Reforming Radical Feminist Thinking

[edwest2]

I saw it as it happened. First, the seeds of discontent were sown, and fear was spread. The world of the woman needed to be reshaped, not through logic but through the kind of fear-mongering that many a politician has used to rally people to his cause. But here, some women were telling their fellow women that the family was “a comfortable concentration camp” (Betty Friedan), and that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” (Gloria Steinem).

What women needed was to join a cult that was out to destroy the family. Fortunately, some women, seeing the fruit of it, have decided abandoning the cult was the best way to go.

ignitumtoday.com/2013/03/14/liberated-from-the-womens-movement-3/

God bless,
Ed

 

[MarcoPolo]

There are indeed a good number of young women, Catholic particularly, in my experience rejecting the whole idea that a woman should reject family life or Church in order to be fulfilled as a woman. However, it still seems the culture, even among other young women, largely retains the entire “modern feminist” bent that men are oppressive, the pill is a sacrament, etc…

 

[waanju]

Nice article- I liked it.
Recently, I’ve started to realize that a lot of women think the only way to be happy is to shun ANYTHING traditionally “female” and to associate femininity with weakness. Eg judging a girl as less competent because she wears skirts, less intelligent or mind-controlled because she aspires to be a homemaker (as if that’s beneath human dignity, unless of course you’re a maid or nanny), or strange for wanting to have lots of children or acknowledging that one looks forward excitedly to getting married in the future. Why do we think of these things as bad? Just because that’s what women traditionally do. Seems rather sexist to me!

(Not saying a woman who doesn’t have the vocation to marriage or likes pants or wants to have a “career” is wrong, just that it’s silly to say that’s the ONLY things women should do.)

 

[silentfactor80]

I got news for you bud. This isn’t radical feminist thinking. It is just plain old standard feminism. Let’s stop with the elephant in the room. The definition of feminism is little more than throwing a cloak over a hungry roaring lion and saying it isn’t a lion.

Here is the definition:
“the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.”

Yet in practice feminists only DO something when women have it bad. When men are at a disadvantage (i.e. divorce court, Selective Service, low pay in female dominated jobs, etc) all feminists do is pay lip service and blame the “patriarchy.” If they were about true equality they would actually DO something or at the very least not stand in the way of men trying to make lives better for other men.

Here is a prime example of feminist intolerance. Dr. Warren Farrell was trying to give a speech about issues men face when he was in Canada. Feminists were trying to prevent him from giving the speech because it drew attention to boys’ issues. Issues that people like Christina Hoff Sommers have raised in the past and supported by thoughtful research.

Now, many women scoff at the idea of men’s issues or men’s rights. In fact even some women here at CAF who claim not to be radical feminists or whatever laugh at the idea. Someone somewhere created a very wrong image of men as impregnable fortresses to such women and feminists are in no way interested in changing that. That wrong image is assumed to be “male privilege” and been used as the justification for feminists getting whatever they want.

The bottom line is while some women may not be burning their bras they will sympathize and empathize with the women that do for the sake of inclusion. That is how women are wired. They are wired to want to fit in and bond with other women and feminists catalyze that bonding with a shared suspicion of men.

People argue over the definition of feminism but when you look at how it is practiced the whole thing a biased oxymoron. I believe is FULL 100% equality AND RESPONSIBILITY. Feminists don’t care about the latter. They just want to create “female privilege.” When women march en masse to be required to register for the selective service and loose their affirmative action perks (60% of college pop is female) then they have some credibility. Until then…it’s just whining for goodies.

Remember, Sandra Fluke got women birth control for free without requiring women do a darn thing. Check the Obamacare bill. Vasectomy is not covered but all the female perks sure are. Again, goodies for the ladies without any new responsibilities. What did men get out of Obamacare? Nothing!

 

[InJesusItrust]

I think feminists hate their own sex and want to be men. They suppress a woman’s natural instincts on a quest for power.

It just seems like in the modern Western people just don’t get it. Other cultures do not celebrate homosexuality either.

 

[Estevao]

More modern women are rejecting the cult of feminism every day:

nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/#print

 

[stephe1987]

These people pulled the worst cases out to further their cause. Not every woman was so bad off or suicide rates would have been much, much higher (kind of like some countries where women are mistreated today). Most women were content to stay at home and were proud to be wives and mothers because they knew how important their roles were to society. Cooking, cleaning, sewing, and most importantly child-rearing. Husband and wife were partners; the man worked outside the home and in public, while the woman took care of her home and family, organized social gatherings, etc. The husband was the head of the household and the wife was the helper and supporter who also had a say in how things went. I think you forget that although society has changed, the human experience remains much the same. Men want to please their wives, as women want to please their husbands. A man is not going to make his wife miserable on purpose because he wants to come home to a happy home. Part of teaching children “honor thy father and thy mother” comes from the respect for both parents learned during childhood. The husband loved and respected his wife, and the wife loved and respected her husband.

