Modern Feminists Don't Understand Equity
I recently came across another Gender Feminist attempt to define the differences between Equity Feminism and Gender Feminism. And as one would expect, they have little to no understanding of Equity Feminism or what makes Gender Feminism... well Gender Feminism.
In an article written by "Ampersand" back in 2005 for a blog called "ALAS! A Blog" we find truly astounding feats of either intentianal misrepresentation, mental gymnastics to not violate their own views, or a complete lack of understanding to such a degree it makes one question the authors mental faculties. Allow me explain further.
Defining the two types of Feminism
In this blog "Ampersand" does a 3 part post about Gender and Equity feminism, and getting most of it wrong of course. They even use quotes from the woman believed to have actually originated the two terms, Christina Hoff-Sommers. Whom she terms a Conservative Feminist. The following are some of the quotes they use.
Sommers on Gender Feminism:
The gender feminists (as I shall call them) believe that all our institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, perpetuate male dominance. … Gender feminists are constantly on the lookout for the smoking gun, the telling fact that will drive home to the public how profoundly the system is rigged against women. To rally women to their cause, it is not enough to remind us that many brutal and selfish men harm women. They must persuade us that the system itself sanctions male brutality. They must convince us that the oppression of women, sustained from generation to generation, is a structural feature of our society.
First, you'll notice that they use a ... in there to block out some of her comment, but the gist of this is still true with regards to modern day Feminism. At least as far the third wave Gender Feminists are concerned anyway, and how they view the societal structure.
Clearly Sommers is showing how Gender Feminism is to be defined in quite clear terms. Gender Feminism is a pervasive belief that women as a whole within society are being physically and sexually abused, actively oppressed, and treated unfairly economically, politically and socially by men. And further that our society as a whole condones, promotes, and actively allows such abuses to be perpetrated. Of course Gender feminism has a name for this system of oppression and abuse. They call these systemic and cultural societal practices they claim exist, The Patriarchy.
This is clear and easily understandable to anyone who's not a complete moron, or who is completely blinded by an ideology victimization. An Ideology that deprives women of authenticity and their Agency, meaning that the ideology of Patriarchy theory that Gender Feminists espouse proclaims women not having the capacity as individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Make no mistake, this is the sole meaning behind Patriarchy Theory, to remove agency from women so that they are not seen as individuals with full control over their own choices.
Sommers on Equity Feminists:
The traditional, classically liberal, humanistic feminism that was initiated more than 150 years ago was very different. It has a specific agenda, demanding for women the same rights before the law that men enjoyed. The suffrage had to be won, and the laws regarding property, marriage, divorce, and child custody had to be made equitable. More recently, abortion rights had to be protected. The old mainstream feminism concentrated on legal reforms. …
Most American women subscribe philosophically to that older "First Wave" kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education. A First Wave, "mainstream," or "equity" feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination.
You'll notice they again use ... to block out some of her comment, as would be expected. However, this is still an accurate depiction of Equity Feminism. As you can see, Equity Feminism is concerned with insuring that everyone is treated equally under the law regardless of gender. It is not centered on a gender centrist, ideological view like Gender Feminism is, but an ideological view centered on equality itself.
You'll also notice that Sommers doesn't claim that Equity Feminists push for governmental control over social behavior, the way Gender Feminists do. Equity feminists are concerned with equality of men and women, not just women at the expense of males the way modern, mainstream Gender Feminism does.
The blogger, "Ampersand," then goes on to try and explain how they see Sommers remarks as "incoherent" and how her definition "over laps" with gender Feminists. The following is from that blog post, and I am going to address them individually.
Note that the definitions are already a bit incoherent; although Hoff Sommers is trying to create two opposed categories, her definitions leave a lot of room for overlap. There is no contradiction, for example, between believing that "system is profoundly rigged against women" (gender feminists) and wanting "fair treatment, without discrimination, for everyone" (equity feminists).
First off, Sommers definition is not incoherent, they seem pretty detailed and easily understood to me. Whether you agree with her definitions or differentiation between the two matters little. Simply disagreeing with what someone says doesn't make their arguments incoherent, and it especially doesn't make them incoherent just because you don't understand them. Which sadly, most people who call themselves Feminists do not understand the differences. Thanks in large part to Gender Feminists like this one misinforming and distorting them.
Except for the fact that Gender Feminism makes the claim to want the things Equity Feminists do, the actions of Gender Feminists belie this claim. The belief that the "system is profoundly rigged against women" is not the view of Equity Feminists. Aside from the fact that such a view is completely female-centrist, implying that males cannot be adversely affected by the system as well, it is also an inaccurate account of the Equity Feminist view. And the view of first wave Feminism as well.
