That’s a pretty lousy explanation of Feminism. It reveals Feminism’s hypocrisy but reveal the root motives of the movement at all. It mistakes Feminism for “just another Democratic group”, when that’s not the case at all.
Feminism’s purpose is to destroy the traditional family (in which women are seen as “trapped” in a gender role) and relace the husband with the State.
Abortion at whim, welfare, free childcare and education, no-fault divorce and alimony, date rape (or lack-of-condom rape) laws, and cultural attacks on wives and motherhood are all part of the program. They exist to given women absolute discretion in who they sleep with and have children by, without having to ever take into account such things as loyalty to a husband, playing a gender role that complements her husband’s role, or harm to their “reputation.”
The price paid by children in all this is never considered.
Meanwhile all attempts by men to have any power or say in the above circumstances must be opposed in all cases. Paternity testing? Bad. Presumption of innocence in rape trials? Bad. Fathers automatically getting shared custody? Really bad. Income testing for alimony? Awful. Fault-only divorce? “What is this? The Middle Ages?”
That is Feminism. It’s Communism with a gender elite.
Sounds like a bunch of old maids with little else to do, to me. r
Dont forget that even if you are a properly trained leftist male feminist, if you sleep with more than one feminist at a time, they will accuse you of rape. So don’t love the feminists too much or you will be a sexist…
On a more sober note, I highly recommend Christina Hoff Somer’s Who Stole Feminism? if you want to hear what a sane feminist (yes, there is such a thing) thinks about the state of feminism. It’s several years old but still accurate (unfortunately).
It’s actually pretty simple. Feminism is a union. You know, like the AFL-CIO, UAW, AFSCME, SEIU and so on.
There are/were some legitimate reason why, say, industrial workers need/needed a union. Oh, perhaps there are some libertarians or others who could set me straight that the conditions of wage laborers were an improvement over the rural farm economy it replaced, and so on, but let’s just say George M Pullman wasn’t the nicest guy, just maybe, and industrial workers got the short end of the stick.
So, the workers are exploited and downtroden and someone is getting rich off of them. What to do about it? Well, form a union.
I guess a union is a good idea at some level, but it comes an institution with a life of its own and a need to justify its existence, and pretty soon you have that Trumka fellow speaking on TV (is there some finishing school you go to sound like a union official), denouncing the continuation of the Bush tax rates “for the rich.” I mean what is it to the union people that some rich guy keeps more of his money, provided that union contracts are negotiated and adhered to — so like what is Mr. Trumka’s problem?
So women, as a class are/were downtrodden, and feminism is the union. So what does it mean when some lefty guy calls himself a “feminist”, does that mean he is a girl? Well, no, but I suppose if women are in the union, men are then management and sit on the opposite side of the table and cannot belong to the union and be feminists, but a suppose some guys are pro-union, others are indifferent, and yet others take a hard anti-union line.
And women who are not feminists — does that mean they are guys? Well no, some people who could be in the union are skeptical of the union or feel the union does not serve their interests, and they get called scabs, or in the case of women, things I won’t mention here as Rand is running a family-friendly Web site.
And as a union, feminism jumps the shark and becomes hard left whether it has anything to do with the interests of women (as a class) or not.
And women who are not feminists — does that mean they are guys?
No, it means they haven’t achieved class consciousness.
And women who are not feminists — does that mean they are guys?
I guess the feminists consider them scabs, which explains a lot of the off the wall hostility.
Do none of you have a sense of humor? This was hilarious. Lighten up.
I thought it was funny. I mean, those basically are the dead-end talking points you’ll get from the useful idiots.
That’s a pretty lousy explanation of Feminism. It reveals Feminism’s hypocrisy but reveal the root motives of the movement at all. It mistakes Feminism for “just another Democratic group”, when that’s not the case at all.
Feminism’s purpose is to destroy the traditional family (in which women are seen as “trapped” in a gender role) and relace the husband with the State.
Abortion at whim, welfare, free childcare and education, no-fault divorce and alimony, date rape (or lack-of-condom rape) laws, and cultural attacks on wives and motherhood are all part of the program. They exist to given women absolute discretion in who they sleep with and have children by, without having to ever take into account such things as loyalty to a husband, playing a gender role that complements her husband’s role, or harm to their “reputation.”
The price paid by children in all this is never considered.
Meanwhile all attempts by men to have any power or say in the above circumstances must be opposed in all cases. Paternity testing? Bad. Presumption of innocence in rape trials? Bad. Fathers automatically getting shared custody? Really bad. Income testing for alimony? Awful. Fault-only divorce? “What is this? The Middle Ages?”
That is Feminism. It’s Communism with a gender elite.
Sounds like a bunch of old maids with little else to do, to me. r
Dont forget that even if you are a properly trained leftist male feminist, if you sleep with more than one feminist at a time, they will accuse you of rape. So don’t love the feminists too much or you will be a sexist…
On a more sober note, I highly recommend Christina Hoff Somer’s Who Stole Feminism? if you want to hear what a sane feminist (yes, there is such a thing) thinks about the state of feminism. It’s several years old but still accurate (unfortunately).
It’s actually pretty simple. Feminism is a union. You know, like the AFL-CIO, UAW, AFSCME, SEIU and so on.
There are/were some legitimate reason why, say, industrial workers need/needed a union. Oh, perhaps there are some libertarians or others who could set me straight that the conditions of wage laborers were an improvement over the rural farm economy it replaced, and so on, but let’s just say George M Pullman wasn’t the nicest guy, just maybe, and industrial workers got the short end of the stick.
So, the workers are exploited and downtroden and someone is getting rich off of them. What to do about it? Well, form a union.
I guess a union is a good idea at some level, but it comes an institution with a life of its own and a need to justify its existence, and pretty soon you have that Trumka fellow speaking on TV (is there some finishing school you go to sound like a union official), denouncing the continuation of the Bush tax rates “for the rich.” I mean what is it to the union people that some rich guy keeps more of his money, provided that union contracts are negotiated and adhered to — so like what is Mr. Trumka’s problem?
So women, as a class are/were downtrodden, and feminism is the union. So what does it mean when some lefty guy calls himself a “feminist”, does that mean he is a girl? Well, no, but I suppose if women are in the union, men are then management and sit on the opposite side of the table and cannot belong to the union and be feminists, but a suppose some guys are pro-union, others are indifferent, and yet others take a hard anti-union line.
And women who are not feminists — does that mean they are guys? Well no, some people who could be in the union are skeptical of the union or feel the union does not serve their interests, and they get called scabs, or in the case of women, things I won’t mention here as Rand is running a family-friendly Web site.
And as a union, feminism jumps the shark and becomes hard left whether it has anything to do with the interests of women (as a class) or not.
And women who are not feminists — does that mean they are guys?
No, it means they haven’t achieved class consciousness.
And women who are not feminists — does that mean they are guys?
I guess the feminists consider them scabs, which explains a lot of the off the wall hostility.
Do none of you have a sense of humor? This was hilarious. Lighten up.
I thought it was funny. I mean, those basically are the dead-end talking points you’ll get from the useful idiots.