Individualism as a Remedy for Feminism
by Violet
The dichotomy put forth by feminists can hardly be considered intellectually rigorous or value-free. There is little need to state the obvious; male disadvantages and injustices as well as female privileges and aggressions do also exist. Feminism is an ideologically biased, emotionally fuelled, preconceived narrative, and must come to face the reality of ever-mounting opposing evidence.
In rhetoric, feminists often claim to “speak on behalf of” women and the marginalised (which is quite presumptuous in itself). Yet their sympathy only extends to what falls neatly into their narrative, and injustices that fall outside of their margins are blatantly ignored. Any reminder that, for example, males can also be victims of violence or discrimination, will usually be met with a dismissive and often offended tone, as the feminist begins to lecture on how much more oppressed the non-male population is.
Such behaviour is not only unbecoming and inconsiderate, but it also breeds a worrisome culture of victimisation (far from instilling empowerment), where discourse often devolves into status seeking (as opposed to substantive argumentation), resulting in a “more oppressed than thou” pecking order where the proclaimed “least privileged” enjoy the consolation prize of having the highest valued social currency of the group.
We’ve seen this often enough in other “progressive” settings. Anyone who may think of this as exaggerating need only examine the derailment of the Occupy movement. In the beginning, Occupy started as a group with understandable grievances against a concerning trend of political corruption. Later, however, it devolved (not solely for this reason, of course) into a movement more preoccupied with identity politics and giving precedence to those considered “the most marginalised” at the expense of everyone else who were seen as relatively “more privileged”.
Those who are genuinely concerned with injustices committed against humanity would be better off shedding divisive labels like feminism, and opt for a more concise and less polarising term to identify their views. When I stopped calling myself a feminist I did not stop believing in women’s rights. I am merely dissociating myself from the extremists who draw the most attention and drown out reasonable voices. Through the inclusive, non-presuming lens of individualism, advocates of dignity for all human beings need not resort to treating men hostilely as criminals until proven innocent nor gloss over the institutional advantages given to women. We also need not remain constrained to question begging narratives regardless of opposing evidence. Contrary to the holistic and unrefined social analysis of feminism, methodological individualism allows us to demystify men and women in a nonjudgmental manner in order to realise that legitimate concerns are to be had on both sides and that neither side is inherently at fault.
Perhaps most importantly, we need not objectify both men and women by confining them into the archetypes of “oppressor and oppressed” or “aggressor and victim.” This is simply because we’ve all been born into unique circumstances and enjoy certain unearned advantages over others. If nothing else, we are all equal in our individuality.
Acknowledging this is the first step toward not only recognising our own privileges (yes, even if you consider yourself the “most marginalised,”) but finding common ground with others who we may have considered to be “unfairly advantaged” in ways we found envious or contemptuous. Reality is indeed more complex than most of us would like to believe. Admitting that the “us versus them” mentality does no one any good, and can only hold society back as a whole, is a crucial step toward striving for not only intellectual honesty and credibility, but also a sense of personal contentment, as well as peace with those around us whom we were used to constantly comparing ourselves to and envying their perceived privileges.
The basic acknowledgement that men and women are different right down to the biological level should be noncontroversial and evident to us all at this point. Yet the logical implications of this is where feminists take issue and feel obligated into taking dogmatic stances, which can be inconsistent with modern science (especially evolutionary biology, cognitive science, economics, and cultural anthropology), as well as risk sounding hypocritical (supporting discriminatory quotas and coercive regulations in the name of “equality” and “fairness”).
Given the continually piling scientific evidence, there does not seem to be much (if any) empirical grounds to simply assume that all outcomes in social and economic life ought to somehow result in either equality, or the fulfilment of arbitrary, ideological quotas. If feminists truly want to empower women, they must start by supporting freedom of choice for employers to hire the best applicants they see fit for the position. Any compulsory public policies, no matter how well intentioned, will only result in an increase in resentment (and thus added conflict) toward that preferred group and the suspicion that they may not be qualified for the job based solely off of their own merit, even if that wasn’t true (or the quotas would not have been necessary to begin with).
