Women, you can have it all! Isn’t that what we’ve been told from day one?
Who cares if you don’t qualify? The entrance standards will be lowered to accommodate you!
Who cares if you only see your family on weekends because you are working so many hours pursuing your career? Your family will understand.
Who cares if your current boyfriend is getting your former boyfriend’s sloppy seconds? After all, you will be happy, right?
The only thing happening here is that feminism has developed an excuse for women to be self-absorbed and narcissistic, lacking in both patience and maturity except these days it’s called “empowerment.”
There are countless varieties of different types, degrees and definitions of feminism, but one characterization is constant: Feminists claim we live in a patriarchal society, a society of men ruled by men. Conclusively, this theory says women earn less, have fewer rights, are undervalued and are ultimately second-class citizens.
Nonsense. Welcome to the 21st century. Then again, I’m a conservative activist.
Women, generally speaking, do not earn less than men. Most women earn equal income, and in some families, women are also the breadwinners. If men earn more it can typically be explained by greater qualifications, longer hours in the office or working in dangerous environments.
I believe in equal pay for equal work: but equal work means equal work. If women need standards lowered to do their job, then they can’t do the job. Case closed. This is particularly true in regards to women in combat. Standards should not be lowered in order to let women fight. Lowered standards do not bring home breathing soldiers, but rather, dead fathers, brothers, sons and a false sense of equality.
Women have central power in both the private and public realm. In private, women run the show, often forcing men to be merely visitors in their own home. In divorce settlements, men are often neglected and rarely see their children. In public, women have increasingly gained open recognition, but they have always wielded power behind the curtain.
The stronger case is that society has become matriarchal, and feminists have unfairly vilified men to an uncontrolled degree.
Feminism is a touchy subject, and it gets personal fast. Essentially, I am qualified to comment. It’s a women’s movement. Therefore, radical feminists cannot brand me a sexist and sentence me to purgatory as they have sentenced countless men.
Feminists say they demand and deserve respect. What did they do to deserve it? Nobody should be given respect without earning it. Respect isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. If these women want to hold to this belief, then why aren’t they doling out respect to men, just for being men?
Feminists can terrorize society, make anti-male laws like the Violence Against Women Act, International Marriage Broker Regulation Act and Title IX, and they still won’t be respected.
Feared?
Absolutely, but will they be respected? Not even on their best day. These laws aren’t good enough for me, and they wouldn’t be good enough for feminists, if they could make it on their own merits.
I have enormous amounts of self-respect without being on a feminist rampage. I have also earned the respect of many good men, to whom I return the feeling, not because I demanded it, but because I worked for it.
I clearly label myself an anti-feminist. However, that does not mean I am a weak-minded woman. I have high ambitions and am proud of my achievements. I have strong opinions based on researching what I’ve been told, and observing the world I live in.
Being anti-feminist is simply accepting that men and women are different, and that they must rely on each other to be different. Anti-feminist standards abandon typical bigotry that traditional relationships between man and woman are a matter of domination versus submission.
Instead, we accept the validity of the ways in which society, or individuals more specifically, deal with sex, children, family life and the workplace. It is opening oneself to reality rather than waging war in a battle of the sexes.
I pity feminist women. I pity them for embracing feminism without critical thought. I pity them for making men the enemy, and not reputable partners. I pity them for not understanding that life is about compromise, and that compromise does not make a woman weak.
You are so privileged that many feminists came before you to open the doors that you apparently want to slam in others’ faces. Your condemnation of all feminism has ever accomplished is odd coming from a college educated woman. You might want to think about leaving UWM since the original founders of Milwaukee Downer College was a feminist set on educating women. If you graduate from here then your name will forever be attached to a feminist institution. Are you planning on voting tomorrow? If so, you can thank those evil feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (they clearly are the worst of the worst).
Are you planning on working from the home after you graduate? If so, you are in a position that gives you a choice that few women have either because they aren’t dependent on a man’s salary or that isn’t enough to pay the bills. You accuse feminists of hating men so I wonder how you account for feminist men? Don’t kid yourself that they don’t exist. It appears as though you are the one spewing hate and condescension. You assume that you and your fellow conservatives are the only ones able to think critically. You assume that many feminists do not have male partners because we hate them so much. Your rhetoric shows that you are the one incapable of thinking critically.