This claim is complete bullshit designed to mislead people, the intent of which is to hide the gender-centrist and bigoted views that most people would find reprehensible if Gender Feminists admitted to them. Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size will realize this the intent by the more active members.
To be clear, Equity Feminists do believe that in the past there were some societal expectations of women that were reinforced by laws that were wrong. These inequities however have for the most part been addressed, and Equity Feminists acknowledge this where Gender Feminists still claim to be fighting for voter rights, pay equity, and other such claims that have already been dealt with. Yet most of what Gender Feminists are always trying to address centers around either antiquated inequities that that no longer exist or individual instances of criminal behavior, physical and sexual abuse, and discrimination against women. All while trying to claim it is an acceptable and/or even condoned behavior and attitudes towards women in society at large.
The Ampersand goes on to state:
Ignoring the incoherence for a while, the two key differences in Hoff Sommers formulation seem to be that “gender feminists” believe that sexism against women is a widespread problem, found in virtually all our society’s institutions. In contrast, “equity feminists” apparently think that feminism’s only proper concern is legal equality – a goal that has been, to a significant extent, achieved in the USA – and there is absolutely no cultural or systemic bias against women.
Now in this one they finally have it right. Equity Feminists do not believe there is a cultural or systemic bigotry towards women. They do believe there are cases of individual bias and bigotry against women, because we have evidence of those, but a systemic and cultural bigotry toward women? No. To any logical or analytical mind it seems a bit far-fetched to claim a society that promotes "women and children first" for women, promotes a guilty until proven innocent narrative for crimes against women(especially sexual assault) while denying that these things happen to men is somehow biased against women either culturally or systemically. Let's look at some cultural and systemic examples of bias against women in America, let's see if this bias in favor of women or in opposition to women as Gender Feminists claim.
Domestic Violence and Abuse
First, let's examine violence against women claim. Now before we start let's make something clear. There is no doubt that there are individual cases of violence against women in the US. We know they exist, it does happen. That being said, the claim it is a culturally or systemically accepted or condoned behavior seems highly illogical to believe it is part of the governing system or societal views of acceptable behavior. There are an estimated 1500 women's shelters in the United States alone, with another over 1900 domestic violence programs identified by NNEDV(National Network to End Domestic Violence), most of which cater mostly to women. Some of which, if not a majority of which, are likely to be connected with these shelters.
If you'd like a first hand view of how society handles examples of violence against women by men as opposed to violence against men by women, watch this video by ABC's "What Would You Do": Violence In Public
You'll notice a real interesting behavior in the people walking by in that video, and it actually shows where the actual cultural acceptance of violence against which gender really is. For the majority of the people walking by, especially the women, you'll notice their indifference and even the logic behind not stepping in to help. Aside from the woman who actually takes active pleasure in seeing a man beaten by a woman(which you can tell by her smiling and celebratory behavior, not mention her "you go girl" when asked about her behavior), tends to be varied but all seem to center on one premise, the inherent guilt of the guy and the innocence of the female. Things like "he must have deserved it" or "I thought maybe he cheated on her" are common responses. And the reason for the ease people have with seeing a woman abuse a male can be found in not only the comment from the male off duty officer, "I was raised to not hit women" he says, yet he had no problem with the woman being obviously and violently abusive. Also from the other people like the woman who was walking her dog, who stated to the WWYD team "I didn't think she posed any real physical threat."
There is something else in that video that is surprising, at least for me. At the 1:20 second mark in the video you'll see them speaking to a Psychology professor named Carrie Keating. To quote Keating "It is a big problem in this country. Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do." After her statement you'll also see the host of "What Would You Do," John Quiñones, go on to say "Every year there are 800,000 serious cases of women abusing men." That's right, a yearly number of hundreds of thousands of cases of males being abused, not by other males but by females. And let us not forget, we live in a society where males reporting abuse at the hands of a female is more often than not met with ridicule, derision, and out right denial, so this number could conceivably be even higher if those males who didn't speak up actually did.
Yet how often do we see a domestic violence against men PSA? Have you ever seen a domestic violence advertisement that depicts a male victim being abused by a female abuser? Have you ever seen a movie about a male abuse victim standing up to his female abuser? Maybe Misery, but that's more obsession than domestic abuse? Movies about women standing up to or escaping from abusive males are plentiful. Movies like Enough starring Jennifer Lopez, Provoked starring Aishwarya Rai, Sleeping with the Enemy staring Julia Roberts, and many many others exist. I saw one movie in a list of domestic violence movies, which includes documentaries, that even addresses males being abused by women titled Men don't tell.