What we must advocate, then, is an increase in overall individual freedom so that the truly qualified of all genders, races, etc. may flourish and thus everyone as a whole may benefit from having the most qualified people serve the needs of society. Making excuses and demanding entitlements signals to the world that you are not fit for positions which require exceptional resilience and thick skin in the face of potential uncertainty and adversity.
This is particularly true for roles considered to be positions of leadership, such as the CEO of a corporation. Feminists do women a disservice when they demand that more women ought to be given leadership positions. As any established leader will tell you, neither credibility nor respect is ever simply handed to you (and for good reason). Instead, one must earn a high reputation amongst their peers by outperforming their contemporaries and proving their superior skill, knowledge, resolution, and so on.
There are certain jobs which do in fact fit one gender better over another. That is not to say that only this particular gender is fit for the job, but simply an acknowledgement that they tend to be better suited, mentally or physically, for the tasks required. Thus, when these differences manifest themselves into reality, we must not make baseless assumptions which jump immediately to the conclusion of sexism just because the reality of an academic field or an industry does not conform to an idealised bias for “equality” (or a specific quota) and may even naturally trend toward the “overrepresentation” (in the descriptive, non-normative sense) of a particular gender.
For example, it should not be a mystery as to why men throughout the majority of human history have made better soldiers. It is not merely due to their physical strengths, but the common sense realization that, in early human societies where survival was at a premium, humans could ill afford to send their women off to potentially die knowing they were crucial to reproducing the next generation of protectors, workers, and future mothers.
Men, on the other hand, have been historically considered to be disposable (at least relatively speaking). If one man dies, the rate of new births need not change too much since one man can reproduce with more than one woman if need be. But if one woman dies, it could be a potentially devastating blow to a small society’s survival or, at the very least, a substantial setback. Thus, women were in fact the higher valued gender throughout human history, for it was their supply which determined the difference between social advancement, subsistence, or possible endangerment.
When it comes to more modern occupations, we must embrace the general principle of personal liberty and freedom of choice over “equality at all costs.” After all, why pressure young girls into becoming engineers or CEOs if they would like to do something else? These are not objectively superior jobs which they ought to strive for and often come with a level of stress and responsibility that most people in general do not prefer.
The types of work feminists usually try to push on young girls are often male dominated, but more notably, they tend to be jobs that society usually considers venerable, coming with high social status and above average pay and benefits. There are many male dominated lines of work that we rarely (if ever) see feminists encouraging girls to join when they enter the workforce. Some examples of these jobs include garbage collection, construction, mining, ditch digging, sewer maintenance, perhaps by now you get the point. Is it unfair to question the sincerity of feminist equality given these many inconsistencies?
Some feminists concede that quota based equality is impractical or unrealistic and that they merely support equality of opportunity instead. They may pay lip service to supporting equal opportunity in theory as well as women’s choice in general, yet when women’s choices do not conform to their own egalitarian constructs, and equal opportunity does not appear to be enough, they conclude that the choice was not only invalid, but that it must have been based off of false “patriarchal” pretences or some other unfalsifiable exercise in value projection, and not their own values.
This is not only condescending, but it further objectifies women and assumes they’re not individuals capable of making their own choices (as well as being responsible for the outcome) independently of feminists who have the presumed authority to “speak on their behalf.” It also shows a streak of elitism and assumes feminists know what is objectively in the best interest of an individual just because they happen to be female. Can any reasonable adult truly claim to know what’s in the best interest of any young person whom they don’t even personally know?
It should not be assumed that there are too few women in S.T.E.M. fields, politics, the financial sector, etc. and that they ought to be nudged into these areas if many would prefer to choose careers in liberal arts, teaching, homemaking, or some other “traditionally female” career. They should not be pressured into jobs they may not be best mentally or physically suited for (or even like) simply because feminists want to spite “the Patriarchy” and make a grand statement that women can achieve the same accomplishments as men.