To the hate spewing toddler above me…
Amazaing that writing an article is all it takes to be privileged nowadays, I usually thought it required ungodly amounts of money and a bitch attitude.
She’s not condemning all of feminism, she’s condemning the PIG that it has become, that is so intolerant and so lacking of class that it can’t possibly represent true femininity. Your post above shows no grace, tact, or understanding whatsoever, let alone grammar and coherency. Way to represent the feminazi movement you heifer.
Just because UWM was founded with an intent to educate women does not make it a “feminist” institution. So it was founded by feminist movement activists? Fine! The university does not preach or push a feminist agenda, and therefore can’t be described as an actively “feminist” university!
Amanda made no mention of women’s voting rights, and your abuse and vicious accusatory rhetoric are just another ridiculous example of the “get your back up and BITCH” feminist movement that she is criticizing here.
There are conservative feminists too, however they’re not considered by the feminazis to be equally as feminist as you. We have to take the heat for slobs like your self that go on emotional and embittered tyrades against the ones that do speak up and voice their disappointment in what “truly represents” the “feminist” movement today.
Should have just aborted yourself when you had the chance. I have a coat hanger you can borrow!… but wait, it’s not the child’s choice whether it lives or dies, it’s the irresponsible slut that can’t keep her pants on and can’t deal with the consequences so she needs abortion on demand that gets to make the choice.
The feminist movement is so self-centered and narcissistic that it’s truly just vile. They have no class, no decency, and certainly cannot force anyone to respect them, which is why conservative feminists, EQUITY feminists cannot promote women in their truest sense where their strengths truly lie.
oh yeah, that was a REALLY classy response.
“If so, you can thank those evil feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (they clearly are the worst of the worst).”
“I don’t think most conservatives have a problem with the earlier waves of feminism.”
The movement that most conservatives and some moderates for that matter take issue with is radical feminism.
As with all forms of radicalism and extremism, radical feminism behaved in an uncivil and inappropriate fashion and sometimes even aimed for goals that were inappropriate and way out of bounds. Take abortion for example. Many older feminists opposed fetal homicide. Radical feminists though insisted on it to acheive complete equality. Insisting on legalized murder so you can have a little more “equality” goes WAY beyond uncivil, and is frankly down right childish.
Is not that conservatives and some moderates hate women or even certain forms of feminism it’s that we hate bad behavior. You have to ask yourselves why the label “feminazi” stuck. If it was only antifeminists pushing it it probably wouldn’t have. A more likely explanation is that radical feminism went way outside the bounds of civility.
So the idea is to verbally condemn feminism, but retain some of it that you find to be morally acceptable? I understand that we all like to pick and choose, but please acknowledge that this is being done. If you want to completely through radical feminism out the window, you will lose rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, and other “bad behavior.” Clearly your issue is abortion. Fine. Just don’t make the term “abortion” synonymous with “feminism” as this leaves out the majority of what feminists have fought for.
Also, I am not sure how often the term “feminazi” is used outside of extremely conservative circles. However, the ability of a pejorative term to stick around is usually not a mark on those it purports to describe, but those who say it. I’m sure you can think of a few racist terms that fit into this category.
Women should stay at home to raise the volk.
To “Adolf Hitler”
You do know that the straw man argument is a fallacy right? How are you supposed to engage in reasonable dialog if you label your opposition nazis?
Oh right that isn’t the aim. You’ve been reading to much Marcuse and think that intolerance towards conservatives is somehow “liberating.”
I have no problem staying home and being a housewife if my husband wants to bring in a salary that’s gonna alleviate me from working and provide the right kind of environment for me to raise a family in.
I don’t like how feminists rage against women who want to stay at home moms. The more I work in an office, the more competitive that I get into politics and activism, and the more I look at having a career and where it’s going, the more I’d rather stay home and do something else. However, I don’t think I should be punished or looked down on for that. There are a lot of women who have to make difficult decisions and try to strike a balance when it comes to having a career vs. having a full home life.
