, after a brief interlude of sexual equality under Trump).
Before concluding, I should add that early feminists tried very hard to prevent scientific or social-scientific studies on differences between men and women. They worried that any differences would favor men, not women. By the 1980s, however, they had changed their minds. Now, feminists began to believe that sexual differences would favor women, not men. They began to insist on research with that in mind.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Paul. I would say that feminism's most brilliantly evil move was the late 1960s rebranding as "women's liberation". From that time onward, even though use of the name "women's lib" has died down, feminism has been able to play a game where feminism is believed, by default, to represent the needs and goals of women as a group. This has made both makes their numbers/support appear larger than it is, gaining them political power, while putting individual women in a position where it appears to them that feminism's goals are the norm for women. Since women have an instinct toward being in the good graces of the group, this is a very effective technique for getting women in line who might otherwise question feminist politics.
Overall, I believe feminism is as detrimental to women as it is to men. It paints false pictures of both men's and women's human nature, motives and goals. By claiming to stick up for one sex against the other, they also reate a gender divide for feminism to further exploit.
Yes, and one lethal thing that claim did was to pathologize any sort of criticism or challenge to their narrative. Vey clever and very lethal.
Not only have feminists turned sexual envy (which is probably universal) into sexual hatred (which is not), they have also made victimology the ultimate paradigm of public discourse--that is, of every woke ideology that relies, directly or indirectly, on philosophical dualism. "We" are virtuous victims who deserve liberation; "they" are vicious (and irredeemable) victimizers who deserve nothing but contempt and punishment. Consequently, our society is not only hopelessly fragmented but also profoundly polarized.
makes me wonder where we would be as a country if there was no victim ideology present. hmmmm
Thanks for this Paul. I had't thought of the motive behind some of feminism's vapid complaints about men being connected to the desire to circumvent the power lunch dilemma!
] Actually, Tom, there was nothing “vapid” about that demand. It was a logical implication of sexual equality at work. My point in that comment was only that early feminists were naïve in assuming that merely being hired would solve the problems of women who wanted careers beyond the home. It took time before women—and men—realized what one demand after another would entail. After half a century, some women are beginning to wonder where they belong. (It took longer than that, in fact, because lower-class women had already worked in factories or even mines during the mid-nineteenth century, which led to laws protecting them, and middle-class women in schools, hospitals, settlement houses and mission fields. By the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, especially during wartime, millions of women were working in offices. Even so, it took a long time for women (and men) to realize what career women would require and the price that everyone would pay as a result. Early feminists had assumed that men had “all the power” because society taught men to be “autonomous” and women to depend on men. The reality is much more complicated for men and much more ambiguous for women. As Trish points out so well, feminists have left behind a trail of double messages and double standards.
Vapid, as in empty. There was no there there. It was an unscrupulous back door.
There is much truth in this but we can add a bit more by asking the question why? Why do feminists behave this way, seeking to obscure sex differences when convenient but not when inconvenient in the first place? It comes down to the sins of envy and pride. Feminist women, like other women, have certain strengths and weaknesses. The petty, back stabbing, group bullying, passive aggressive attack mode of feminist women is very much a trait of how women approach conflict and power generally. That is the opposite of how men approach such issues. The problem is that that form of petty approach to conflict and power tends to give results that are not as personally satisfying and certainly not as decisive and noble as when one guy kicks another's butt in a fight for all to see...or even wins a intellectual battle based on reason and superior arguments. As such feminist women are envious of men in many ways. Feminist women misperceive the reality of men (think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence) as being so much better than their own experience. If you look at Commissions on the Status of Women, for example, they constantly SELECTIVELY compare the status of women to their PERCEPTION of the status of men. They don't try to do a holistic and balanced assessment of the status of each...only in a strategic sense of how they can get more of what men have...but without seeing the costs/responsibilities that the men endure alongside that benefit. For example...we hear about the horrible trauma of having to risk pregnancy and how having to carry and a child to term, wanted or otherwise, is effectively a human rights offense, but not a peep is made about the men who have to risk their lives drafted into war to fight whether they like it or not. Both war and pregnancy are much less risky than they used to be thanks to technological advances, but can anyone really say that women have it worse for having to endure pregnancy than men have when fighting in war? Of course not. The same is true with women wanting equal pay for equal work, but only when the work is completely redefined to suit the woman in a way that is the opposite of equal. Feminist women want to have their cake and eat it too. Most of them, in their hearts, probably yearn to be men...but if they could become one, would be the type of man who bullies others using physical strength and fails to live up to his personal responsibilities. They yearn for what they THINK men have while failing to see and appreciate the benefits of being a woman. This is why we see the most staunch feminists being found amongst the lesbian community...which also is the part of society most prone to committing sexual harassment bar none! Where the pride comes in is the absolute refusal to admit when one is wrong or has faults to be worked on. How much of feminism is about celebrating how wonderful women are and how no woman should ever be criticized for anything...even the exact same conduct and traits that are regularly excoriated in men? Envy and pride are the root of feminism but it plays out in traits that are biologically accentuated in women.