Women are not chess pieces to be used to give credence to political agendas. Nor should men be used by scare tacticians as scapegoats and boogeymen for any and every social ill that exists in the world today. If a girl has no interest in careers traditionally “underrepresented” by women, then it should not be assumed that she simply hasn’t been “pushed hard enough in the right direction.” Nor should she be shamed for choosing a less prestigious career path and not “aspiring” to the expectations that feminists have set for her.
If this essay accomplishes anything, hopefully it opens some minds and helps show that this insecurity and polarisation need not exist. Far from being conflicting classes pitted against each other, men and women are natural compliments to one another. Feminism indulges in ideological narratives, emotional thinking, and invents social conflict when individuals try to argue with common sense and scientific knowledge. We should embrace individualism, and discard the harmful sophistry of a lost cause.
Serendipity 
Very well written and a series of excellent points. This is a great example of how I wish I could portray some of my own ideas but my explanations tend to come out far less eloquent and concise! Thanks for sharing.
I remain an individual first and foremost. Any attempt to place and label me in a category and belief system is your idea. Any Ism robs me of my whole being in my eyes and says You really don’t know me.
This post echoes my own sentiments almost exactly, but in a much more respectful and more eloquent way. I’ll be sharing this with my friends…
here’s the link to a blog i wrote a few years ago
http://axiomatiqa.com/2014/03/29/the-brown-feminist/
i’ll re-post for you a piece i wrote about the hypocrisies of feminism. yet even that didn’t turn me off to it
i agree with some of your points but you paint feminism as some monolithic movement. and yeah i can be an angry feminist but in the face of inequality, for instance, in pay and representation in many fields
how does feminism objectify women?
Very well written. I agree in principal with all you have said. The application, as noted by some of your commenters, can be very difficult and subjective. For instance there are certain assumptions made by structures within our society that are incorrect and result in descrimination against women. Thoese have to be addressed before equality can be reached. As an example, business assumes that every person has to contribute equally for the same cost. Because women have the reproductive responsibilty in our societty and business is required to pay maternity leave predominately for women, women’s value to the business (as group) is reduced and that is reflected in lower wages than men. An obvious descrimatory policy backed by the “free market” economics so often touted by capitalists. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-capitalism – it has produced a quality of life in first world nations that is mostly unequalled – but it needs adjustment for equality to become a reality. That adjustment is that every employee was born into this world by a woman and most caretaking of children is done by women. Business is using that unpaid labour everytime they hire an employee and yet they are not required to acknowledge that value which is intrinsic in every employee. In other words, until business shoulders the responsibility for the social cost of employees, there will never be equality. If you come to work with a degree or experience – all of which are costs incurred before hiring- your wage is increased for those factors. If you have given birth to children or could conceivably do that – your wage is reduced.
This is just one example of how the society we have built tends to undervalue women – and not necessarily as a result of personal descrimination but because of socially accepted current structures.
All that said, I think your post is critical in establishing a baseline for equality and I applaud your thinking and writing.
@Paul “…there are certain assumptions made by structures within our society that are incorrect and result in descrimination against women. These have to be addressed before equality can be reached.”
I don’t see how a person’s judgments can be objectively incorrect. At the heart of the matter is subjective assessment based not solely upon job related talent, but social/people skills, ability to cooperate and communicate effectively, ability to take initiative, trustworthiness, and so on.
No one has the power to peek into applicants’ minds and see who truly is best for the job. It is almost never true that one person is objectively superior to the rest and ought to be hired. Employers are the ones with money to lose should the person hired fail badly, so it should be completely up to them to decide who should be hired since they are the ones who will have to face the consequences. This is enough of an incentive for them to try to find qualified workers.