I also don’t like how either of the above feminists voiced their arguments. Girl fight anyone? Grow up and get some class. The first was just accusatory and rude, and the second one was just tactless and spiteful. I really like this article that Amanda has written, and I agree with her a lot.
Wanting to stay home doesn’t make me any less of a feminist, and I’m really kind of tired of hearing that you can’t be a feminist if you hold to more conservative and/or traditional values.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate women who have “paved the way” or “opened doors” it’s just that I can accept the fact that women will never completely replace men; they’re not men! There were things to fight for back then, like voting rights and stuff, but is it imperative that we have a female president? No. Will it happen eventually? I’m sure it will. Things happen over time. I’m sure there were women at the time of the revolution who wanted to be able to vote and participate in the new democracy, but did they think it was going to happen immediately? Probably not. What did they do about it? They moved on with their lives at the time and focused on doing what they did well and advancing themselves by gaining the respect of others around them.
The thing I don’t like about the feminist movement is that it has turned into an intolerant, haughty, and spiteful movement that makes no effort to include feminists like myself, who would promote success through effort and achievement, rather than favoritism like affirmative action or labeling something as “sexist” and making a huge scene out of something that really is nothing. I’m not holding women back, I just don’t understand why we apparently have to be rude, controversial, and ultimately obnoxious to get ahead anywhere, or to be truly considered as “feminists”.
What does Code Pink really do for the feminist movement other than make people hate feminists more? What does Cindy Sheehan do for us to advance us as women other than convince people that she’s an anti-American and ungrateful slob of a woman? What does Speaker Pelosi truly do for us other than divide congress even further and implement PC and biodegratable cafeteria food on the hill? (Oh I forgot she’s a master of dirty looks during the state of the union) What is Hillary really doing to help us as women? I’m tired of hearing the gender card, and I’m tired of receiving a bad rap for women because of what so many feminists who get the spotlight have to say.
Allyson, I agree with much of what you say until you get to the “women-bashing” session at the end. One of the things that I like most about the feminist movement is how multi-faceted it is (and has always been). Because there is no monolithic experience that all women have it is only natural that there are many perspectives within the group. I think that many women (and men) would rather stay home to raise their children than go to a shitty job (let’s face it…most jobs are shitty and no one really wants to go). I personally believe that more credit needs to be given to stay at home moms since they work their butts off. This is not to say that parents who work for wages do not do much of the same work once they get home (I’m sure everyone is familiar with the term “the second shift”). I also would say that stay at home moms aren’t belittled only by a select group of women, but that much of it comes from their husbands and children because we are taught that anything that doesn’t earn money isn’t real work. Mothers who work for wages aren’t in the best spot either as they are constantly made to feel guilty for being away from their children. I’m willing to bet that very few women actually work for the “creative fulfillment” that Betty Friedan so famously wrote about in the Feminine Mystique, but because they have to help put food on the table.
I don’t think that it is fair to base one’s assumptions of an entire movement on the most radical examples that the media likes to shove down our throats. You are making a few women be representative of all women. This doesn’t really happen to men. When Bill Clinton committed adultery, he wasn’t representing all men – only himself. Why can’t women who are in the public eye do the same thing? I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the “gender card,” but it is possible that this is what is happening when we make gender the most important part of these people.
As far as women wanting to participate post-revolution, they were basically told to get over it. Abigail Adams so famously wrote to her husband to “remember the ladies” when he was helping to compose the Declaration of Independence. He didn’t. She had no other way to get access to citizenry than by begging her husband. It is difficult to claim that men respected women when they were so completely ignored.
Women’s lives have changed dramatically since then, but I do not think that we have achieved full political, social, and economic equality. That means different things to different feminists; while I would be willing to bet that we disagree on some of the specifics, there is a lot that all feminists probably agree with (i.e. rape is unacceptable, hitting women is bad, girls should be given opportunity to participate is sports and academics, women shouldn’t be second class citizens).
Sorry this is so long!
Beth;
I also agree with a lot of what you said, and my intent wasn’t to come off as bashing women, it’s just that I question most of the women who get so much media attention. I could ask what girls like Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton do to set an example for acceptable behavior as well, but it’d probably border more along those lines of “woman bashing”.