Documentaries like Sin of Silence, which portray females who murdered their spouses as victims instead of the murderers that they are, are an example of people trying to brand even female murderers as victims of men. Trying to give these women a pass for choosing murder by branding their spouses as abusers, instead of seeking the plethora of helpful services out there for women who are victims of domestic violence. It's just another example of American society's views of the acceptance of violence towards males in a cultural sense.
No one disputes that men who abuse women are despicable dogs, not in American society at any rate. But ask yourself this, how many documentaries have you seen that try to free male murderers who killed their spouses and blamed it on being abused? None, that's how many. Because as a culture we do not believe such a thing could happen.
To illustrate the double standard in society I have two video clips for anyone to watch. The are both from "The Talk" on an episode about 2 years ago, on a story about a woman who mutilated her husbands genitals.
Here's the first video: Male Genital Mutilation is "fabulous" - The Talk
This next video is their attempted apology: We're sorry we laughed, but not really - The Talk
The story itself is about a woman who drugged and bound her husband before cutting his penis off and putting it in the garbage disposal. And why did she do this? Because he dared to file for divorce. And the audience of "The Talk" was no better, with one woman in the audience saying "That'll teach him." when they were informed of why she actually did it. You can hear the audience hooting and cheering and laughing at all the jokes being told and celebratory behavior. Even Sharon Osborne who claims she didn't mean to offend anyone in her half-assed apology can be seen in the original video imitating a penis whirling around a garbage disposal and them mouthing "I love it" while others and the audience laugh.
There were no protests from Gender Feminists to have the show canceled nor were there calls for the females laughing so hysterically and celebrating male genital mutilation to be fired. Despite all the rhetoric and bullshit claims about how "Feminism helps men too" and how "Feminism is concerned with men's issues too" there was not so much as a peep from the Gender Feminist camp. Neither of these women were ever fired, and the show itself was not canceled. But we know that had this been a show of all men laughing and celebrating female genital mutilation they would be fired or the show would have been canceled. Especially after the half-assed and insincere apology they would offer later.
So when it comes to cultural or systemic acceptance of violence against women being an accepted behavior, we see the story is far different than the Gender Feminist arguments would have you believe. Gender Feminists will have you believe that female on male violence is either non-existent or is in such small numbers that it doesn't matter. So you have to wonder about a mentality or ideology that finds 800,000 serious cases of males being abused by women as non-existent or in too small of a number to matter. And wonder about the validity of a movement that claims to be equality, when their very actions show a female gender oriented focus alone.
Equity Feminists on the other hand realize that you cannot control the actions of individuals in cases of violence, whether it's against men or women. They also realize that trying to brand violence as systemically or culturally acceptable for men to abuse women(basically casting half of the worlds population as villains) and claiming men can't be victims of violence from females, helps no one. In fact it does more harm to society than it does good, because it makes the half of society you are branding as vile less likely to want to work with you. This is why Equity Feminists push for legislative equality ans not the Social Marxism espoused by Gender Feminists, because being treated equally under the law and advocating for social change that fosters less abuse by both sexes makes far more logical sense than trying to brand all males(including little boys) as abusers and rapists and all females(including little girls) as victims the way Gender Feminists have been doing.
Child Custody and Divorce Laws
The standard for child custody issues is generally "In the best interest of the child" when the courts try to decide on custody. While there is a shift towards joint custody there are still major issues, including the fact that this new view on joint custody still bases the custody on the gender role of females being the better caretakers of children. The majority of courts still believe that the majority of children are better off with the mother(biological connections) and not the father, even if the mother has no job and cannot support the children without monitary compensation through child support and/or alimony.
Then there is the issue of Alimony itself, which is often times a lifetime appointment. Because it's not enough that a woman can and most likely will retain the home and any automobiles because she's the primary custodial holder of the children, the now homeless ex-husband is forced to pay for a woman he is no longer with and will more than likely become near destitute himself because he no longer has a control over his own money to be able to provide for himself.
According to census records from 2010 for example, of the roughly 400,000 people receiving spousal support(alimony), only 3 percent were men. That's roughly 12,000 of males collecting alimony out of 400,000.
