After an email today, sadly misunderstanding what I’m on about with this issue [not that what I think matters in the scheme of things], let’s set the record straight.
Rather than me saying what I believe, I’ll quote two women below at length and state, here and now, that that is what I believe. So there’s no need to misinterpret my posts on feminism as somehow connected to misogyny [the two are quite separate issues]. Just look at these women’s words and that is also my view.
Do you think they hate their fellow women?
Well nor do I.
First cab off the rank is the youtube by Suzanne Venker. In that youtube, the interviewer opens:
Suzanne, let me ask you – in the book, you write out what … the three tenets of feminism are [for example] “Feminists are imprisoned by their negative view of women and their place in the world around them.”
Suzanne affirms that and goes on to say that the main negative reaction to her is from feminists asking how she could disparage a movement which allowed women like her to get college degrees and to become authors.
But that is the whole crux of the matter – it was NOT feminists at all who enabled that – they only claimed, quite erroneously, that it was their doing . They have been telling enormous porkies for decades and they’ve hoodwinked young women under 40 with these lies.
I had an email from a woman over 40 and hers was a different point of view – she has a different perspective. Perhaps the time we grew up in is a factor.
Suzanne explains it in clear terms [1:41]:
Now that [is] exactly the message which young people are getting about feminism – that we, as women today, owe feminists for those things but in fact … we do not.
And if that were the case [as the feminists portray it], then how was it that my grandmother in 1920 had a college degree. How is it that my mother, who’s now 80, had a … degree and went into the male dominated field [of] stockbrok[ing]?
I’d add that my own mother was a qualified working woman and her friends were too. They did it part time and balanced their lives – this was well before the 2nd wave feminism ever got going.
So it’s a LIE the feminists are perpetrating to say that women never had good lives. But someone under 40 is more likely not to know that and this is part of the tragedy – young people are getting a jaundiced and erroneous history. They have no choice because all they have available to read now are feminist tomes.
Suzanne Venker was asked why this lie is all-pervasive and she replied:
There is a chasm in America between the powerful and the not so powerful. We know, from research, that everyday Americans are largely a right-of-centre bunch. We also know that those in the media are largely not a right-of-centre bunch … and because of that, the views on all areas of our lives … are getting filtered through a left-wing lens.
She was challenged on this by the interviewer, with reference to Rush Limbaugh’s huge audience. She replied:
What we’re identifying here is what is known as the feminist elite and … they reside in three primary places: academia, Hollywood and the media and most people – especially young people, are exposed on an everyday routine basis to these women.
So the messages they’re getting are consistently coming from this one place and that message conflicts with what … will lead [women] to a happy place.
She spoke about emails from young girls who thanked her because these girls felt they had no voice on the matter, nowhere to go. So she’s gone in to bat for those girls … and so do I.
She says: “I’m for those people who don’t have a voice.”
Feminism was about, from the 60s, at the outset, demeaning motherhood. There are so many people today who don’t think of themselves as feminist but their lives have been [affected and not in a good way] as a direct result of the feminist culture. People have different definitions of it. We speak of 1st wave, 2nd wave and 3rd wave.
She goes into this, pointing out that the 1st wave was the one which made all the advances – the vote for women etc. and bringing the idea into public consciousness. She mentions the 3rd wave [today], hand in hand with 2nd wave but says that neither go with [have a connection with] the 1st wave, the one which actually produced the results on legitimate grievances.
This is a vital point – many women go around quietly believing “well feminism has achieved so much for us”. No it didn’t, replies Suzanne Venker – that is the suffragette movement that achieved that for women.
The feminists in the 1960s just piggybacked off that earlier movement that any sane person would agree with …
… but those women were very family-oriented women.
Yes they were. My mother was. She was no feminist, never spoke of it but carved out her own niche where she wanted to be. She took no s*** from my father or from anyone but here’s the thing – he never ever gave any either. My father was nominal head of the family and the final arbiter but my mother ran the show. As it should be.
Suzanne goes on to say that it’s ludicrous to compare women in third world countries with American women as if they’re all equally oppressed. She goes onto further things like “casual sex is a dead-end street” but that’s broadening this post too far.
Feminists define equality as sameness. That’s messed up. I’m sorry but it is. I say men and women are of equal value but [in] different roles.
Absolutely and that is the core of my belief on this issue, which puts me at odds with men who don’t see male and female of equal value, let alone the feminazis themselves in reverse.