I still don’t view myself as a second class citizen though, and with regards to Abigail Adams, I think she knew what she had to do in her times. She knew that the laws were set in place by men and that’s how she had to try and get her opinions expressed. Yes, it doesn’t always work, but at least she did try to use the means available to her at the time. She at least made her opinions heard and known, and started things in motion for more women to question the system and advance women’s rights later on.
I certainly don’t view myself as a second class citizen though, and I would much rather advance on my own credentials with the respect of my peers than by forcing an agenda and labeling things as sexist. Respect cannot be coerced, and the more there is a push for this “equality”, the less respect that there is, especially when advancement is achieved by cutting corners with programs like affirmative action. I much prefer equity, respect, and merit-based advancement to something that is “given” to me just because of my gender. How illegitimate does that make any accomplishment?
I think this article is really unfounded and not well researched. I think you should do more than define feminism by Wikipedia standards and actually talk to people in the Women’s Resource Center, the Center for Women’s Studies. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that you have taken a Women’s Studies course in your life, worked for a woman’s cause, or ever entertained the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, you are perpetuating this system that is against you as a woman.
Feminism is not anti-men, it is the belief in the social, economic, and political equality for all people. It is the belief that women are not just discriminated for their sex (or gender) but for their class, race, and other factors. It is ALSO the belief that men are discriminated against just the same, that we are all playing roles assigned to us, that fit in with what society says is acceptable. I believe in rights over my body (yes, I would have “fetal homicide” or whatever you kids call it these days), yes, I will speak out against a system that is against me and so many others.
I challenged you to actually do the things I suggested, perhaps you wouldn’t be so damn ignorant. It’s quite appauling.
“Women’s Resource Center, the Center for Women’s Studies. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that you have taken a Women’s Studies course in your life, worked for a woman’s cause, or ever entertained the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, you are perpetuating this system that is against you as a woman.”
That may be a good thing though. Women’s studies along with similar identity study groups are drenched in propagandistic critical theory.
“you are perpetuating this system that is against you as a woman.”
This illustrates a common problem with critical theory. You can’t argue the pro’s and con’s of a system if you simply dismiss it as “against you as a woman.” Instead of arguing if the system is valid you argue if it favors gender equality or not. That is sophistry as the argument is not concerned with truth but with equality. How can one debate something like this if one person is debating the validity of something whereas the other is debating the equality of that thing?
Voting is for pussies.
“Voting is for pussies.”
Why yes it is. Keep telling people that.
I am so confused on how she even got on the paper. She has nothing to back up her so called “research.” The fact of the matter is, is that she didn’t do ANY research. Did she read the Violence Against Women Act? Clearly not because it has NOTHING that descriminated against men in that act. Did she do any research about women getting equal pay? Again, clearly not because the United States Census statistically shows the women who work full time hours all year round make $10,000 LESS than men. That’s not equal. And does she not understand that if there wasn’t feminism she wouldn’t count in the Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment? I am embaressed to say that, that was my university paper that printed that.
I am in a women’s studies class that has opened my eyes. It has taught me to be a feminist because of what I have learned. Being a feminist has negative connotation to those who are not educated in the subject. If any “anti-feminists” were to spend one day in this class, they would see that feminism is a great thing. Feminists are not always lesbians, they are not always rude, they are not always push, and they are not always women either.
“Women, you can have it all! Isn’t that what we’ve been told from day one? “
No! It is not! There are many disadvantaged women out there who get no rights! Women who have to raise kids by themselves and earn money for their families. The average part-time worker that makes about 6.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week makes about 12,000 a year. This is in no way shape or form enough to live your life, much less your children’s lives on. You call that having it all? Because about ½ of kids these days are raise by their mother alone. True fact. Maybe you weren’t raised that way.. but pretty soon a lot more kids will be. Do you think their moms tell them that they will have it all?
“Who cares if you don’t qualify? The entrance standards will be lowered to accommodate you!”
WHAT? Men are more prepared to do harder physical labor using their upper muscles in their arms. Women are much stronger with their thighs because they are naturally prepared for having children. “If women were taught how to use their thighs to do things such as lifting, they too would be just as capable.” -Women’s studies teacher.