But some men did beat their wives, or property was taken from a woman (homeless widows), or a woman was sexually assaulted by a man, and then these women took these cases and used it to launch an anti-man campaign, Instead of going after the bad men who caused the problems, they went after men as a whole.

At first the feminists did a lot of good: women being able to choose to vote, own property, allowed to work outside the home if they wanted or needed to, etc. But over the years the true colors of the extremists are showing. They hate men and do not want to be around them, and want them to be punished for being men. They do not want babies and even feel they have the right to kill them at any time for any reason. And if/when they do want a baby, they will try to keep the father away as much as possible (sperm donor, or go to court and lie about their ex to get custody). Men are bad but traditional male roles are good; women are good but traditional female roles are bad. These women make fun of stay-at-home mothers or families that home-school.

Feminism used to be about equal rights for women and women supporting each other no matter what life choices they made (vote or not vote, work outside the home or be a stay-at-home mother, etc.) but now it’s about bashing women who don’t do what they want them to do.

 

[MJC2013]

Feminism, Black Power, Rebellion Against the Father and His Laws are built into the system.

When the Patriarchal thinking loses its balance and oppresses the non-whites and the women the reaction of the Night-Cycle will be equally out of balance. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The White Patriarchy oppressed everything that was not white and male for so many centuries – the karma the white men have created for themselves still is a debt that is huge. It continues today with the material greed we see in Patriarchal cultures.

Imbalance is the SIN. The White imbalance (Noon) is a sin that causes the Black imbalance (Midnight). The destruction of indigenous cultures by Christian White Culture and the enslavement of Black Africans is the sign of this sinful extremism of the White Northern cultures of Europe, for money. Huge sin. Jesus will not look kindly on this when he returns.

The murder of witches in Europe and America was nothing more than the White Patriarchy seeking political clout in their systems. This also was a HUGE sin of imbalance. Jesus will not look at this mistreatment of women (and Nature) with a smile.

It’s time for us white people in the northern climates to don the sackcloth and ask for forgiveness.

 

[Sair]

Steinem didn’t say it. It was educator Irina Dunn.

Says Steinem, to Time Magazine in 200:

"... In fact, Irina Dunn, a distinguished Australian educator, journalist and politician, coined the phrase back in 1970 when she was a student at the University of Sydney. She paraphrased the philosopher who said, 'Man needs God like fish needs a bicycle.' Dunn deserves credit for creating such a popular and durable spoof of the old idea that women need men more than vice versa."

You are right, the seeds of discontent were sewn.
That’s what happens when an entire gender is told for centuries to keep quiet, keep down, follow orders, limit yourself, you are not worthy or capable or smart or strong or serious or talented enough.

Not many men would be “content” with that kind of treatment.

The oppressors seem to be the ones who are afraid.

.

:clapping:

 

[Sair]

Feminism, Black Power, Rebellion Against the Father and His Laws are built into the system.

When the Patriarchal thinking loses its balance and oppresses the non-whites and the women the reaction of the Night-Cycle will be equally out of balance. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The White Patriarchy oppressed everything that was not white and male for so many centuries – the karma the white men have created for themselves still is a debt that is huge. It continues today with the material greed we see in Patriarchal cultures.

Imbalance is the SIN. The White imbalance (Noon) is a sin that causes the Black imbalance (Midnight). The destruction of indigenous cultures by Christian White Culture and the enslavement of Black Africans is the sign of this sinful extremism of the White Northern cultures of Europe, for money. Huge sin. Jesus will not look kindly on this when he returns.

The murder of witches in Europe and America was nothing more than the White Patriarchy seeking political clout in their systems. This also was a HUGE sin of imbalance. Jesus will not look at this mistreatment of women (and Nature) with a smile.

It’s time for us white people in the northern climates to don the sackcloth and ask for forgiveness.

One can ask for forgiveness, but it has to be acknowledged that what was done in the name of converting indigenous cultures to European values was done in the name of Christianity, because religious belief made the European missionaries (who, admittedly, often followed on the tail of those who conquered for reasons of conquest and economic gain) certain that they were doing the right thing by stamping out ancient tribal beliefs and practices. If Jesus doesn’t look kindly upon what was done in his name, then maybe he can excuse it on the basis of the fact that it was often done without the perpetrators knowing any better.

