What is Feminism?
I found a paper I wrote a couple years ago before I was writing regular. My stance on the issue has evolved, but in light of recent discussions here I am posting it. I feel some of the content I still stand by. Some my theories and education in the area has evolved since writing this a couple of years ago. This is from a point where I was not yet looking at womanism. Enjoy…
What is feminism? According to Merriam Webster it is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, or organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. Those simple statements can be dissected to shed a great deal on the subject. What is political equality? What is economic equality? What is social equality? What are a woman’s rights? And what exactly is in the best interest of women?
Despite great advances in politics and society in regards to women there remain many points that seem to still be in need of advancement. Much of culture is founded on the male dominant structure created and paved for ages. This may be intentional or unintentional that point is null. What is relevant is the fact that it does happen and exist. Cultural bias expectations still seem to paint certain roles which men and women have certain places. The primaries and presidential campaign in 2008 can be telling with this in the way candidates and issues were handled, perceived and treated. There is a common misconception that feminism consists of women trying to be like men, or take on male aspects.
Feminism is a logical dedication as well as a political movement seeking justice for women as well as the end to all forms of sexism. However, with feminism branching in so many directions that many disagree on not only what sexism is, but how and what should be done to bring about the equality and social class that gave birth to the cause. Feminists disagree about the implications of what gender roles has to play as well as what social and political rules apply to both men and women. Through the origins of society and culture men have dominated. They have molded society to their benefit and mindset. Even Aristotle placed women in a lower classification with slaves. This mindset was educated and dominant in politics, logic, health, and almost every other topic. The evolution of these thought processes can be seen as something that has been handed down from generation to generation. Little girls see mothers put into these roles and abiding by these cultural concepts. They see fathers falling into the gender roles that were dictated to them, and begin to conceive their purpose for existence as such. They took on these roles such as domestic help, cooking, cleaning, and raising children as their main purpose. Male and female roles have changed in culture over time, but much is still to be done in these areas.
One philosophy is Radical feminism, which emphasizes the deep roots of injustice between the sexes. Radical feminism views the division of privileges; power and rights between the sexes as oppressing women and favoring men. The radical feminists are more aggressive to their method of opposing the existing political and social structure as well as their support for social change.
A single parent household has become commonplace in culture, and men have given up roles of responsibility all too often. Some may ask about a concept such as chivalry. If a woman wishes to be equal why should a man open a door for her? Feminism is not attempting to destroy respect that a woman does receive. Men should not approach it with a mindset that is angered or threatened in a manner to take such respects from a woman. This concept could possibly begin to work both ways with respect to human beings as a whole instead of becoming a point of anger or discourse. Truly opening a door is trivial compared to the larger picture.
Some important concepts in feminist theory are social class, work, human rights, and popular culture. Are women given equal treatment in there areas? Are they dominated by men? Have men traditionally been given the opportunities? Education, work, recognition, and opportunities to excel in most areas seem to have been historically male dominant. This gives us a basis for knowledge, education, art, and most areas of academia that is founded with masculine concepts. Would it not be better for knowledge and education as a whole to begin to infuse concepts with a wider range while not throwing out what we have currently? Feminism is about equality across the board not dominance of one over another. Dominance is in itself a masculine concept, and a historical which reason women were put into a place they are.
Here are some concepts that need to be evaluated in culture. A woman often sees their purpose as being an individual whose children depend upon for care. As time progresses the children grow independent leaving a woman without her purpose in life. Masculine concepts are seen as rational and stable while the feminist perspective is seen as emotional and often unstable irrationality. Perhaps concepts of logic and rationality need to be explored further from the female perspective. This warrants further consideration. Does one gender excel or is one genders perspective accepted while the other is not? The later is the proper perspective on which to further focus. Often from childhood through adulthood women find themselves scaling down goals and desires for life to fit a more acceptable or realistic logical life in culture. This in itself presents a problem (Meyers, 04).