“Who cares if you only see your family on weekends because you are working so many hours pursuing your career? Your family will understand.”
This is the complete opposite end of the spectrum now. I was raised this way, by a mother who was very busy working and a father who changed his life around so he could work from home for me. My father was always around and my mother was at work or on business trips. If it was any other way, I wouldn’t be able to appreciate that my mother was teaching me to do what I love and to pursue a life of opportunity for myself.
“Who cares if your current boyfriend is getting your former boyfriend’s sloppy seconds? After all, you will be happy, right?”
Are you calling feminists sluts? And then right after that selfish? First, for someone who is so stereotypical of feminists, I am surprised that you would assume that they are all straight and have boyfriends…aren’t all feminists supposed to be lesbians? I don’t even know what to say about this.
“The only thing happening here is that feminism has developed an excuse for women to be self-absorbed and narcissistic, lacking in both patience and maturity except these days it’s called “empowerment.””
Classic. These are all of the stereotypes that we went over the first day of class. Then I met 20 other feminists that I would love to be friends with. They only go on RAMPAGES when they read articles like this!
“Women, generally speaking, do not earn less than men. Most women earn equal income, and in some families, women are also the breadwinners. If men earn more it can typically be explained by greater qualifications, longer hours in the office or working in dangerous environments.”
Here’s another uneducated statement. WOMEN DO NOT MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS MEN. About 77 cents on the dollar. I can’t even comment on the rest of this paragraph.
I’m just going to skip through the babel to the end…
“I pity feminist women. I pity them for embracing feminism without critical thought. I pity them for making men the enemy, and not reputable partners. I pity them for not understanding that life is about compromise, and that compromise does not make a woman weak.”
You pity feminists? I pity you! We don’t use critical thought? That’s funny… We make men the enemy? What are you talking about? We don’t understand that life is about compromise? Are you kidding? Feminism is about people.. not women.. who stand to embrace EVERYONE in this world and not discriminate against anyone. I think that you really need to catch up on your facts instead of listen to what others say. It is evident that you did not do actual research because not only do you contradict yourself numerous times, but you condemn just about everyone, and equate most women with being feminists.
I am a liberal feminist. It’s as simple as that. I am NOT a gay, baby-killing, selfish, narcissistic, impatient and immature woman. I only appreciate my roots and the knowledge that I am taught about women who paved the roads for my future, and I only try to do the same things for future little girls like yours and my own. Sleep on that tonight… if you can.
Hey Girls;
just wanted to give you all a heads up and invite you to come to an event that is going to be happening on March 25.
Bay Buchanan will be coming to campus to talk about “The Failures of Feminism”.
For anyone who thinks Amanda’s article is poorly researched, or disagrees with it, you should definately come out to hear Bay speak on a lot of those issues. Come with questions, and maybe you’ll think a little differently after you leave, or maybe you’ll just get pissed off, but none the less, I think every single one of you who has posted or taken the time to read this is going to benefit in some way by showing up.
I’ve read many things on here which I agree with, and many that I don’t. I do disagree with Amanda, we do live in a highly patriarchal society, however people who say that nothing is changing are clearly not paying attention. The barriers are beginning to break down, as is evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton (in spite of the fact that she is a pushy, abrasive psychopath) was able to become a frontrunner in the 2008 election. However I will also say that the definition of feminism has been very clearly diluded as time has gone on. Look at any women’s magazine, in the end those great sex tips always have the phrase ‘Please HIM’. The modern woman is very much disconnected from the definition of real independence, and that is a very serious problem. It is very easy to claim ‘woman bashing’ when things like this come up, but please, take a look at the women that our society admires and the women on this campus. Something is very, very rotten in the state of Denmark. Women fought so long and hard for the rights which they deserved, and now it seems like none of it really matters. As for an earlier complaint about how the women in the spotlight are giving women a bad name, I do notice that everyone in your list could be construed as liberal, I was very disheartened to see that you did not include that psycho Ann Coulter, another person who I feel is sabotaging the modern woman simply by existing (and of course her infamous comment that she doesn’t think that women should have the right to vote). EVERYTHING needs to change in this society in order to properly level the playing field, but that isn’t going to happen until more women try to find a happy medium between a Holly Housewife and an Ann Coulter (for rhe record, anyone, male or female, should be able to feel like they can stay home and raise the kids without being some kind of a traitor to their gender).