Given that priority for child custody is placed in the mother "in the best interest of the child," and given that property such as a house and/or car is more likely to be granted to the mother "in the best interest of the child," and given that roughly 12 out of every 400 alimony recipients who receive alimony in a divorce are male compared to roughly 388 out of every 400 alimony recipients who receive alimony are female it's hard to accept the view that the family courts biased towards women.
Gender Feminists believe there is nothing wrong with family courts and how they function, despite all of the evidence otherwise. All the while insisting that there is systemic and cultural prejudice and oppression with regards to women.
Equity Feminists on the hand acknowledge the inequalities with the family court system that is unfairly in favor of women and want to see this changed for true equity. And oppose gender role based bias in the courts.
Criminal Courts and Jail time
With regards to criminal courts, we also see an unfair bias towards men as opposed to women. If you commit a crime in American society, your best defense might just be your gender. If you're a female that is. According to studies men receive on average a much higher sentence than females. And one study that looks at conditional factors on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observable. Men receive over 60% higher or longer sentencing than women in fact, and for the exact same crime as men.(Source) This means that women, simply for being women, are given more favorable treatment than men in a systemic sense for criminal behavior. It also found that women were significantly likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if they were convicted. That must be really oppressive to women.
In a 2009 study it was suggested the reason for this disparity in sentencing stems from judges treating "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater care-taking responsibility." Meaning that because the system naturally favors the gender stereotypes that gender Feminists claim to fight against, the system is further rigged against men because this flaw in the system causes women to receive over 60% less of a sentence than a man would receive.
Gender Feminists see nothing wrong with this system either, unless pressed. At which point they'll either shrug it off as inconsequential and bring up abuse of women or simply deny it is true.
Equity Feminists on the other hand find this inequality to be deplorable.
Criminality and "Rape Culture"
This was just the first post of this idiotic and misleading blog. Now we're going to step into the second post. In this second posting we find that "Ampersand" has not only made false statements but applied faulty logic as well. They begin their second posting with the following:
How far do “equity feminists” go in denying that there’s any widespread problem of sexism for feminism to address in the US? Here’s Hoff Sommers describing the “equity feminist” view of rape. First, she points out that in prison – which is to say, in an environment where men have absolutely no access to women – male rape is common. The[n] she says:
Quoting Sommers actual words with:
"Equity feminists find it reasonable to approach the problem of violence against women by addressing the root causes of the general rise in violence and the decline in civility. To view rape as a crime of gender bias… is perversely to miss its true nature. Rape is perpetrated by criminals, which is to say, it is perpetrated by people who are wont to gratify themselves in criminal ways and who care very little about the suffering they inflict on others."
Before continuing with:
Hoff-Sommers acknowledges that most violent criminals are male, but dismisses this as uninteresting: “That most violence is male isn’t news. But very little of it appears to be misogynist.”
And that is the “equity feminist” view on rape, according to the woman who invented the term.
Here you see the blogger trying to bring the "rape culture" myth into the mix and using the fact that women get raped as proof of a systemic or cultural acceptance of females being raped being an acceptable part of the culture. Their intention here is to paint Equity Feminists, and Sommers in particular, as "rape apologists" or supporters of "rape culture" by trying to make it sound as though Sommers dismisses rape entirely.
The first thing you'll notice though is that this blogger tries to paint Sommers as a denier of sexism, which is not the case at all. Equity Feminists just do not push the dishonest and delusional belief that it is a systemically and culturally acceptable behavior, but instead admit that the sexism that does exist is more of an individual basis than a systemic one.
Then Ampersand goes claims to point out that Sommers "points out that in prison – which is to say, in an environment where men have absolutely no access to women – male rape is common." Well, wouldn't that make sense? In an environment with all males wouldn't it seem like male rape would be common? Something else you'll notice as well is that the blogger never addresses female rape and sexual assaults in female prisons. So pointing out males are the most common victims of rape where there are no females is not only stupid, but extremely dishonest.
You'll also notice that Sommers doesn't even address prison rape in the comment they do use. Only the criminal desire for self gratification, regardless of the damage done. The blogger actually does try to paint Sommers as if she's supporting the Gender Feminist narrative of "males are nothing but rapists" while trying to make her look like a rape apologist.
The blogger goes on to state:
What’s interesting to me is how, in bending over backwards to deny that rape has anything to do with gender bias, Hoff Sommers winds up not talking about rape at all, whinging on about “criminal violence” instead.
In this one sentence we see a number of fallacies taking place. First, we see her claiming Equity Feminists believe rape doesn't have a gender bias. They do. They just don't think that bias is based on one gender like Gender Feminists do. Equity Feminists believe the bias is more towards a power and weakness dynamic than a gender one. Male victims of sexual assault are far more common than Gender Feminists will have you believe, not to mention males who are raped never have what happens to them called rape. It's always called the more general sexual assault regardless of whether it was forced penetration or not. Rape is a gender-centrist classification of a crime.
Second, we see the blogger trying to deny that a majority of rapes are actually violent crimes. Even the ones that are by people they know are considered violent crimes, even if the woman was drugged or in some other manner incapacitated. The blogger is actually making the case that rape is not "criminal violence" because they explicitly state Sommers is no longer talking about rape when she calls it "criminal violence." So if Gender Feminists have a problem with rape being classified as criminal violence, one has to wonder what they want it classified as? A non-violent crime?
After this brief mental gymnastics to try and put Equity Feminists, and Sommers specifically yet again, in a rape apologist light they go on to talk about rape in prisons.
Yes, male-on-male rape is a serious problem (and a statistically huge problem in prison); but it’s not possible to seriously discuss causes and prevention of rape if we’re not willing to admit that – outside of environments where men are locked away from all access to women – rape is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men against women. And although all rapists are, by definition, criminals, the typical rapist isn’t a career criminal, but an acquaintance, boyfriend or husband of the victim. That’s the reality.
Now, this paragraph has a few flaws in it that need to be pointed out. First, is the fact that they disregard female prisons entirely again, as most of society does. But rapes of female prisoners actually do happen by other females in prison. The numbers are not as large as the male-on-male rape numbers for obvious reasons, such as women getting over 60% less jail time than men which results in fewer female prisoners.
Second we see them go on to claim that "outside of environments where men are locked away from all access to women – rape is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men against women." This claim has been disputed and even rebutted for decades. There are an estimated 40% of sexual assaults being male victims, which includes rape being perpetrated by females against males. It's very easy, and even dishonest, to try and claim "rape is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men against women." when sexual assaults of men, even forced to penetrate cases, aren't classified as rape.
Lara Stemple with the Health and Human Rights Law Project, and Ilan H. Meyer with the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, did a study that examined a 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently from 2010 through 2012. Their conclusion?
We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women.
That's right, sexual victimization among men is prevalent to those found among women. But it goes futher than this. They even stated that they identified the problematic reasons that factor into the disregard our society has for male victims of violence at the hands of females. In a 2010 study that was one of the ones Stemple and Meyer used found that when "forced to penetrate" were taken into account, the rates of non-consensual sexual contact(rape) basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence. Stemple and Meyer recommended "changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men." Meaning that the factors that gender Feminists ignore that prove the rhetoric of "rape is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men against women." to be false need to be changed. Factors such as reliance on traditional gender stereotypes or outdated and inconsistent definitions, among other things.
Eventually the "Ampersand" would go on to declare Equity Feminists and Sommers as delusional people who don't live in reality. Even going so far as to state:
But since dealing with reality would conflict with “equity feminist” ideology, Hoff Sommers chooses not to deal in reality. Instead, according to “equity feminism,” rape has to be understood as a subcategory of gender-neutral “violence” and a “decline in civility,” and therefore has nothing to do with women being attacked at all.
Of course Sommers, nor Equity Feminists in general, have ever implied rape has nothing to do with women being attacked at all. Their claim, contrary to the dishonest bloggers assertions, is that rape is not soley a female only crime and that to treat it as if it is the way Gender Feminists do is wrong. You can see the disdain the blogger has for rape not being a gender biased, female gender-centrist crime, meaning that treating it as the gender-neutral crime that it is makes you delusional or perhaps even a "rape culture" supporter.
So one has to wonder, given the actual data available that shows that if you include forced to penetrate sexual assaults in the equation of rape calculations the victim numbers are only .003 million apart.
Continuing First wave Feminism
The blogger calling themselves Ampersand would continue their misleading information about Equity Feminists and Gender Feminists in a third blog post. This one far larger than the two previously. "Ampersand" continues:
"Ironically, although self-dubbed “equity feminists” often say they’re continuing the traditions of first-wave feminism, it’s doubtful any first wave feminists would have signed on to an ideology so extreme in its pretense that feminism has nothing to say beyond formal legal equality that it believes that rape has nothing to do with misogyny or gender bias."
There's just one problem with the bloggers claims, and I have addressed this before. And regardless of how many times "Ampersand" tries to say it, doesn't make it true. Equity Feminists do not believe "that rape has nothing to do with misogyny or gender bias." They simply believe that the misogyny and gender bias isn't culturally or systemically acceptable in American, or in general western, society.