Susan James describes feminism as: “Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. Under the umbrella of this general characterization there are, however, many interpretations of women and their oppression, so that it is a mistake to think of feminism as a single philosophical doctrine, or as implying an agreed political program.” (James 2000, 576)
Often through society this sexism and male dominance was not seen, and not done with intent but driven by an underline prejudice that was not obvious to many. People accepted culture as it was as the way things were and did not see need for change or fault with it. Most were almost incapable of seeing any problem or inequality at all. This is seen in even our language, and wording. Many terms of masculinity have been adopted as slang and proper English in a positive light while many feminine terms have been taken with a negative connotation. Why would a concept of femininity be seen as undesirable compared to a masculine concept? This is a perfect example of this sexism most seem to not see.
Olype de Gouges in 1791 published the Declaration of rights of women and citizens. When she wrote this, she took her inspiration from the 1789 Declaration of the National Assembly, which took the declaration and extended its rights to women. Olype de Gouges both affirmed the women’s competence to both reason as well as deal with moral decisions, taking into account women’s qualities for emotion and empathy, stating that women were not only the same as man but was equally his partner.
Somewhere along the way select men and women have lost sight of the concepts presented by feminist thinking and have been drawn astray. Some see feminism as woman dominating over man and less an equality of all. Some see a concept of a woman taking on male ideas and male life styles throwing away the unique feminism perspectives. The best example of this would be in pornography. Some will say it empowers women. Women have degraded themselves for their exploitation by men. They see liberation to take off clothing and exposing ones self as taking charge, and some women have lost sight of basic morality by taking on the chauvinist concepts and flaws of men (Levey, 06).
To look at a modern example one can turn to the current political arena. In the 2008 elections two women stand in the lime light as candidates that stuck out to most Americans. These women are Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Both have been examined with this male stereotype of what a woman is to be. Their fashion and child rearing have constantly been brought to light as subjects of their qualifications. Why is it one rarely focuses on a male politicians ability to raise children but a woman is automatically assumed to be responsible for this even in current politics?
during a speech of Hilary Clinton guys would have the nerve to shout “Iron my Shirt”, the scary fact is that It didn’t seem to bother the media, women or anyone else for that matter. This show’s disrespect as well as discrimination to all women not just women of power look at the way Sarah Palin has been ridiculed for anything that she says regarding her family her life or her career, society looks at her as though she is some dingy white girl getting buy on her looks, not the accomplishment’s she has achieved. Some people predict that in 2012 could be two women running for president basically plain versus Clinton. Due to fact of the possibility of McCain wins he would be extremely old to want to run for reelection. So that would leave Clinton and Plain as America’s two favorites. However the day men allow women to run the country pigs may fly; women have not gained all the equality from men as well as other women that are one of the reasons Obama beat out Hilary. The only reason Clinton got as far as she did in the election is because of her husband, Mrs. Clinton had four different groups of voter’s first group are dedicated feminists who have been a Clinton follower from the very beginning, the second group look at it as a package deal we get two presidents for the price of one. This meaning if Hillary becomes president bill comes with her, third groups are racist who would do anything to keep a black man out of the white house and then the fourth group doesn’t really care either way they are not pro life or feminist, with saying this the fourth group could easily sway to the plain side because these voters see her as a woman and someone who didn’t have someone so closely connected to the white house, the press believes she appeals to the single mom which is 27 percent of the national vote.
Leroy, Margaret. Pleasure: The Truth about Female Sexuality. London: Harper Collins, 1993.
Levey, Ariel. chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunchy culture New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2006
Frye, Marilyn. The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Berkley, CA:The Crossing Press,1983
Porter, Marilyn. Home, Work and Class Consciousness. Great Britain: Manchester University Press, 1983.
Meyers Diana, (2004). Feminist Perspectives on the Self. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-self
4:55 pm
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are”
– Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” –Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
Feminism is about Privilege and Supremacy for women, mostly achieved through utilizing the power of the State.
I will give some credit to “First-Wave Feminism” as being more about equal opportunity for everyone. After that, Feminism devolved into a crass power grab, getting more and more depraved as the years have gone by.
