|When I was a freshman in college, my roommate made a comment to me
that just blew me away. She said "If I had two wishes it would be 1) Men
over 22 are not allowed to wear thongs and 2) All Feminists would die."
Besides the very mild chuckle about men in thongs, my next reation was: WHAT!!?? How could she say that all feminists should die? Here she was a female in college, studying to be a doctor. Didn't she know what feminism had done for her???? I was in shock.
Of course, I look back on that day and just shake my head. I am now older and wiser, but wanted to share that I also used to hail the "women's liberation" movement and feminism in general.
The reason why I, and so many other girls, feel in debt (or used to feel in debt) to the feminist movement is directly related to what is taught in public schools today.
The feminist movement is hailed in public schools as one of the most significant, not to mention one of the most positive, events in history. Girls in school are trained to believe that unless the feminist movement had occured, they would be trapped inside their houses, forced to dress from head-to-toe in garb, and forbidden to go to college. Public schools wind up girls into a frenzy thinking that they owe their entire existence to the "women's lib" movement. However, when one starts to look at what actual events are in history, a very different picture is drawn.
First of all, most women in the 1970s who left home to get a job didn't do so to fit some feminist ideology; they did it out of sheer economic need. In the 1970s, we went off the gold standard and stagflation was rampant. The liberal policies put forth during the "Sex, Drugs, and Rock'N'Roll" era of the 1960s caused taxes to eat up a large portion of the family's income. Due to these things, it took two people to produce what one could earlier. Women didn't go to work in droves to assert their independence; they did it for sheer economic need. They did the same thing in the 1940s when the men were off fighting a war.
Second, as far as "liberation" goes, the greatest liberator of women were not a bunch of screaming feminists of the 1960s and 70s. The greatest liberators of women have been freedom and technology. Freedom, because, in capitalism, the natural tendency of things is for more jobs to become intellectual, thus allowing women the ability to do just as well as men. Technology because the greatest women's liberators have been technological advances which gave some relief to the harshness of nature. One such technological advance has been birth control. Birth control gave women the ability to control when they got pregnant, thus sex no longer doomed them to 18 yrs of unwanted motherhood. Technology and freedom, which are for the most part inseperable, have been the greatest women's liberators. For actual facts of what happened during the Industrial Revolution (a great period for capitalism) with regards to women, please see "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.
Although we've finally figured out the scientific things to advance women, and the political structures which most benefit women (well, some of us have anyway); we are still direly lacking in the morals and values necessary for women to advance. And this is where *all* feminists movement are not only not the real liberators of women, but absolutely detrimental to the development of women.
All feminist movements, whether they be authoritarian feminists (Womyn's Concerns), liberal feminist (NOW), or even libertarian feminists, have one thing in common: moral subjectivism.
Subjectivism by definition means whatever someone *thinks* is correct is then correct. Truth is determined by human reasoning alone. It doesn't matter what, just as long as a person decides in their head that truth is X, truth is X.
Objectivism means that truth is a principle in reality, like the laws of physics. Things are only correct after the theory has been proven by some demonstratable principle of reality. Truth is outside of what a human merely thinks.
When applied to morality, subjectivism means that the morality on an issue is solely determined by a human. Whatever a human arbitrarily decides to be their moral system is absolutely correct. The mantra of moral subjectivists is to "let people make decisions on their own" and to never *ever* pass judgment on those decisions.
The mantra of all feminist movements is moral subjectivism. They cry their goal is to give women "choices." The only group that actually is honest when they say they want all women to have freedom of choice is the libertarian feminist groups. Regardless, that is the mantra all feminists claim to support. *Whatever* the women decides for herself, whether she wants to be a doctor or a gold-digger; sexually responsible or a total whore; a married woman or a single mother; hero or victim; winner or loser, all choices that a woman makes for herself is held up by feminism. No judgment is passed on one action or the other; they are all equal.
A perfect example of what I am talking is explained by Ann Coulter, a conservative who is also opposed to the feminist movement. This can be found here. It's called "National Organization for Worms."