By the way, here is the Coulter quote:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”
And here is potential first lady Michelle Obama….
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country…”
Score one more for women in the public eye.
There’s another one to question on pride in feminists past… apparently she doesn’t appreciate them either if this is the first time that she’s felt any pride in her country.
First of all, I want to thank everyone who has made a comment on this website. I feel the debate over the role of feminism in modern society is something that needs direction and is only going to get that by having these discussions.
Secondly, I would like to introduce myself as the head of VOX; Voices for Planned Parenthood. We are a group of men and woman on campus that promote the very things that we are now debating about. We are currently planning an event around the benefits of feminism in todays society. A tentative date and time is March 25th at 7:30pm. If anyone is interested in helping plan this event or any future events concerning the health, or personal well being of UWM students please feel free to give us an email at uwmvox@yahoo.com.
I would also like to mention that any forms of harassment received as a result of me releasing this email will be treated with the utmost importance and severity.
Michelle Obama’s comment is a bit too broad to be considered as against women. There is a wide difference between being proud of your gender and proud of your country, and let’s be honest folks, this country has never been (and it still isn’t) very tolerant of people who are not white and male, and if you don’t believe me, take a look at the subjugation of gays and lesbians in the legal system. Personally I wouldn’t be very proud of this country either, we’re kind of jerks.
I don’t even support Barack, but even I think it is ridiculous to put so much weight on Michelle Obama’s statement (particularly since she has already commented further on it).
It’s perfectly legitimate to say that something new and exciting is going on in politics, if you feel that way. I don’t feel that way, but she’s not a commie for saying that.
Besides, Michelle Obama’s adult life does not span the history of American feminism. You posted that quote; why didn’t you read it first?
“Besides, Michelle Obama’s adult life does not span the history of American feminism. You posted that quote; why didn’t you read it first?”
There are people on this thread who have been railed against whose lives have not spanned the entirety of feminism either. I’m not really sure what kind of a point you’re trying to make
I also don’t really understand katie’s disclaimer other than she’s just trying to be argumenative.
I wasn’t saying Michelle’s comment is against women. I actually have quite a bit of respect for her and would kinda like to meet her; I think we’d get along great, but when giving quotes from Ann Coulter and stuff… I think it was just another dumb remark (Michelle’s) and that’s why I posted it.
nothing too substantial I suppose
This “dumb remark” was posted in order to illustrate the point that yes, there are women who seem to be trying to subvert all that the feminist movement was attempting to accomplish. In essence, agreeing with the original idea posted in the story. Also, I was illustrating how women on the “right” are just as bad when it comes to feminist ideals as they appear to be on the left, since representatives from the left are the only ones that Ms. Wartick pointed out in her post.
“Personally I wouldn’t be very proud of this country either, we’re kind of jerks.”
Your judging American by utopian standards here. No country on earth would come close to America by on those standards. Just because America isn’t perfect doesn’t mean America isn’t still the greatest nation in the world.
That’s one of the problems I have with many leftists I talk to. You guys overlook all of the great things about this country and instead complain about the relatively little things.
America is a country we should all be proud of.
“, and if you don’t believe me, take a look at the subjugation of gays and lesbians in the legal system.”
That “subjugation” doesn’t really exist. You might point to the issue of gay marriage to refute me here, but that has to do with promoting beneficial institutions not subjugating homosexuals. The state gives extra benefits to married heterosexual couples because they produce future citizens for the state. That’s not discrimination it’s just a contract with the state to produce future citizens, and not all relationships can do that so some needn’t apply.
“we do live in a highly patriarchal society,”
Did you ever think there might be a good reason for that?
As it turns out we are moderately patriarchal as a species. In fact patriarchy can be traced back to before our split with chimps.
Populations of humans (like in Europe) that have rejected patriarchy now face imploding populations that will render their societies extinct in the next half century.