Feminism, as a group, has fought for and achieved supremacy for women in nearly every area of society. Examples:
1. Law Enforcement and Justice: Across the board, women get lesser prison sentences than men for the same crimes. Women enjoy the protections of the Violence Against Women Act, despite that both men and women experience domestic violence at about the same rates. Women commit the majority of child abuse in the country. And men are far more likely to be victims of violence in our society overall. Women are able to accuse men of rape and with protection and anonymity from Rape Shield laws, thus denying the accused male to confront his accuser. On the other hand, Feminists oppose prosecuting False Rape Accusers for their lies, though an accused man’s life is often ruined. Feminism has jerry-rigged a vast amount of privilege in the court system. Feminism = Supremacy for Women.
2. Reproductive Rights: Feminists scream and holler on a daily basis about female reproductive rights, yet they deny that men have any reproductive rights at all. A woman can: Tell her lover she is on birth control, when she isn’t. Poke holes in condoms. Gather sperm from used condoms, and impregnate herself with it. Gather sperm in her mouth from oral sex, and impregnate herself with it. In all cases, if conception results, the man becomes liable for child support. On the other hand, women can get an abortion, offer baby for adoption, drop a baby off at a hospital and walk away, keep the baby. The father has NO CHOICE in any of these circumstances. Feminists also defend the rights of women to defraud and cuckold their spouses, and have a history of opposing paternity testing. Feminism opposes the reproductive rights of men. Feminism = Supremacy for Women.
3. Circumcision: The genital mutilation of boys is condoned and even vocally supported by Feminists touting debunked claims about it lessening spread of disease. Foreskins are also used in beauty treatments for women. Source: http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/111805/your_babys_foreskin_makes_you Circumcision is done improperly millions of times every year, causing damage to the boy’s urethra. (I suffer from this.) Furthermore, removing the foreskin reduces a great deal of the physical satisfaction a man can experience from intercourse. Feminists across the country smile and nod as millions of boys are symbolically castrated, yet imagine the collective nuclear freakout from Feminists if the same was done to girls. But hey, so long as the women get to look pretty with foreskin cream, it’s all good. Feminism = Supremacy for Women.
3. Economics and Public Spending: Women control over 60% of discretionary income in the US. Women hold a large majority of college degrees. Women benefit from women-only scholarships, grant programs, and government programs favoring women owned firms. The president of the N.O.W. gloated earlier this year that women are the primary beneficiaries of jobs and aid from the public sector. Women have 10 Federally-Funded Women’s Health Organizations in the US, men have 0. Men are far more likely to be unemployed and/or homeless. Feminism does not lift a finger to provide economic equality for men. Rather, they call for more privilege. Feminism = Supremacy for Women.
4. Divorce and Child Custody: Women initiate the vast majority of divorces in this country. When they do so, they enjoy privileges bestowed by family courts. Family courts give women (and their divorce lawyers) unfettered access to the husband’s assets and wealth. Child custody hearings presuppose that the mother will get the kids, granting her custody even after she’s been proven to be irresponsible and abusive. Child support enforcement takes away several of men’s rights enumerated in the bill of rights. On the other hand, women are rarely held responsible for breaking child custody agreements or failing to pay child support. Feminists have a history of opposing efforts to reform divorce & child custody. Feminism = Supremacy for Women.
We rarely hear Feminists voicing any concern about these privileges and double standards. On the other hand, a man can barely go a week without being called an evil patriarch or a potential rapist.
Feminism = Supremacy for Women.
10:34 pm
Before I get into the antagonistic portion of my post,let me get some qualifiers out of the way here,that may serve as somewhat of an olive branch
While I cannot agree to what anarcha-feminism & much of what feminism in general seems to promote,that does not mean that I oppose any individual women anarchists from history or the somewhat more palatable “individualist feminism” & its standard-bearers such as Christina Hoff Sommers
I can obviously agree to such basic fundamentals as equal rights for women in terms of Natural Rights, free from any coerced mandates. I also am no bigot and can respect an individual woman if she seems to warrant my respect. I do that across the board with all humans,but that does not mean that I will make apologies for any past wrong doings against women by pedestalizing them, as feminists and many men are wont to do. It also does not mean that I can’t see some differences or natural roles. I would never coerce a woman or abuse her. However, this does not mean that tolerance always equals acceptance of all the lectured guilt trips that are directed my way by what is taken as a whole as the umbrella feminist movement.