As for the claim "it’s doubtful any first wave feminists would have signed on to an ideology so extreme..." it would appear Ampersand has never studied history. First wave Feminists did not demand governmental enforcement of social standards the way Gender Feminists do. And of the two, Gender Feminism or Equity Feminism, I seriously doubt first wave Feminists would have willingly joined with a movement that is so female gender-centrist. In fact, as far back as the late 1700's you can find documents and writings by people who were "first wave" feminists, and all of their works centered on legislative equality between men and women. But none of their works advocated for government control over social behavior, or Political Correctness as we know it today, and in fact most of them abhorred such a practice.
Maybe Ampersand should look into first wave Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft, considered one of the first Feminist philosophers, who believed that both genders contributed to inequality. There is also a lot of literature before the 1920s that shows how first wave feminists felt about social behavior of both men AND women, and the treatment of both in society. Equity Feminists bear the standard of first wave feminism, and unlike the Gender Feminist claims, have the backing to prove it through historical records.
Eventually the blogger will go on to claim that Equity Feminism is an astonishingly narrow classification, doing so while once again claiming Equity feminists "do not perceive any social problem of anti-woman beliefs (a position very at odds with first-wave feminist thought, by the way), and who additionally think feminism’s only legitimate goal is formal equality under the law" Not only is this not the Equity feminist view, it's a complete lie to try and brand Sommers as unreasonable or stupid. Equity feminists acknowledge that in the era of First wave feminists there was a bias view towards women, as intellectually inferior to men, etc. But Equity Feminists also do not deny the part women themselves played in this social structure, and further than women's suffrage not only gave women the legal rights they deserved but showed that socially women and men were equals as well. Equity Feminists acknowledge these past "anti-women" views, but also acknowledge that these view has changed. In large part due to first wave feminism, as well as males in society realizing women are not the weak minded creatures they were believed to be who need a night in shining armor to save the day, which was also something women taught their children as well prior to first wave feminism.
Unlike their gender-centrist counterparts who have become the mainstream movement of modern feminism, Equity Feminists do not deny the hand women had in the creation of societies perceived roles for men and women. Gender Feminists on the other wish to erase this view from history, to portray women as the weak minded and helpless victims of male dominance. Gender Feminists, like this blogger, are a regression to an age before first wave feminism when women in general were thought to be too weak and too fragile to have agency. This despite their claims otherwise.
We see this with the creation of "safe spaces" in college campuses that have coloring books and other childish ideas of expression. The idea of safe spaces is a good one in theory, but when put into practice we see a gender-centric ideology pushed. An ideology that brands any criticism as harassment and any discussions that might make someone "uncomfortable" as harmful. This new ideology of weak mindedness is part of the reason American society is slowly regressing to a more bigoted and harmful form of society. A place where speaking freely and openly can be punishable by fines, imprisonment, or even death. Western society hasn't reached this place yet, thankfully. But it's working on it, in large part due to Gender Feminists. All anyone has to do is look at the new call for what I term "cyber book burning" where Gender Feminists have gone before governmental agencies, including the UN, and called for mass censorship.
Ampersand ends with this idiotic comment:
"I can see why this approach is ideologically attractive to conservatives and anti-feminists; what I can’t see is how such an approach can be anything but intellectually vapid."
The fact that "Ampersand" and others can't see how their own bias has blinded them to reality and causes them to push antiquated and outdated ideological thought is just one issue with Gender Feminism. The fact that these lunatics can actually think that including Kim Gandy, Andrea Dworkin, and Mary Daly means there something wrong with the designation of Gender Feminism only goes to prove they have no clue what it means. Anyone, regardless of how extreme, that espouses a gender-centrist, female focused ideology and calls themselves a Feminist is a Gender Feminist. Anyone who tries to claim men are not subject to rape by being forced to penetrate against their will, who denies the inequalities in the legal system as well as the societal acceptance of abuse towards men, is a Gender Feminist.
Equity Feminists are rational thinkers who look at data, statistics, and facts. Equity Feminists realize you can't legislate social behavior through mandated social engineering. Equity Feminists realize you cannot claim to be for equality between men and women, and then make female empowerment your sole focus. Because when you do these things, you ignore the damage you do to the people you consider the "other" or the "enemy" or women. And Equity Feminists know this, Gender Feminists on the other hand either can't see this or just don't care.
No comments:
Post a Comment