As it turns out that patriarchy is necessary to maintain a stable population.
http://reactor-core.org/return-of-patriarchy.html
THE RETURN OF PATRIARCHY, by Phillip Longman (March 1, 2006)
This illustrates part of the problem I have with radical feminism as opposed to the previous waves. The previous waves operated reasonably with concern for other factors. The radical variation of feminism however does not. Radical feminism by contrast only seems to want it’s ends regardless of whether or not those ends are good overall.
If I had to choose between complete gender equality on everything and maintaining the demographic stability of our society I would choose the latter because it is clearly the greater good.
“…since representatives from the left are the only ones that Ms. Wartick pointed out in her post…”
The only reason I continue to highlight these women is because women like Michelle, who many people hope to see become first lady in the fall, and women like Nancy who is the speaker, and Hillary, who is our female candidate… these are all women who are in powerful/and or influential positions.
it has nothing to do with “left” or “right” it has everything to do with the positions that these women hold.
Ann coulter is a pundit, she’s an editorial writer, and she’s just another citizen making observations about her government. she is not in any position of power to actually influence any sort of policy change at a government level. she could lobby, she could protest, she can whine and nag as long and loud as she pleases, but at the end of the day that is all that she can do.
Senator Clinton
Speaker Pelosi
Potential First Lady
These are the women that truly represent our government to the world, and that is why I criticize them for their remarks, and let the pundits hurl insults down below.
When someone says something like all Muslims should be killed, it grabs attention, and it paints our country in an extremely negative light to the world. To dismiss these people as non-representative of our country to the rest of the world is REALLY underestimating the influence that they wield. I do take issue with being called a leftist, as there are issues that I do agree with Republicans on. I am not basing my judgments on a Utopian ideal, I am basing them on other industrialized governments. We do not take care of our citizens’ health concerns because we are oh-so-paranoid of dipping into socialism (however, we have been dipping into this for a very long time, and at an even more alarming rate since Bush took office). As for the issue on the subjugation on gays and lesbians in the legal system, yes, it does exist, as in most states gays and lesbians can still be fired from jobs simply for being gay or lesbian. I am sure that you remember the bill that was shot down in the senate last year which would have ended this discrimination. I do agree that radical feminism does not work, but radical anything does not work. Fundamental religion doesn’t work. Anything that is ever taken to an extreme will not work because the ideas expressed are going to automatically favor the movement above all others. Patriarchy, however, is not the rule. In many Native American societies women were the ones who did the hunting while the men took care of the children, and the same holds true of many tribes that still exist in South America, Australia, and some small societies in the middle east. Now, since we have spent so much time trying to separate ourselves from animals (see the reaction to Darwin’s theory of evolution), the excuse that because animals are patriarchal, humans are too, doesn’t quite hold water unless you are willing to accept the animal-human commonality for ALL aspects of humanity. But again, we have reasoning abilities which exceed that of most animals, so why should such a thing continue anyway? I am of course not saying that women should take over and men become the second class citizens, what I am saying is that men and women both need to find a middle ground and go with that, because societies in which a group holds power specifically based on gender or race are always doomed to failure. If you push long enough at groups of people, eventually they will push back. Radical feminism did not work because it adopted a doctrine of ‘you’ve got it wrong, WOMEN are superior’. No, neither is better than the other, and this attitude of one being better than the other is what allows for all wars throughout human history. Some did need to be fought in order to help others, but I’d say that about 90% of them were just over the fact that one group of people felt themselves to be better than the other, and so the other did not have a right to what they had. Do you see what I am saying? You cannot base a society on one being better than the other, it will always fail, at least in a classist system women and men of all races are being screwed over, and so the discrimination is more about wealth than it is blatant sexism or racism (which is what Great Britain and other parts of Europe are going through now). That is why I agreed so much with the original article above, is because the writer is talking about the benefits of compromise over subjugation. The main point here is that oppression affects everyone, not just women, not just men, not just gay or straight, not just black, white, red, yellow, pink or purple, everyone. You cannot base a society on people being screwed over, nor can you base it on special priveledges for the select few. We are better than that. I personally love this country as an idea, but the theory has worked much better than the practice ever since its inception, we are still nowhere near the society that we should be.