So have I made myself clear here? I had to get that out of the way, in case anyone is tempted to throw smears at me of being a misogynist or promoting a COERCED culture of “male domination”. I resent the subtle derogatory remarks directed against men in general and men who oppose this. As a man, I have nothing to apologize for in terms of this collective guilt here. We’re all individuals.
What is feminism? Yes,I understand that it’s true it’s an umbrella term that can mean different things so yes,one shouldn’t necessarily paint it broadly as just one thing, but neither should the feminists broadbrush us. In reality though, in the post-Enlightenment, Western world,what is deemed as feminism,is largely a political tool to browbeat men & gain female advantage via the State,which has nothing to do with mere equal rights.
Yes,anarchists will say they’re not represented by those feminists & thus it’s not fair for me to say that,but they’re a very small wing of the larger movement. Also, I have to ask, what is the point?It’s one thing if you’re fighting for equal rights for women who are legitimately suppressed by a State. I get that. However, it’s not like women don’t have that here. Women in some Arab states have much more justification to cry for such a movement than our women here do. If there is to be any such thing as feminism, in my view, it should merely be about fighting for equal rights in terms of liberty from the State
If equal rights aren’t the issue and women have that here, then I have to ask, what are you even fighting for? It appears to go well beyond that to morphing into being ironically a sexist movement against men in complaining about men as being generally crude pigs towards women & somehow holding them down in this “patriarchal” society that delineates roles. So,really,I don’t even see what all the fuss is about & why it’s even an issue. I say,abandon your feminism and instead embrase individualism. Stop clinging to the feminist label and simply fight for equal rights for ALL humans. Why can’t it just stop there? FeminISM as a concept,as a movement,is intrinsically collectivist, as it’s trying to represent and fight for a ‘group’ of people,instead of individuals. FeminISM is just being used as a tool to wag the finger and lecture and emasculate men as if they must collectively hang their heads in shame. It becomes divisive and a sex war. Liberty from coercion is one thing. Acceptance of any naturally occurring,voluntary societal structures,hierarchies and biology,is another beast
Another thing that bothers me about “feminISM” is it seems to largely perpetuate victimhood status for women as a result of a whole smorgasboard of things resulting from men,whether it be sexism,discrimination,cultural biases w/ “gender roles”, allegations of rape,war,violence,& THE MAN holding them down in the male dominated “patriarchy”. It’s simply persecution syndrome and it’s just, pathetic. They wallow in this victimization and I hear women all the time complain how awful men are and it’s a huge turnoff. I want to run from that kind of woman, when I hear that. They’re living in the past as they hold onto the crutch of historical examples of subjugation of women to justify their modern day complaints when women today have it much better than women in history who were at times genuinely oppressed by a State, and in many cases they have female supremacy privileges over men in our society today. So give me a break. Were women at times oppressed in history? Yes, but who wasn’t in history? History is rife with people of all races, creed, and sex being enslaved, tortured and the like. Women aren’t unique to this. It’s as if they’re the chosen sex, equivalent to the Jews, as supposedly being uniquely persecuted and more special than everyone else.Also,when it comes to violence of the State and subjugation, it takes two to tango. I’ll get to that later
Now,about the criticisms over cultural gender roles & discrimination against women, there are innate differences between the sexes that are hard wired into us. I’m not going to shy from that. Sure, cultural influences can have an affect to a degree, but for the genuine differences between the sexes, those cultural influences can only have a malleable affect,at best. There are deep seated physical,physiological, biological, and aptitude differences between men and women, that can’t be ignored. Some of these anarcha-feminists essentially try to say that gender roles and differences are irrelevant while at the same time going on to say how testosterone affects men and blame men for everything. Sounds like a contradiction there and that they’re trying to have it both ways. There are differences or there aren’t. Evolution has hard-wired us this way since our Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherer days.
