The Uberclass is done for, but the perversion of feminism had been growing from day one. Where are the women who have been cheated of the promise, with their counter action?
This is a most complicated one to even begin to provide any comprehensive answer for, especially for man.
1. There are women speaking out, mainly Christians such as Phyllis Schlafly, Suzanne Venker and Christie O but also those of the “promise unfulfilled” feminist type such as Christina Hoff-Sommers.
There are quite a few bloggers also speaking out but the sum total of voluble women on this topic, as distinct from those just sympathetic against feminism and pro-men as beasts to be in the arms of, is fairly small.
Were you to broaden it to anti-socialism, there are far more women willing to put their names to that but considerably less willing to subscribe to the notion that all of it – all those movements from communism to social justice, are furthering the same ends – the ends of the UN, the EU, in other words – Them.
In terms of total numbers, the following diagram has its issues but is roughly OK with the caveat:
The caveat is that a hard-circumference venn diagram does not portray most men who sympathize with, say, equal suffrage, but not with other aspects. So, had I the blogtools, I’d make the circumference chord Men fade out slowly towards Women and Women fade the same way across men.
Which is a commentary on the complexity of defining this thing. What the diagram does show reasonably accurately is that the numbers of women affected by what they see as some aspect of feminism and the numbers of men who are moved the same way is different.
This is logical, as feminism is concerned with women gaining more power, or rather the women who are radical gaining more power for themselves and if that spins off onto other women in society, then that bolsters the argument about altruism.
2. What feminism actually means is critical here – it means something radically different to a Dworkin or a Christie O:
… to a Fathers’ Rights group to a Higham, to many women.
Here are what various other women think – don’t rely on the links, many which have now gone the way of all things:
Dale O’Leary, in The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, p. 24, defines that which men and women should TOGETHER be protecting instead:
The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.
Two men, F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p.75), state:
Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics”, since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed.
This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.
Alison Jagger, in Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy(Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) made the need for the destruction of the family clear:
“The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need for sexual repression. Male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sexual intercourse will no longer be viewed in the liberal way as alternative options… the very ‘institution of sexual intercourse’ where male and female each play a well-defined role will disappear. Humanity could finally revert to its natural polymorphously perverse sexuality”.
The oft-quoted Marilyn French:
All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.
… or her own desire to dominate men is explained here:
Men’s need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness; we do not know its root, and men are making no effort to discover it.
Minette Marrin stated in her article on rape that it could only lead to misandry. And that harms women themselves. It also destroys the family.
Melissa Scowcroft asks the question – who is responsible for the breakdown of society:
So, who or what is culpable? Well, feminism, of course – specifically ideological feminists, who, with their “relentless hostility towards men as a class of enemy aliens,” have brainwashed the populace into the belief that “the only good man is either a corpse or a woman.” The result, Nathanson and Young contend, is a level of anti-male sentiment that justifies comparison to Jewish persecution.
Ex-blogger Kelly Mac [and I admit she was vehemently anti-feminist] reflected on the early years of feminism:
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?
Ruth Malhotra got down to specifics:
The notion of victimhood, that “women are oppressed and exploited,” evokes strong anti-male sentiment.
Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution.
In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.”
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.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese saw it this way:
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.
In practice, the sexual liberation of women has realized men’s most predatory sexual fantasies. As women shook themselves free from the norms and conventions of sexual conduct, men did the same.
There can be no doubt that women’s situation has demanded improvement — and continues to do so throughout much of the world. But the emphasis upon individual rights at the expense of mutual responsibility and service is not the way to secure it.
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. A Danielle Crittenden has noted, the family “has never been about the promotion of rights but the surrender of them — by both the man and the woman”.
Kelly Mac agreed:
It’s about the fact that dating today has become nothing but a series of pick-ups and one-night-stands (thank you sexual revolution).
The overall lack of agreement on the specifics of what feminism encompasses and how good or bad it is is not dissimilar to commenter Chrysalis on domestic violence:
May I also just say, any of us could go dig up some obscure article or statistic that appears to support what we already believe about men or women or relationships. On some of them, I see James’ point; other times, like this one, I honest-to-God have never met virtually any women that are being described in this post nor the comments. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it means I just haven’t met them.
On the other side of the coin, I’ve also only known about 6 women who I felt legitimately were in domestic abuse situations, but the press would have you believe it goes on in like 4/10 relationships.
That of course, is judging either by one’s own experience, from one’s own world with all its failsafes … or by some obscure article or statistic that appears to support what we already believe. In other words, doing one’s research.
At this point, I think we’ve gone well beyond the ‘clutching at straws’ stage. Even the Guardian writer seems to think that this is not helping the cause…
One of the challenges feminists face is having to constantly reiterate that, no, feminism has nothing to do with hating or belittling men. Feminism is about equal rights. And while this experiment was based on the valid and very important premise that male privilege manifests itself in even the most basic tenets of everyday life, it doesn’t follow that all the many microaggressions of city life are a direct result of that privilege.
Or even any of them.
Call me cynical, but manslamming seems to be more about a headline-friendly “trend” than a legitimate problem, and the latest iteration of a trend towards“experimental feminism” . It is a social media science whose results are not measured in an increase in women’s rights, but in click-throughs, video views, and – the holy grail – being accepted into the Oxford English Dictionary.
Yup, that’s modern feminism to a ‘T’.
Somewhere, in an urban newsroom filled with millennials, someone is trying to come up with the next great feminist experiment. Here’s one for free: manstraining; the act of having to squint your eyes really hard to find an affront to your daily experience as a woman, despite so many bigger ones to battle.
Heh! Well done, modern feminists – you’re starting to lose the ‘Guardian’…
There are other women’s persepctives too. This is typical: