The harm that feminism has done 7

When a whole whimper of western women sex-changed into feminists – starting in the 1960s – they did not give up dependency, they simply switched from being dependent on a husband to being dependent on the state.

It was a bad move. It is generally far easier to negotiate for your wants with a single person whose life and comfort is bound up with your own, than with an indifferent bureaucracy.

Feminism is a Leftist movement – the ideology or faith of the Left being the belief that government, like a god who commands all the resources of the world and can forever pluck more out of the infinite, must and will supply your every need: cradle you, coddle you, teach you, care for you, shelter and protect you, and so give you joy.

The model American “woomin” in this dreary long age of Obama, is a fictitious feminist named Julia. Julia Government is her married name. Her channel of communication with her remote, powerful, immaterial spouse is gov dot com. She signals her needs to him, and he responds with grants and services throughout her life.

She has a child with his indirect assistance. She does not have to stay at home to care for it as women used to do. Government raises and educates it in the Faith. And to keep her occupied and in pocket, Government grants her a little business of her own – not too lucrative, nothing that would make an obscene private-sector type profit!

Generations of children have now grown up nurtured in the cold bosom of the state. Each generation is smaller than the last. “Wimmin” don’t see the point of having them, actually. And Government provides almost free contraception. And Planned Parenthood provides cheap abortions. So let the human species dwindle. It’s bad for the planet anyway.

And besides – life, the feminists say, is not all it’s cracked up to be.

So why don’t you try going back to the old ways, wimmin? Share a marriage bed with a person? Bear more children, raise them, teach them, enjoy making them happy and letting them make you happy?

No, no!, the feminists reply, we would be housebound. We would have to give the best years of our lives to changing diapers, and cooking, and putting clothes in washing machines!

Instead of?

Instead of what we’re doing now.

Which is?

Copulating with anyone we want when we want; accusing men of rape whether they’ve done it or not; having the occasional abortion; running a little business on a grant; or working for our master, the Government. You know – all that.

No downside to all that?

Well, (the wimmin tell us, deeply resenting our hostile questioning), even if being married to the state has its drawbacks, at least (they say, singing in their chains like the sea) – at least we’re free!

*

It profits me but little, after all, that a vigilant authority always protects the tranquility of my pleasures and constantly averts all dangers from my path, without my care or concern, if this same authority is the absolute master of my liberty and my life. – Alexis de Tocqueville

Bruce Thornton quotes that wise saying in an article at Front Page, from which we extract these points:

California recently passed a law requiring that sexual encounters between students in universities and colleges can proceed only on the basis of “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement”. Failure to resist or to ask the partner to stop the encounter can no longer be taken as consent. Institutions that wish to receive state funds or financial aid must adhere to this standard when investigating charges of “sexual assault”, a phrase redefined to include behaviors once considered boorish or insensitive, but not legally actionable. The California law follows on the 2011 Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s “dear colleague” letter that instructed schools investigating sexual assault complaints to use the “more likely than not” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard of evidence rather than the “clear and convincing” one.

The dangers to individual privacy and accountability that follow such regulatory intrusions into sexual intimacy between legal adults have been well documented, not the least being the violation of the rights of the accused, who now enter a hearing with a presumption of guilt rather than of innocence. Also problematic is the double standard inherent in such rules, particularly when both accuser and accused are drunk or otherwise incapacitated. …

The feminists’ championing of sexual autonomy for women reached a head in the 1960s. Before the modern age, sex was seen as a necessary but dangerous force that, if left uncontrolled, not just impaired the mind, but also destroyed whole civilizations. It was the illicit sexual passion of Paris and Helen that “burnt the topless towers” of Troy, as Christopher Marlow wrote. As such, sex had to be contained and channeled by social practices and cultural institutions. Virtues, taboos, and especially marriage all attempted to direct sexual energy to its most socially important goal, procreation and the family. …

By the late nineteenth century, many social and cultural developments had undermined this traditional sexual realism. Over the following decades, in the work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and numerous others, sex was [regarded as] a natural phenomenon that science could understand and hence make more enjoyable and less damaging. The destructive effects of sex, in this view, were not inherent, but the consequence of repressive social institutions …

In the sixties, Cultural Marxism interpreted traditional limits on sexual behavior as the instruments of oppression and conformity, reinforcing the “false consciousness” that perpetuated the ruling class and its power.

Breaking sexual taboos and experiencing sexual pleasure thus became acts of liberation, leading to self-fulfillment and personal freedom.

Feminism embraced this notion of sexual liberation. The autonomy of women depended on their casting off the shackles of patriarchal misogyny most evident in male control of women’s sexuality – “our bodies, ourselves” became the battle cry. Women should have the equal power to choose sexual experiences and pleasure, and the unjust double standards that gave men but not women sexual autonomy should be discarded. The biological differences between men and women, especially nature’s subjection of women’s bodies to the relentless imperatives of procreation, were now discarded as arbitrary, unjust impediments to women’s freedom and autonomy. This process was moved along by the new technologies of reliable birth control and accessible and safe abortion.

In the ensuing decades, however, the malign consequences of sexual liberation became increasingly manifest – the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases, the wider access to demeaning pornography, and the explosion of out-of-wedlock childbirth and the attendant social dysfunctions that follow from children being raised without fathers.

Even for more privileged women, there were psychological costs to be paid for contending with male sexual predators and absolving them of responsibility for their behavior, given that now men and women were equally in control of their sexual choices, and that the traditional mores once enshrining male responsibility, such as chivalry, had been dismissed as patronizing and sexist.

But as the years passed, many women began to discover that there are indeed differences between men and women and their experiences of sex. Liberation did not lead to the sexual utopia of carefree and cost-free pleasure, but to the guilt, regret, and humiliation that follow being used as an object for somebody else’s transient enjoyment.

The response to these ill effects was to create rules and codes designed to eliminate the negative consequences of sexual freedom. But contrary to the assumptions of lawmakers who want to regulate sexual behavior, sex is not a game like tennis that can be pleasurable for the players provided the rules are followed. As Camille Paglia has pointed out, when it comes to sex, the more appropriate metaphor is to the old Roman arena, where there was no law. An act that is so physically and psychologically complicated, and that exposes our most intimate longings and hidden selves, cannot be rationalized and made cost-free, or its unpleasant effects neutralized, by reducing it to a “voluntary agreement” in which the terms and conditions are spelled out and followed as in a contract. …

Faced with the costs of sexual liberation, [feminists chose] to demand that the state use its coercive power to protect women not just from insensitive men, but from the consequences of their own choices. Sexual harassment law is the most widespread expression of this impulse to use the tutelary state to defend women from a “hostile and intimidating” environment. The vulgar joke or boorish innuendo is now not just a violation of social decorum, but a crime subject to law and punishment.

But nothing infantilizes women more than the sexual codes promulgated by numerous universities. Obviously, sexual assault properly defined is a crime that should be investigated and the guilty punished. But getting drunk and then sleeping with an equally intoxicated partner is not a crime. It’s a learning experience about taking responsibility for one’s actions, and practicing the virtues of prudence and self-control. …

At the same time that feminists still call for unlimited sexual freedom, they treat women as Victorian maidens who lack agency and resources of character, and thus must be defended against sexual cads and bounders. As the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald puts it, this “new order is a bizarre hybrid of liberationist and traditionalist values. It carefully preserves the prerogative of no-strings-attached sex while cabining it with legalistic caveats that allow females to revert at will to a stance of offended virtue.”

This strange demand for absolute freedom without responsibility for one’s choices is not just a symptom of feminism. It reaches into our broader culture. It has become the enabler of the entitlement state, which justifies its growing size and regulatory power over people’s lives by promising to protect them not just from the vicissitudes of life, but from the consequences of their own choices … Thus the feminist demand for government-subsidized birth control and abortion is of a piece with government bailouts for homeowners who over-borrowed on the equity of their homes or lied on their mortgage applications.

The demand for personal freedom without accountability contradicts the foundational philosophy of our republic. The right to liberty is not the right be absolved from the consequences of one’s actions. Taking that responsibility is what makes one worthy of freedom and equal to others who likewise must be accountable for their actions.

  • Dale Jensen

    Feminism is based on the idea that gender is a “social construct”; the favorite expression of the Left. (They also think race is a social construct.) This is the consequence of the Left’s view that there are no absolutes and that no objective classifications can be made epistemically. The Left are skeptics at root.

    But further, Feminism argues that there is no innate biology underlying gender and that it is all oppressively imposed by an evil patriarchy, actually an evil white patriarchy. This idea that there is no biological and innate grounding to human nature is endemic to the Left. “We are born free but everywhere we are in chains.” Thus society must be socially engineered to combat paternalistic injustice. This leads to the Left’s war on men and by extension white heterosexual non-Leftist men; the real enemy of the Left, the enemy they wish to destroy and eradicate.

    There is a dominance / submissive dynamic built into human sexuality. IMO, there is no psycho-sexual equality between the genders. That is liberal / libertarian nonsense. There is an inevitability to patriarchy which is just built into the human species. And we are seeing the destructiveness of giving women the freedoms and power that they currently have. A true Conservative society would RESTRAIN women especially their sexuality because if you allow women to act on their emotions of lust then you will get a race to the bottom and men will become weak and perverted, which is exactly what men have become; ie decadent.

    Lastly this idolization of Ayan Ali Hirsi amongst “Conservatives” is ridiculous. She is a black liberal woman. She is no Conservative. Further, I personally hate when white “Conservatives” try to rely on non-whites and women to fight the Left. That always backfires. In the end the only way you will ever defeat the Left is if white males regain their balls and end up fighting AS white males. Incidently, I think Feminism as a whole can be thought of as one major shit test by white women against white men and white men have failed. (Women do these fitness tests automatically and subconsciously by their nature. Its their way to test for the strength of the males that pursue them. That feminism and liberalism / libertarianism has been allowed to rise shows that modern Western man is weak.)