I wouldn’t say all differences are intrinsically genetic as cooking for example is largely a culturally influenced difference, which either sex can handle quite well. For the genetically influenced differences though,it shouldn’t be white washed. Their brains & evolutionary wired primal urges,are different. We hear it all the time, the common knowledge that men are instinctively more inclined to be the scouts and protectors, going out searching for food & exploring new territory with their testosterone making them more driven for competition whereas women have maternal instincts to nurture and care for the home. I know I would get myself in hot water for suggesting some of these things as it’s very un-pc, but it doesn’t mean I’m saying that women aren’t necessarily capable of some of the other things are vice versa with men. However,as a cross-section of the entire spectrum, that is how you are more likely to see things emerge spontaneously in a free market world absent any social engineering from a State
Besides that,men obviously are the phsyically stronger sex. No one argues that one because it’s more easily seen as borne out in what can be physically measured and seen,but when it comes to more abstract parts of our nature, beneath the skin, is where arguments arise because it lacks the simple physical nature the eyes can easily measure. Of course there are always exceptions, but that doesn’t mean generalities don’t exist. Women’s brains are wired to exhibit their emotions more and not control them whereas men tend to be more analytical and control their emotions. Yes I know, saying that kind of thing brands one a sexist, but what’s so wrong with pointing out certain proclivities that each sex is more suited towards? Women are generally considered to be better with language and communication and empathy whereas men are more wired for spatial reasoning and mathematical abilities. If gender roles are something that arises naturally and not coerced as from a State, then why should it even be an issue so as to have a movement called feminism? As the French would say, Vive la difference!
In the mating game and breeding is where things get interesting. What men and women subconsciously desire and seek out, stems from evolution and speaks to the true nature of the sexes and potential problems that arise from it. Men are driven to spread their seed and find a youthful, healthy looking woman who can give birth, to continue the survival of thes species and women are instinctively driven to seek out dominant, aggressive, alpha-males who they feel can protect her and her cubs, and successfully go out and acquire resources to provide for her as she chooses to submit. Young women tend to be more often attracted to the bad boy image, alpha-males whereas when they get older and have an uptick of that evil testosterone surging through them, they become more willing to seek out and settle down with a “nice guy” beta-male family man.
This gets me into what I want to address about women being just as culpable and responsible for the State and violence. Unless it’s an arranged relationship like a shotgun wedding, women are responsible for the kind of men they’re drawn to and choose. The long history of the formation and maintenance of the State could be said to have its roots in the men and women who have more success in mating and achieving their primal urges, which all get extended to the State.
Women want the resources too and she’ll pick a dominant male who can go out and conquer other males and extract resources to provide for her home or community. Ever see a woman choose a guy whom she thinks is beneath her? They just about always choose a man who is equal or moreso superior in terms of power and wealth. They will secretly desire a strong, authoritative male even if that male tends to be unethical and aggressive. Women will tend to fantasize about a man with power and wealth such as a glamorous lifestyle of a mafioso wife who is turned on by the power and gets rewarded with the protection,riches and amenities provided for her. Women will love the idea in her mind of a man taking charge and throwing her up against the wall in a heat of passion. Whether it be a powerful CEO, a burly Harley Davidson motorcycle rider,a mafia leader,or a president or any powerful politician who will have a fling with her and stain her dress all so she can lap in the prestige and status of making it with such a top dog, women are deeply driven for these desires. Of course I’m speaking in generalities, but all across the spectrum, it is an evolutionary desire that is in all women at some level and generally holds true as it leads to the worst of both sexes being propogated and propping up support of the State and violence. Women desire the cavemen and support them
Yes,women can be violent too,whether directly or indirectly by using their chosen men as free agents for violence. Just think of how emotion and hysteria leads one prone to abandoning their reason as they flip out emotionally. That’s women for you. It’s not just that evil testosterone. Ever see a woman irritated and angry with some other man and tend to be an instigator of a fight by trying to manipulate her man into starting a fight with the man she’s pissed off at? That happens oftentimes in situations where a hysterial woman in a fit of rage, tries to get even, by sicking her boyfriend on the man she’s angry at whereas the men will cooly and calculatingly try to stand at a distance and wisely avoid a fight.Women can be conniving.