 

[Sair]

More modern women are rejecting the cult of feminism every day:

nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/#print

This is only happening because, a) patriarchal thinking is insidious and still deeply ingrained, often so subtle in its expression nowadays that it’s easy to miss if you’re not taught to notice it; and b) because many women (and men) who were born and grew up after the major periods of feminist activism don’t appreciate the difference between what it’s like for women now, with the gains made by the feminist movement, and what it was like 30 and more years ago.

 

[Sair]

I got news for you bud. This isn’t radical feminist thinking. It is just plain old standard feminism. Let’s stop with the elephant in the room. The definition of feminism is little more than throwing a cloak over a hungry roaring lion and saying it isn’t a lion.

Here is the definition:
“the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.”

You say this like it’s a bad thing to seek equality, when you perhaps don’t even know - along with plenty of other people, to be fair - what genuine equality between men and women would look like.

Yet in practice feminists only DO something when women have it bad. When men are at a disadvantage (i.e. divorce court, Selective Service, low pay in female dominated jobs, etc) all feminists do is pay lip service and blame the “patriarchy.” If they were about true equality they would actually DO something or at the very least not stand in the way of men trying to make lives better for other men.

Oh, please! Women have “had it bad” for centuries! Do you know how recent an innovation the awarding of custody to mothers in preference to fathers has been? How many, many more male-dominated industries there still are in which women have little or even no hope of gaining equal pay for equal work? The injustice suffered by some men in the current social climate is absolutely minimal compared to the treatment of women less than 100 years ago - and this treatment was accepted as a matter of course, seldom to never questioned, just because it was “the way things are”. This is no reason not to rail at injustice against men - or against anyone - but perhaps you could show a little more understanding of the context in which it takes place.

Now, many women scoff at the idea of men’s issues or men’s rights.

I am not one of them. Many men who don’t fit the patriarchal, macho ideal are just as oppressed - sometimes even more so - than women, by the still deeply ingrained beliefs about what behaviours are ‘proper’ for men and women.

In fact even some women here at CAF who claim not to be radical feminists or whatever laugh at the idea. Someone somewhere created a very wrong image of men as impregnable fortresses to such women and feminists are in no way interested in changing that. That wrong image is assumed to be “male privilege” and been used as the justification for feminists getting whatever they want.

White heterosexual male privilege is a very real phenomenon. Its effects can be seen in the relative ease with which men who fit the acceptable profile may move within our present Western society with all its deeply-ingrained assumptions. To be fair, it’s hard to notice if you’re one of the hyperprivileged class, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The bottom line is while some women may not be burning their bras they will sympathize and empathize with the women that do for the sake of inclusion. That is how women are wired. They are wired to want to fit in and bond with other women and feminists catalyze that bonding with a shared suspicion of men.

Seriously?! Have you ever noticed just how horrible women can be towards other women, just because those women don’t conform to certain ideals of ‘femininity’ or of ‘feminism’? Solidarity amongst women is severely lacking, and this is one of the biggest factors stymying any real progress in the contemporary women’s movement. Patriarchal champions are quick to exploit divisions in the feminist ranks, and that’s largely why there’s presently a significant number of women who are turning away from feminism and adopting an archaic, more submissive attitude towards relating to men.

People argue over the definition of feminism but when you look at how it is practiced the whole thing a biased oxymoron. I believe is FULL 100% equality AND RESPONSIBILITY. Feminists don’t care about the latter. They just want to create “female privilege.”

How do you think they’re intending to do this, exactly?

Remember, Sandra Fluke got women birth control for free without requiring women do a darn thing. Check the Obamacare bill. Vasectomy is not covered but all the female perks sure are. Again, goodies for the ladies without any new responsibilities. What did men get out of Obamacare? Nothing!

Well, perhaps nothing except the care all citizens would be entitled to under the scheme…

Female ‘perks’? You mean the ones that allow women the kind of reproductive freedom men have always enjoyed by default? And incidentally, is tubal ligation covered, or just medicinal contraception? Don’t you think that if men were, in general, just as invested in reproduction as are women, there might have been much more progress made in the development of a male contraceptive pill, and likely without all the hue and cry that has accompanied the development and availability of the female contraceptive pill? Think about it…

 

[Sair]

These people pulled the worst cases out to further their cause. Not every woman was so bad off or suicide rates would have been much, much higher (kind of like some countries where women are mistreated today).

How many of these ‘suicides’ came about because men decided they’d be better off without the women in question, and took matters into their own hands?

Most women were content to stay at home and were proud to be wives and mothers because they knew how important their roles were to society.

That or they were allowed no socially acceptable alternatives…