    Women need strong dominant men to lead them as they are incapable of leading themselves or of leading a civilization. Allowing “female liberty” is paving the way for civilizational destruction. There are parameters for a healthy civilization. Female suffrage, easy divorce, the welfare state, alimony, contraception, sexual freedoms and sex outside of marriage all fall outside those parameters. A true Conservative movement would know that the way to save civilization is to restrain women; benevolently (not like the Islamic world) but restrain them nevertheless.

    • What a lot of crap you talk and think, Dale Jensen. I won’t bother to reply to you point by point. You take little bits of fact and sense and build hideous superstructures on them.

      But one correction I must make to your Nazi-type nonsense: Ayaan Hirsi Ali has described herself often as an atheist and a libertarian, and she manifestly holds Western conservative values. She is deeply erudite and well informed, a brilliant intellectual, a clear thinker, a great communicator, and heroically courageous on top of all that. By denigrating her you convey nothing but your own petty racist hatred and envy.

      Please stop telling us your disgusting opinions.

  • Sean R.

    I believe in volitions for all humanity, instead of “paternalism”, however though with regards to feminism, there’s elements that’s strongly leaned towards the hard-left, and they’re elements of feminism that doesn’t correlate with the left (or with the right) that focuses on legit stuff that are a sequitur. The part of feminism that’s hijacked by the left wing is a methodology called “postmodernism”, where there’ve have their focus on stuff that are “trivial”.
    I think the real feminists out there are Ayaan Hirsi-Ali and Kola Boof (she’s also a womanist) and some others here and there who I’m not to familiar with, they’re not postmodernists, or relativists from any stripe (moral and cultural), they also call out the mistreatment of women across the Muslim and Arab world in the Middle East, where Muslim males persecute and discriminate towards them, repress their sexual-freedoms by maintaining the “status-quo” of male-supremacy patriarchy.

    • Thank you for your comment, Sean R.

      Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing a great job, speaking for the oppressed women of Islam. She’s a penetrating thinker, a fine writer, erudite, brilliant, fluently articulate in several languages. Kola Boof is a very different sort of person, more in the business of glamor and publicity than intellectual persuasion.

      Patriarchy arose naturally, not as the result of some conspiratorial plot among men. Men are and always will be the stronger and therefore the dominating sex. Does seeing that make me a “manist”? What is a “womanist”? I hadn’t heard of such a thing until I read your comment.

      • Sean R.

        You’re quite welcome Ms. Becker,
        When you said that: men are the strongest specie-gender amongst the human-race, you’re using analytics and logics, meaning that from a physical argumentum, woman on the other hand are good and great when it comes to agility and speed.
        And about womanism, I didn’t hear the terminology until I became friends with someone on Facebook (who’s a white female, and a transgendered woman/LGBT), who’s friends with thee “Kola Boof” herself, the meaning of “womanism” is the theory that’s pretty much rooted in racial and gender oppression and persecutions of black women (me personally, I support humanity in general, regardless what pigmented-race, gender, sexual-identity, religion/irreligious, etc.). This philosophy is a social change perspective based on the daily issues of black women and other women of minority groups (and also white women as well), which is akin to seek methods to eradicate inequalities not just for women-of-color, but for all folks globally!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanism

        • I followed the link you have given us, and read about “Womanism” (in Wikipedia).

          Sean R., it is important that people should be treated equally by the Law. There is no other sense in which people can be “equal”. Only tyranny – force – can make people equal in possessions or income. Every one of us is different from everyone else. This one is more beautiful, that one can jump higher, that one is stronger, that one is cleverer, that one can invent things, this one can sing … and so on. We need to be free to achieve what we can. If you work hard and get a reward for it – say a cash bonus – you should not have it taken away from you and given to someone else who did not work for it. That would be unjust. For a society to be prosperous – well housed, well fed, well educated – it needs to be free; every person free to use his or her personal talent and energy to achieve the best he or she can. – for themselves and also for their dependents of course, because being responsible for those who are dependent on you is as important as being self-reliant. So before all else there must be the condition of freedom. Individuals can take advantage of that freedom to achieve what they want for themselves. Women can do this as well as men – in a free society. In a free society it cannot matter what any grown up person’s ethnicity is, or their gender, or their color, or their age, or their class. If you can do something well, do it – sell it for what others will pay for it. Who cares if someone else is doing his own thing and making less or more money? Every poor person in a free country is a potential millionaire.

          If I were you, I’d throw away all those words: “post-modernism”, “feminism”, “womanism”. They mean nothing. Just think for yourself, rely on yourself, make sensible choices. Don’t expect government to do anything much for you. Almost everything a government does, it does badly. What it gives you it can keep from you. The more dependent you are on it, the more power it has over you. Joining a movement will not help you – it will just take up time you could be spending increasing your income, or enjoying being with your family and friends.

          Forgive me if I’ve told you only what you know already. I don’t mean to preach, only to state my view of things. I do not agree with Alice Walker. I do agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

          And I wish you well.

  • liz

    Great points made here. The “chickens are coming home to roost” for the left.