Women are also oftentimes guilty of violence in domestic violence. It’s just not as widely heard and reported on and they tend to not have as much physical strength to inflict as much damage. Still,it exists & they can have a propensity of violence too as the fury of a scorned woman demonstrates and they can also use tools for violence that act as equalizers for their physical disadvantage such as a knife or gun or do it in more subversive ways such as poison. Lorena Bobbit anyone? Of course society gets a giggle out of that, but something done to a woman & it’s frowned upon. Just as some men will cheat, so too will a woman, perhaps because in her shallow, superficial wonts,she’s not getting enough attention or wants to feel desired and young by having a fling with a young buck. Beware men on business trips or out on sea in the military.Your wife could be in Vegas. Her inner child isn’t pleased and she needs a reward to settle down
It’s also a common refrain that’s often repeated,that men being labeled as the violent ones, are the ones responsible for war and all the worlds evils. First of all, if women had the physical strength as men, they’d probably be just as likely and dangerous to directly use violence as men,if not moreso,especially when PMSing. It’s not that women are any better than the evil men and that they’re clean and pure as the wind driven snow and lack the desire to use violence,but rather that they’ll use violence in other more indirect and subversive ways or morally support it by proxy through men.
Remember,women in large measure,cheer on their glorious warrior males,morally support them,vote for them mate w/ & procreate w/ them,all so that she can have her praetorian guard do the dirty work for her while she benefits from wealth extraction of the State. Men are perhaps more apt to climb up the corporate ladder of the State because of their aggression and testosterone and will more likely serve as the coercive apparatus of the State, but women stand by their men on this and lust for those alpha-males as they are the enablers. Remember, water seeks its own level in relationships & women choose their men and have the power to say no
Yes,most of histories wars are dominated by men, but it’s not out of a lack of desire on the part of women for this violence.It’s just that either men are perhaps better at rising through the ranks of the State,better meet the upper body physical strength criteria to fill the role of a warrior,or women just didn’t have the opportunity to rise through the ranks of the State. Regardless,a woman in power can be just as dangerous, violent, and susceptible to the corruption of power as a man
When one reads between the lines of what some of these feminists and anarchists say about men, women, patriarchy,war,the subtle implication they seem to be saying is that women are purer sex to be worshiped whereas men are a plaque on the world, responsible for the root of the State,the wars,violence & all other injustices under the Sun. It’s reverse sexism which is also perpetuated by bitter women and leading feminists in liberal arts womens studies classes at colleges. They try to shame us men as being inferior and more immoral than women. It’s a collective guilt trip and is misandry so any appearances of misogny that one sees now,is like a backlash against that
Remember,men are more authoritative as the daddy and women are more paternalistic and in their intermingling with each other,they extend their nature to the State. Women en masse,unknowingly provide aid & support to the select,elite alpha-males who grab reign of the State,as they are the upper class brutish alpha-males ruling over the “nice guys” & her sisters,all so those brutes can provide the fruits of their conquered land and further extract and redistribute the resources to appease her. The “nice guys” really do finish last here. Women will pass them over. It’s the seedy under belly of our nature. Feminism becomes used as a tool to expand the plantation, extract resources, and also subjugate the “nice guy”. The State is the tribal family unit and the soldiers serve as the protectors, the warrior scouts. Mommy knows best. It’s likely no coincidence that women’s suffrage in the U.S. coincided partially with the Progressive Movement.