People who claim we can’t have economic freedom because companies are “too greedy” contradict themselves when they claim it’s necessary for government to force companies to hire good workers as if companies want to lose money and run themselves into the ground.
I believe the OP was correct in stressing how inequality shouldn’t automatically assume sexism. What if men are simply more qualified for the job? Should security guards, firefighters, etc all have a predetermined split of half women and half men?
Equality is an arbitrary and dogmatic metric to judge markets by. As long as people are given the freedom to make their own decisions, the world will look “unequal” on the surface level. The question should be, why should we assume this is bad?
If there really was a 30% wage gap, then employers would be tripping over themselves to hire women (and fire their men) since they are cheaper while contributing the same productive output as men. Not only that, but even companies that aren’t forced by government to pay maternity leave usually compensate women anyway. They appear to get less pay, but then get paid time off for maternity leave.
The end result is very similar to the examples people use to show how much better democratic-socialist countries are. Unfortunately, most people are not well versed in economics and so they fail to appreciate these unseen nuances and can only see the obvious (government handing them entitlements for brownie points).
Firms must first produce before they can give. Without that production, people can demand higher wages all they want but it won’t make a difference (since there is nothing to give). Governments cannot just generate new wealth and hand it out to women or anyone else. It can only extort certain people’s money and hand it to others, usually those they have a political incentive to appease (special interest groups).
Furthermore, the pay gap for young, unmarried men and women is virtually nonexistent, which contradicts the assertion the firms are discriminatory toward women and that women are less valued.
Also, on average men work more dangerous jobs and jobs requiring a greater physical toll. Are feminists outraged that there’s too many men in these fields? I usually only hear that there’s too many men/too few women for the well paying popular jobs that everyone covets. Not so much for other jobs. Feminits seem very content to leave certain jobs lopsided favoring men. Perhaps now you can see why some are skeptical toward feminists’ equality rhetoric.
“…every employee was born into this world by a woman and most caretaking of children is done by women. Business is using that unpaid labour everytime they hire an employee and yet they are not required to acknowledge that value which is intrinsic in every employee. In other words, until business shoulders the responsibility for the social cost of employees, there will never be equality.”
It’s strange that your focus here is entirely on women while completely ignoring the role men/fathers play, both in conception and financial support. The family unit has served society better than any other system for millions of years. Do we now need a paternal government which forces men to pay women twice, once by the father and again by the employer?
Why should firms be forced to subsidize the choices women make? Should only women enjoy bodily autonomy and freedom of choice? Responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom. By suggesting that women can’t be held accountable for their decisions, you are implicitly insulting their intelligence and suggesting that they need special treatment which conflicts with the idea of gender equality.
Wow, your comments are bang smack on being representative of the current thinking. There are holes large enough to drive a tractor-trailer though. For instance, the prupose of business is to make money – plain and simple.They are not in the business of social engineering. I sat, with a female business owner, in a mandatory government presentation on changing maternity leave legislation. As the presentation wrapped up, she leaned over, poked me in the arm and whispered “You know what that means, don’t you?” When I shook my head, she continued ” You’d be a fool to hire a woman, she’ll cost you money.” And it’s true and it’s a function of how we approach social and business structure. And you and I both know that the risk of incurring loss of work and increased overhead (through maternity leave, time off for caretaking, etc) means that female work is valued less. And always will be as long as the investment is devalued by loss risk. It is simple.
Next, who the heck says that the “family” structure is defined as a man and a woman and children? Thats archaic, and you know it. Regardless of your beliefs, it just is not the real way families are built anymore. As far as it being an ageless structure – it has often been a dysfunctional and dangerous one for women. Did you know that more women are murdered by loved ones (esp husbands) than are murdered by any other group in our society? Have you not read the reams of blogs that describe the violence perpretrated on women by men? And so you’re going to sit there and brush all that off and say that non-traditional “families” should not have the right to a fair and equitable income compared to your notion of a traditional family because they don’t include a man? Bull crap – that’s against human rights. And is an argument often used by businesses to justify not paying women equal wages -“oh, you don’t have a man? Well how can you expect family income to be equal then?” Absolute paternalistic garbage. And you know it. It has protected unjustified profits for ages.