"The feminist enthusiasm for (Governor Gary) Condit goes something like this: Feminists have always stood for freedom of "choice" (unless it involves something other than abortion, adultery or sodomy), and isn't it wonderful that Chandra Levy was able to choose to have an affair with a married man? Congratulations, Chandra!"
"If you think I'm making this up, here is what Gloria Jacobs, editor of Ms. Magazine said about Chandra on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor": "I think the idea is that what feminism always wanted for women is the right to choose their partners, their own sexuality, whether they're young women or older women. ... I think it's really that one would have hoped that as women had more access to power that this wouldn't be the way they would have to go about it." But everybody makes their own choices."
"Feminists are actually trying to claim credit for the dumb decision of a girl who is now missing. Anyone who sees a connection between Chandra's choice of sexual partners and her disappearance is probably the sort who thinks promiscuous sexual behavior has some metaphysical link to venereal disease, abortion and divorce, too (That's me!-Amber). If rumors are correct that Chandra was pregnant, a very broad definition of the "right to choose" could be at work. Another triumph for feminism! "
Coulter points out the mantra of feminism: to give women "choices." It doesn't matter *what* choices women make, just so as long as they are given both the legal and moral tolerance to do anything, no matter how hedonistic or stupid, that is all they care about.
Feminists should be more honest in what they are advocating. They are *not* promoting women, helping women, or encouraging women -- the only thing they are doing is advocating moral relativism/subjectivism. None of what they say or advocate has ever helped any woman out anywhere.
Any person wanting to actually promote women will tenaciously support an objective morality. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of something should not be based on *whatever* a woman decides for herself; but based on an objective principle in reality. A woman who is going to be successful must have morals and values to guide her life. Those morals and values are very specific (i.e. not up to her arbitrary whim). She must be rational, she must accept personal responsiblity, and she has to have self-esteem.
If feminism really wanted to see women succeed, they would exalt the hero and denounce the victim. They'd support heroism and responsiblity among women and totally dismiss victim-enabling and hedonistic values. Feminists wanting to be successful would uphold the Margaret Thatchers of the world and reject the Monica Lewinskys of the world (however, it's the exact opposite, conservatives like Thatcher are put down by feminism and Monica is a cultural icon according to feminists as we will see.) Feminists who genuinely wanted women to succeed would push women to become successful; they won't coddle the self-made victims. They would put standards on women; they wouldn't profess that women, no matter how stupid, should have judgment forgoed.
A perfect comparison is say two young coaches are put in charge of a team of basketball players. Basketball coach A is harsh on his players. He holds them to standards. He works them day and night, gets in their face when their slacking off, and is willing to step on a few toes to get the most out of his players. No one, except his players, usually likes this kind of coach. They call him harsh, uncaring, and mean. You know the type.
Basketball coach B is easy on his players. He coddles them and says whatever the players want to do is kosher with him. He never says a harsh word to his players or holds them to any kind of standard. He makes constant excuses for his players. In fact, often times he marches around his weakest player and tries to rally everyone around him, showing what a harsh world the basketball world is to his players.
Which coach creates better players? Which one is going to get results?
The leaders of the feminist movement are all like Coach B. They coddle their players, they never say a harsh word to women. The result is the same for feminists as Coach B, the players are totally ill equipped to play the game of life. They step on the court and crumble.
But alas, women succeeding is not what feminists want. What they want is the moral tolerance of any and all stupid action a woman may engage in. A woman is a total slut? Great! A woman doesn't get married and raises 5 children without a father? Super!! A woman can be totally self-destroying herself, and what she needs is someone to shake her and wake her up, like Coach A would, but feminists claim to leave the girl alone. Let women do whatever they want, never pass judgment, and god forbid, give some *conservative* advice. If you want to see the final result of what happens when girls are not only tolerated to make stupid decisions, but encouraged via feminism -- I refer you to Chandra Levy. Women, all over the United States, are committing slow suicides with the stupid decisions they are making (and we all know some of these stupid decisions, sexual promiscuity etc are wholly *encouraged* by feminism), and feminists do nothing. In fact, as we saw above, feminists try to take credit for the ability of Chandra to make a very stupid decision! A feminist movement actually wanting to support girls would become like Coach A and demand heroism and values from girls. Instead, feminist leaders are like Coach B, making excuses for girls and allowing them to wallow in their self-made coffins. Again, feminists main goal is moral subjectivism, which in laymen's terms means to completely revoke any morals and values from society. (afterall, it is only right wing whackos who believe in morality and values!)