“When someone says something like all Muslims should be killed, it grabs attention, and it paints our country in an extremely negative light to the world. To dismiss these people as non-representative of our country to the rest of the world is REALLY underestimating the influence that they wield.”
I think you’re overestimating their influence. I mean have you met anyone like this? Most people want to eliminate the extremists not all Muslims, and the ones who say they do are usually just spouting off without really meaning it.
“Patriarchy, however, is not the rule. In many Native American societies women were the ones who did the hunting while the men took care of the children, and the same holds true of many tribes that still exist in South America, Australia, and some small societies in the middle east.”
Alright. First of all, I would wonder if they really are matriarchal like that. After all societies that small usually do not have written records and therefore make it easier for various anthropologists with a political agenda to read what they want into the evidence. Secondly many of these tribes where patiarchal and had male tribal cheiftains and male tribal elders.
Thirdly if you notice something about all of the societies you mention they are all small and predominantly nomadic or hunter/gatherer societies. I don’t know about you but I would prefer living in a larger society that has developed civilization, modern medicine, moon landings and other wonderful things. If you look at history the most magnificent civilizations in history, the Roman, British, and Persian empires, the Helenic Greek civilization, the Khanate, and the Egyptian civilization that built the pyramids were all patriarchal to some degree or another. I honestly don’t see the point in going back to the stone age just so that we (possibly) can have matriarchy.
“But again, we have reasoning abilities which exceed that of most animals, so why should such a thing continue anyway?”
Because people are not as rational as they think they are. This can be demonstrated by the foolishly adopted cultural norms in modern Europe. They think they are enlightened for completely removing patriarchy, but completely forget that they then have to take the responsibility to maintain demographic stability out of evolutionary hands and into their own. I would almost find the situation funny if it weren’t so serious.
“I am of course not saying that women should take over and men become the second class citizens, what I am saying is that men and women both need to find a middle ground and go with that,”
That’s fine. All I’m saying is that they shouldn’t in the process destroy institutions that have literally developed for millions of years without first thinking about what that would do.
“When someone says something like all Muslims should be killed, it grabs attention, and it paints our country in an extremely negative light to the world. To dismiss these people as non-representative of our country to the rest of the world is REALLY underestimating the influence that they wield.”
I think you’re overestimating their influence. I mean have you met anyone like this? Most people want to eliminate the extremists not all Muslims, and the ones who say they do are usually just spouting off without really meaning it.
“Patriarchy, however, is not the rule. In many Native American societies women were the ones who did the hunting while the men took care of the children, and the same holds true of many tribes that still exist in South America, Australia, and some small societies in the middle east.”
Alright. First of all, I would wonder if they really are matriarchal like that. After all societies that small usually do not have written records and therefore make it easier for various anthropologists with a political agenda to read what they want into the evidence. Secondly many of these tribes where patiarchal and had male tribal cheiftains and male tribal elders.
Thirdly if you notice something about all of the societies you mention they are all small and predominantly nomadic or hunter/gatherer societies. I don’t know about you but I would prefer living in a larger society that has developed civilization, modern medicine, moon landings and other wonderful things. If you look at history the most magnificent civilizations in history, the Roman, British, and Persian empires, the Helenic Greek civilization, the Khanate, and the Egyptian civilization that built the pyramids were all patriarchal to some degree or another. I honestly don’t see the point in going back to the stone age just so that we (possibly) can have matriarchy.
“But again, we have reasoning abilities which exceed that of most animals, so why should such a thing continue anyway?”
Because people are not as rational as they think they are. This can be demonstrated by the foolishly adopted cultural norms in modern Europe. They think they are enlightened for completely removing patriarchy, but completely forget that they then have to take the responsibility to maintain demographic stability out of evolutionary hands and into their own. I would almost find the situation funny if it weren’t so serious.
“I am of course not saying that women should take over and men become the second class citizens, what I am saying is that men and women both need to find a middle ground and go with that,”
That’s fine. All I’m saying is that they shouldn’t in the process destroy institutions that have literally developed for millions of years without first thinking about what that would do.