By saying that women have to be held accountable for their choices are you implying that women should not have babies if they want a secure financial future for themselves and their families? If you had your way, women would stop having children. And in fact they are reducing procreation. In case you haven’t noticed. More and more we are forced to rely on immigration just to maintain a stable population. And, of course that likely makes you happy too, because immigrants don’t (and aren’t) have to be paid as much as non-immigrants – often for the same work. And for all kinds of arbitary reasons.
And as far as the government interferring in the equality of women in the workplace – You and I both know that business, by mandate and definition, will pay the lowest wages possible for work done. If not for gov’t the rich would get rich even faster than they do and the poor would get poorer. That’s why democracies get invovled in wages and health and safety – they represent the majority and when the majoritty is being screwed, it is demanded that they interfere. Business run rampant is not good for anyone but the pwners..
Anyway, i could write a great deal more on your comments but I’ve given enough examples of how your thinking is destructive to a fair wage for women.
Reblogged this on Brain Drippings.
Fantastic post. I posted something very similar a few weeks ago, but it was much more simplistic and encompassed Sexual/Racial as well as Women’s rights, and why/how fighting for them (on an individual basis) is damaging. Your post is much more detailed, and eloquent, than my own. Brava!
Reblogged this on Claire Lehmann and commented:
Quite a nice piece on individualism as a remedy for dysfunctional political movements.
Bravo. Well said. I hate how feminism looks down on me for choosing to be feminine. I like to be girly and feel pretty and shave my legs. It does not devalue me. I know my worth isn’t based upon it, it is my preference.
A mutual friend shared your link with me. I think you’ve fairly much “hit the nail on the head” with that. Warm regards Don Charisma
Excellently argued. I have always preferred to think of myself as human being rather than a feminist or any other label. You have said everything I think and feel. Brava!
I apologize if you keep getting notifications that I’ve favorited this post, because it refuses to stay favorited. I just wanted to say that I love this post, & like one or two above, I agree that it has said everything that I wanted to say, much more eloquently than I. 🙂
It’s not only for the impact on reproduction that men made better soldiers. Women are simply the weaker gender – with exception, as always in all things. Can we say this? Without apology or defensiveness or insecurity? It is not a value statement. Different does not mean a difference of worth. Equal does not have to mean same.
Beautifully said, Violet! I’m quite impressed.
I had a meltdown several years ago when I had a four children, was running my hubby’s business, and had a part time job. In the midst of all that chaos, somebody said to me, “why don’t you do something valuable with your life?” They were well intentioned but they meant continue my education, enter a more dominant line of work, stop the nurturing, and basically give up everything I was investing in. Hidden behind those words was the implication that who I was and how I was spending my time was somehow wrong and inferior.
Something cracked in my brain that day and I realized that feminism may cloak itself in dreams of equality and women’s empowerment, but intentional or not, the end result will be the elimination of anything perceived as female. Men may suffer a great deal in the process too, but it is women who will be completely erased. Human behavior dictates that we will seek to emulate what we perceive as a more dominant, more valuable position in society. Equality is a fool’s errand because it will always demand the elimination of anything perceived as having less value in the equation.
Brilliant.
As a woman who has of late hesitated to call myself a feminist due to the extremes that some have taken it I can honestly say I find a great deal of solace and understanding in this article. The idea of individualism speaks to that which I hold dear. Thank you for sharing this.
All the salient points of your last two posts in one well articulated whole. Although feminism is the focus, these same arguments apply to other division-based cries of injustice. As you so well stated, individualism is the remedy. Thank you again for such profound clarity.
Interesting post. I may borrow this for a future Wednesday post as the start of an idea.