Moral subjectivism must be feminists mantra because if morals and values were applied anywhere, the values they hold would be on the bottom of the bucket. Because they know that what they are doing is so sloth-like and evil, it becomes imperative to remove any standards to judge a person by. As we all know, feminists *do* indeed have a utopia that they see for women. That utopia involves being a very promiscuous and irresponsible little hoodlum; not being a heroic successful woman. Here is a perfect example of feminist thinking. This can be found here. It is a column by Maggie Gallagher called, "The Full Monica."
"In a new book, "Her Way," feminist scholar and journalist Paula Kamen (like many younger feminists) defends Monica (Lewinsky) as the new sexual beau ideal. Monica, according to Kamen, is the new type of woman "shaped by the sexual revolution," who shares "more of men's power, sense of entitlement and social clout." Monica was "brazen, relentless and self-centered in her quest for sex and power; in other words, she acted like a man.'"
Let's hear it for Monica! Young girls new role model!
Hollywood also glamorizes this slutty woman who can have "SEX LIKE A MAN!" For reference, see "Sex and the City." Samantha, the biggest sex kitten, has sex frequently without any emotional attachment to her male counterparts. What a great "strong" role model she is for young women!
Hollywood, however, isn't real. In reality, if a woman tries to have sex like this, she becomes an emotional wreck! Monica Lewinsky wasn't able to have sexual encounters with President Clinton and then brush it off. No, she had wedding bells in her eyes, waited by the phone for hours, and professed Clinton was her "soulmate." (ha!) Chandra Levy, also a supposed "strong, independent girl" (who also fail trap to the idea that a woman can have sex like a man), also got all starry eyed and hoped for marriage with Congressman Condit. And, indeed, the feminist author who idolized Lewinsky notes:
"I myself have noticed this male paradigm as dominant even among my 'liberated' friends. ... a few of them called me because they didn't understand why they weren't satisfied with their casual, uncommitted sexual relationships." "But guys do this. Why should I want more?"
Hmmm, I can't imagine why they weren't enjoying their "liberated" lifestyle!
Hollywood is known for exalting behavior that, if adopted, would destroy people. During the "Sex, Drug and Rock'N Roll" era, Hollywood glorified a hedonistic, self-destructive lifestyle. This exaltation of sloth wreaked havoc on poor people. Young, poor kids tried to adopt the behavior they thought was so cool and were detrimentally hurt by it.
Feminists do the same thing to young, naive, impressionable girls. They give an image that is not in anyway realistic, and the young girl tries to live up to it. Young girls who aren't being taught about personal responsibility or values at home are being destroyed. They are ending up pregnant younger than ever, without good jobs, without a husband, and in other very bad situations. Feminism not only does not help women, but works to destroy young women.
Any real advocate of women would encourage women to accept personal responsibility for themselves. They would encourage women to become better. They wouldn't go around complaining about the big bad patriarchy, they would be encouraging women to become better themselves. Any genuine person who actually wanted to see women do well would become like Coach A. They would become like Bobby Knight, not coddling victims or shrieking about the other team playing unfair. Real advocates of women would put standards on their own kind, they would adhere to an objective morality. Their mantra would not be to let the girl do whatever she wants, no matter how stupid, self-destructive, or potentially dangerous. People who actually wanted to see women get better, to stop getting pregnant out of wedlock, to stop getting themselves in sticky situations, would adhere to an objective, heroic morality that demanded the best from women. It is only these women who recognize that women must accept personal responsiblity who have the authority to address various sexisms found in today's culture (and I by no means am suggesting that they don't exist).
No feminist group demands the best from women because feminism of all brands is not about promoting women, but about promoting a political agenda. Political agendas are fine; but if one wants to promote a political agenda, one should join a given political party and run for office. One should not promote a political agenda, whether it be a liberal, authoritarian, or libertarian one under the guise of "feminism." The only semi-common definition among people of what "feminism" should mean is that it should promote women in somehow or someway. Most feminist movements, however, have absolutely zero to do with women.