This reminds me of a video I will be posting soon on a similar vein. Thanks for the thought provoking comment Sadredin.
Awe-inspiring article it demonstrates the convoluted and extremely twisted use of feminist logic, to which they seem to be totally blind to what they are doing.
The hostility to the formation of men's awareness groups and the attempts to sabotage any attempt is evident in my considered opinion as to why Feminist groups do not want men sharing information and experiences just in case they discover they are being duped.
Exploring Feminist theory I have read many books. I have read these books but didn't understand and in my attempts to understand and make logical sense caused headaches.
Very true! Still, understated. Men have always loved women more than women have loved men. The only way that one is 'better' than the other is that men are better at being men than are women, and women are better at being women than are men.
I don't understand the attraction of women's physical sports. Men are so obviously better at them than are women as witnessed by the fact that there are no women in the highest ranks of men's sports and why so many men cheat to get into women's sports by pretending to be women. Sports and jobs that require physical size, strength, quickness, and stamina are better suited to men. Those that require guile, care, and nurturing can be done by women. Men are not equipped or suited to bear and nurse children. Women are not equipped or suited to prepare children for adult life nor to physically protect them.
It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes a loving man and woman. It is obvious that children raised in a single-parent household are less equipped to function optimally in later life. It is perhaps too soon to tell whether children raised by single-sex couples are at a similar disadvantage, but the outcome of that arrangement is not wholly unpredictable. Any more, with the long warfare against families and rampant feminist ideation (not unrelated), stable two-sex families are as rare as stable single-sex ones.
"It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes a loving man and woman."
Amen!
When I recently said to a close gay friend that I don't see females repairing the streets or renovating the office block nearby, his reply was something like 'they are not strong enough'... to which I replied with something like, 'then we don't have equality do we!!'.....
I'm thankful to blogs like this, that bring a clarity of thinking, a clarity of seeing things rather than drinking down mud all the time. Once upon a time I would have accepted this kind of thinking as being alright; but, despite my doubting it sometimes, I also believe that because there are enough people talking and thinking about the current situation that, this brings about change... i've seen small miracles when involved in group therapy..
The more realistic the mind, the more mature the mind. The more idealistic the mind, the more immature the mind. Feminists are predominately idealistic and as such, predominately immature.
The ideology of feminism is worse than worthless. It is a detriment to Nature and to civil and samaritan society.
Indeed Mic! Good to see you.
A coherent philosophy of feminism began with the enlightenment, when women fought for reforms rooted in liberty and natural rights as they pertain to both men and women. Feminism has won much for women, including influencing the Indian government to end widow burning. The antifeminist Islamic organization, the Taliban has banned education for girls in Afghanistan. In the West, feminism had affected every sphere of contemporary life, sports, divorce laws, sexual traditions, organized religion etc.…. However, some believe feminism has gone too far and become too radical? In Europe feminism is based on the fact that women’s physical differences from men have led to certain specific vulnerabilities for them as a class. The focus is on material problems rooted in physical differences, the physical dangers women can find themselves in with men by virtue of the power imbalance based on physical size and strength. English feminists would not generally be on board with liberal feminists in the U.S. who oddly deny the role of biology. Reactionary feminists in the U.S. do focus on sex differences, which is gratifying to the political right, and viewers of YouTube channels with an anti-feminism slant. Both groups believe what is natural is good, and so often it is, but not always. Contraception is not natural, but for a 36-year-old woman with nine children and in poor health, it is a Godsend. To return to the world of our grandmothers would be akin to returning to the dark ages. There is a growing infrastructure on social media networks that are now articulating the problems men and boys face. Increasingly, men are educating each other, and providing guidance for the challenges they face. Any movement that provides wise counsel for groups of women or men can only be a good thing, although as soon as these movements become ideologies, wisdom is lost, and problems follow. We see this in the fourth wave of feminism and the Me-Too Movement, where necessary boundaries have also given way to overly rigid and neurotic defenses. It is incumbent upon women to take responsibility for their role in trading glamour and sexuality for leveraging up. Finally, we have to always work toward balance on both sides, it is not an arrival point.