Reblogged this on Idiot Writing and commented:
Not much more one can add to this – incredible wise, poignant and intelligent piece of writing. I am flawed! WOW!
Oh my – oh my, oh my , oh my GOODNESS!!
Dear lady you have just said everything that one could say. Most incredible essay!! (I am ‘jealous’ I did not write this myself – you have summed up everything I think) 😉
Thank you so much for putting this into such a well written piece.
While I like the idea of invoking empiricism and scientific proof (not that any is provided here), and keeping an open mind. This seems to be a mere variant of Libertarianism (a flawed and ultimately dystopian concept that most intelligent people outgrow in adulthood) and social Darwinism. I just think setting up feminism as a straw woman to fight with is outdated. Left to survival of the fittest we have all the injustices of the last 10,000 years of human societal development, and a state of perpetual war and corporatism. Twenty-first century social groups cannot allow people to just duke it out for themselves and let the best man win. Civilization means progress — I am not interested in living in the world of yester-year where any group is constantly disadvantaged. It is a flawed idea because it has already been tried and has resulted in very small groups having an undue share in resources and large numbers of people having to serve them as little more than slaves, as perhaps an unintended but real outcome of that system. You wouldn’t want to live in that system either. Better to use the codified norms in an advanced society to balance or level the playing field. Once it is level, then people can truly participate more equitably and enjoy benefits. I lived in a two class society for a while, where women were considered incapable of participating shoulder to shoulder with men, economically — trust me, you wouldn’t enjoy living there.
Can you offer some thoughts on the flaws and dystopian shortcomings of libertarianism… since none were provided?
“Better to use the codified norms in an advanced society to balance or level the playing field. Once it is level, then people can truly participate more equitably and enjoy benefits.”
The ambiguity requires clarification.
1. What are these codified norms?
2. Who shall do the balancing?
3. What is being balanced?
4. In what can people truly participate, and what are these benefits?
I am very interested in your answers, but here are my guesses.
1. The Law, specifically taxes, regulation of otherwise private associations and property. These “norms” have changed significantly in the last 100 years.
2. Our trusty public servants and enforcers.
3. Resource distribution, since some are naturally more savvy and productive than others. Some have lower time preferences and will defer gratification today. How unfair to the grasshoppers.
4. The first part I cannot answer, but the benefits are surely provided by others by coercive means.
Since your proposals are the antithesis of anything libertarian, it is no surprise that you find it flawed. Wanna-bes would have little influence in the libertarian world.
“Left to survival of the fittest we have all the injustices of the last 10,000 years of human societal development, and a state of perpetual war and corporatism.”
These assertions are completely unfounded. The account you are reciting is not the result of substantial historical evidence, but the cliched ideological opinions (and downright fear mongering) which was popularized by likes of Hobbes.
“Twenty-first century social groups cannot allow people to just duke it out for themselves and let the best man win.”
Ironically, governments ensure precisely that through something called mass warfare. Unfortunately, most of the population is distracted by this and kept preoccupied in their sheltered bubbles via state propaganda and Big Media (which has always enjoyed a cushy relationship with government). Wars are incredibly expensive and destructive to both human life and wealth.
Only states (which enjoy an endless stream of extorted funds via taxation) could afford to squander so many resources, ruin so many lives, destroy so much property, etc. So called “private” contractors like Blackwater only exist because of the market demand the government creates. The government is its customer. Still think we somehow need governments to “preserve the peace?” They are the biggest threat to peace by far.
“Civilization means progress”
This is a meaningless slogan. Furthermore, government is in no way synonymous with civilization. It is clearly documented by cultural anthropologists that the earliest societies predate the earliest states. This refutes the commonly held assumption that states are necessary for society. As previously mentioned, states cannot produce wealth, only sup on the surplus of society’s producers. The “protection” the earliest states claim to offer function no differently than the concept of mafia “tributes” the neighborhoods are forced to pay.
“Better to use the codified norms in an advanced society to balance or level the playing field.”