And, of course, the idea that totalitarians, democrats, and libertarians can all be "feminists" is somewhat ridiculous (republicans are never feminists -- kudos to republicans). The word "feminist" is a word that means nothing. It is for this reason, the lack of definition, that "feminism" can remain popular.
If you want "feminism" to mean being a heroic women who can hold her own, that's what feminism means to you. If you want it to mean being allowed to be a total slut without moral condemnation, that's what it means to you. If you want it to mean a movement that hates men and is nothing but a bunch of lesbians, that's what it means to you. The word "feminism" has no meaning. So when someone asks you if you are a "feminist," as a young girl, whatever your idea of what a proper women should be will fit your definition of "feminism" and you will of course, answer "yes." Anyone who tells you they denounce feminism will be denouncing whatever *your* definition of feminism is, and at the same time denouncing you.
Whenever you come across a word that has no objective meaning; you know you are dealing with something evil! Without an objective definition; people rely on vague definitions to communicate with people, making it easy to fraud people. Rather, they rely on the *subjective* definitions people make up when objectivity is removed. The people talking to you know that your definition of a word will be whatever you want it to mean. Therefore, a person can stand in front of a group of both female scientists and female prostitutes exalting "feminism" and both groups will cheer for her -- for completely different reasons! Can you see how this can start to become evil? "Feminism" is pure, raw subjectivism, both in its message and its definition.
It's time to see past the fraud, lies, and deceit put forth by feminists. It would be nice to eradicate their best forum, public schools, but that is not happening anytime soon. Feminism can reach a broad range of people because the word "feminism" can fit whatever agenda or ideal a person has. The mantra of all feminist groups is moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism is not in anyway conducive to success in life, rather than success for women. I mean it from the bottom of my heart that if women want to be successful, they absolutely must adhere to an objective morality. And that morality *must* be one that advocates, above all things rationality, personal responsibility and self-esteem, i.e. heroism. (Or should I say heroinism?) It is no mystery what the values are that lead to success in life. It's not like those values are hidden in a safe somewhere and no one can know what it takes to be successful. We know what those values are, and not until we adhere to them as absolutes can we be successful. Those values do not include being a little sex kitten who has sex all the time or wearing miniskirts to work. The feminist movement, however, exalts this image of a total loser women, and although innocent and flighty enough -- it is destroying young, naive, impressionable girls Chandra Levy style. Feminism not only does not help women, but wholly hurts them. Like my roommate said, it's time feminism as a word and a movement dies.
This article in my local campus paper was just printed today (July 31, 2001)!
It goes something like this, a professor in Texas did a study on women who are having random sexual hook ups with men. The conclusion of the study is "Guys are getting what they want and need, and girls are not." In other words, girls aren't enjoying this kind of sex! (*gasp*)
The opinion of my college editorial goes like this: "How sexist of those professors! Women should be allowed to make their own choices! Don't these professors know how far women have come to be able to have sex like men! Who cares about scientific data that says this could possibly be destructive to women!?" (paraphrase)
A direct quote from the article is "This study makes it sound as if women still need a man in their life to be complete, to be happy. Not only that, but women also aren't "getting what they need" from purely physical relationships."
NOO! Say it isn't so! A scientific study says women might not actually enjoy purely physical relationships!? How can this be!????
I'm about to go throw up. Sorry if I ruined your day too.
Related sites that rock
"We may never know whether Chandra Levy's affair with a married congressman (which he has now admitted to the police) had anything to do with her mysterious disappearance. One thing is clear: This young woman -- described by friends as "a cool cookie, very sophisticated, very directed and strong" -- was involved in an exploitive, destructive relationship that could only hurt her and others as well. Somebody needed to tell her that. It appears no one did."
"The relationship between a married politician and a Washington intern is none of our business. We've heard this mantra since the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. And by repeating it often enough, we're led to believe that we must suspend judgment about such relationships as well. The whole thing is downright creepy. We know such behavior is wrong, but we can't say so. That would make us judgmental -- and there's no worse crime in our value-free society." -- Linda Chavez