Anything can be used as an example. I like to use the example of a camshaft and a crankshaft – both absolutely necessary to make the thing run – but completely different roles, doing different things.
A camshaft doesn’t whine because it can’t be a crankshaft.
I recently heard a feminist admit that there were [biological] differences “and probably different wiring too” I’m currently reading a book [which says] that the differences are so pronounced, it almost makes [us] a different species.
The goal of the feminist movement and society in general these days is to make men and women interchangeable. [To them] it doesn’t matter who stays home and raises the kids, it doesn’t matter who … fights the wars, it doesn’t matter who nurtures the babies.
That, my friends, is perversity.
It flies in the face of the way we were created, it flies in the face of nature and we’re seeing the consequences of it. People should be able to see the consequences of it but no – they see anything but the actual cause.
In all of nature there are checks and balances. I always find it funny when I see a marriage where the wife will brag that they’re really good friends. You look over and the guy’s looking whipped. The woman’s saying: “We have an equal relationship.”
What she means is: “I’m in charge.” To her, her being in charge makes it equal.
She then goes into praise of men and as I go into praise of women, we can skip over the mutual backslapping. She speaks of high-risk activity and chivalry.
The only reason to be chivalrous, in my opinion, is when men want to and women need to take note of this.
And now she gets to the killer point:
Men who sacrifice for women do it as a reaction to women being women. It’s where they see a vulnerability that they step in and protect you. To demand that a man sacrifice for you … and be there for you and you’re not fulfilling your side of things is the most stupid, unreasonable thing.
When women act like women, men act like men.
Amen. How many of you are out there, Christy O?
The bottom line in all of this is that feminism is like some mutation of womanhood. I might have chosen a better term for them because those who don’t read carefully enough might make this eternal error of thinking I’m referring to women.
I’m not – I’m referring to a mutation, that word meaning [from my dictionary here]:
1 the action or process of mutating : the mutation of ethnic politics into nationalist politics | his first novel went through several mutations.
2 the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
• a distinct form resulting from such a change.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin mutatio(n-), from mutare ‘to change.’
As Suzanne Venker points out – the feminists of the 60s and today’s 3rd wave “had a very different agenda” to that of the suffragettes. This is a mutation of the cause of women.
The 2nd and 3rd waves were part of the global push which aimed to totally transform society into a dystopia. They perverted the idea of rights and the addressing of abuses [though they retained the language of it] into an agenda of misandry and discrimination against the male.
The proof of that is in the very phenomena of “positive discrimination” and “parachutism”. The suffragettes weren’t on about that at all. They weren’t trying to split society as these mutants are. They weren’t on a political mission to destroy the family.
That’s why I’m down on this one very specific demographic and constant attempts to portray me as being against anything female reveal that the person peddling this has, by definition, bought the feminist lie. Therefore I am not angry with them – they know no better.
The women quoted above and many others [I agree with them and have quoted many of them many times], state categorically that they are against this mutant, false strain, the 2nd and 3rd wave feminist, for the reasons stated and the corollary to that is that if we are against the feminist, we must therefore, by definition, be for the best interests of women.
In the case of the women quoted, being women, they can get away with speaking of their sex – but when a member of the hated male sex puts these things in a post, watch the invective fly, with all sorts of personal observations of said male. I’m glad readers have the opportunity to see this in print.
Truth is, as I’ve said many times and as many women are well aware, I like and love those women I’ve got close to. All my exes remain in touch and surely that says something about how they interpret my attitude to them. How it appears to others who are determined to misconstrue it is not really my concern.
Fighting humbug in any field is the brief of this blog and therefore that is my prime concern.
Let’s close with a few quotes:
# Namely, where were all the “good” women when feminism started? Why didn’t the women who knew they were not being abused do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these women just as deserving of men’s contempt as the hardcore feminists who started it all? [Kelly Mac]
# The feminist agenda is offensive to women. With Eve Ensler and her contemporary cheerleaders in the feminist movement, initiatives such as the “Vagina Monologues” have become a central part of Women’s Awareness Month programming on campuses around the country.
The “Vagina Monologues,” often promoted as a wonderfully inspiring event to empower women, is, in reality, nothing more than an atrociously written anti-male tirade, portraying women as pathetic sexual objects who will forever be victims. Such programs are not only blatantly offensive towards women but are vile and vulgar. [Ruth Malhotra]
# It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable. Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our “rights” and our dignity as persons. Like countless others, I was seriously misled …
Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well. [Elizabeth Fox-Genovese]