Laws, like language, property, social norms, etc all predate the earliest states. The notion that we have government to thank for society is a complete myth that no serious cultural anthropologist takes seriously. States emerged not out of necessity, as people usually assume, but out of religious cultism and mysticism.
“I am not interested in living in the world of yester-year where any group is constantly disadvantaged.”
You are belittling people when you take it as a given that the only way they can succeed is by government handing them special advantages. This is contradictory to the idea of equality and fairness.
“It is a flawed idea because it has already been tried and has resulted in very small groups having an undue share in resources and large numbers of people having to serve them as little more than slaves, as perhaps an unintended but real outcome of that system.”
The system you’re describing is actually that of governmental control (the gilded age, mercantilism, corporatism, etc are all far from free societies and all utilized state privilege to gain special advantages an maintain coercive monopolies.
There was a socialist historian named Gabriel Kolko who documented this in his book The Triumph of Conservatism. He observed how hard it was for aspiring oligarchs of industry to collude and cartelize under relatively competitive markets.
He also explains why the so called Progressive Era came to be. It was not out of the goodness and selflessness of our dear public servants. Expansion of government powers to “regulate” major industries was a successful attempt by robber barons to forcefully institutionalize cartelization across industry. Under actual free markets, it is impractical to cartelize since it would be in very firm’s best interest to undercut (ie outcompete) each other in the absence of any government they could use to simply force themselves to the top via government protectionism. This has been widely confirmed with game theory as well.
The intention of government has always been to do nothing more than the efficient maintenance of institutionalized power through centralization at all costs. If the masses rejected their government overnight, the ones in control would not simply accept it. They would fight tooth and nail to preserve their positions of power.
This is the elephant in the room – the necessary compulsion which keeps governments going and people enslaved. The rose colored view of government told by progressives is filled with revisionism and white washing. Here’s some interesting quotes I’d like to end with…
“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon B. Johnson
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” – Margaret Sanger, founder of planned Parenthood – noted progressive, racist, elitist, and eugenicist.
There is a white washed streak of elitism, racism, eugenics, etc in the Progressive movement. From the sacred cows of John Maynard Keynes to FDR (internment camps anyone?) They also spoke quite admirably and perhaps enviously of the european fascist regimes.
Do these people sound like they honestly care about empowering average Joe and uplifting the marginalized? Or do they only want to use them for votes and good favor so they’ll have credibility when they try to expand their power and push their agendas?
Reblogged this on The Mirror and commented:
The one post that EVERYONE on WordPress, feminist or not, should read.
*stands and applauds, weeping in admiration*
This is nothing short of a magnificent post, Violet. I tip my hat to you.
Well said. Men and women are naturally complimentary to one another, we are different in so many ways (neuroscience has fantastic evidence in the way male and female brains function differently) and to say we are the same is short sighted. We differ. We are individuals. I like you am not a feminist but I do, passionately, believe in women’s rights. I cannot bear any group putting what they think is best above any other group or imposing their beliefs on others because they think they are ignorant or uneducated it is just wrong.
When my son was young I worked at the kindergarten that he attended. This is a highly feminised and ‘politically correct’ environment. I saw that, daily, young girls would attend with tiara’s, princess costumes, fairy costumes and the like with no issue but any boy who tried to attend in a superhero costume or in fact any costume at all was told that they couldn’t wear that kind of thing to kindergarten. I challenged this, I wrote an essay on it providing evidence pointing out how unfair and emasculating this was. To my pleasure the kindergarten listened, they allowed the boys to wear the costumes and when they started to talk to the boys about why they wanted to dress this way they all talked about important values: caring for the weak, protecting the innocent being a ‘good guy’. I was horrified that these children were being told that the characters they identified with were not allowed at kindergarten because they were seen as ‘violent’. I was proud of the teachers for listening and taking the change to our entire region.
Reblogged this on Motanyad and commented:
Feminism and male chauvinism also affects men!