There are also plenty of good examples in our modern day world and in history of women directly involved in war and combat,as rulers of a warring nation, or indirectly supporting violence by supporting and encouraging the men to fight
With the Israeli’s,they uniquely have conscripted service for both men and women in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force). They’ve had a history of women serving in the military when women served in various non-combat positions of the Hagana, precursor to the IDF before the formation of the State of Israel and during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Over time eventually various women and women’s rights groups started pushing for equal rights for women in all positions in the military, including combat positions and they won that right. G.I. Jane wanted her equal rights to kill alongside the evil male. Just as well for American women in the American military
Sure,that can be considered as gallant and noble by some if it’s thought to be a just war, true defense of the homeland. However, though men have the superior physical strength for combat, it goes to show, that it’s not just men who are willing to serve and support the war machine. They just so happen to represent it in greater numbers because of their superior combat ability in physical conflict.
There was also the Women’s Army Corps in WWII, which provided administrative, logistic, industrial support to the men going off to fight. “Free a man to fight”.
Prior to that was World War I, where there were some instances of both women actually serving in combat as well as women participating in propaganda campaigns to shame their boys into fighting.
In Russia, women have participated in combat roles in the military which during WWI, several units of segregated, all female women battalions were formed such as the “1st Russian Women’s Battlion of Death”. They were formed in response to a growing movement by some women and the Russian government and its military in 1917 as a propaganda tool to further encourage demoralized soldiers and to shame those who were reluctant to continue fighting.
Interestingly enough,over in Britain when the first World War was getting started, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded an organization called the “Order of the White Feather” with the additional support of various women and prominent feminists. It was used at the start of the war to name and shame certain men by presenting a white feather to any man who was not in uniform serving in the war. The white feather in Britain was considered a symbol of cowardice. So it was like a Scarlet Letter treatment. Women were recruited to distribute these to any man who wasn’t in uniform and fighting the war as a means to shame those who weren’t fighting and pressure them to enlist and go fight. Granted, this was done by these women at the height of their suffrage movement in Britian when they didn’t have equal rights so it was also possibly seen as a political move by some of the feminists doing this. Still though, shaming and pressuring others to go fight and die in a war, is a pretty awful thing to do.
Catherine the Great is a notable woman leader in world history who presided over the Russian empire after the death of Peter III. During her reign, Russia expanded its imperial borders, annexed territories, put down the Pugachev rebellion, fought against the Ottoman Empire, among other things. Sure, she was a product of the times as it was an age of empires, all fighting for dominance, but neither sex is immune from the seduction of power and all its trappings. I’m pretty sure we’d be worried about a Palin or Hillary presidency being war like after all.
Mary I of England, otherwise notoriously known as Bloody Mary, was no peaceful woman either in this supposedly exclusively patriarchal system. She was responsible for the Heresy Acts, which were used to persecute Protestants who dissented with England’s reunification with Roman Catholicism in Rome during her brief reign. She had nearly 300 Protestant heretics burned at the stake and others fled and went into exile. She also established herself as Queen of Ireland as she strengthend the bonds between the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of England in having monarchical rule over Ireland.
There is also evidence of real life counterparts to the Amazon women warriors of mythology. There were some nomadic groups, some of which were dug up from archaeological ecavations where some ancient cultures were such as in the southern Russian steppes.
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
There are more examples, but I’ll leave it at this. Nevertheless, this illustrates how women can be every bit as bad as men if granted the keys to the kingdom,so to speak. People have this vision in their head that men are more immoral & violent just because history is filled with men dominating rulership of the State. Even outside the State,it’s clearly shown that men don’t hold a monopoly on aggression and violence. To use this domination to be able to point the finger and say…’Hey, see,men are the problem. It’s all a root of the violent,aggressive male and patriarchy’…is a gross over simplification
Would matriarchy be any better? That’s the air of superiority I seem to get from feminists who trump women as angelic and better than men. First of all, the suffix archy, which from Greek origins “archein”, means to rule or have rulers. Now of course anarchists are against having rulers, period, at least if they’re rulers not consented to anyway. However, if it’s a standard feminist suggesting this who isn’t an anarchist or if we’re talking about a consensual hierarchical relationship, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a hierarchical unit that is voluntary and certainly, matriarchy wouldn’t be any better when it comes to the State. What we constantly hear though is that patriarchy is evil, is responsible for all the world’s problems, with the hidden implication that the alternative of matriarchy would be better and that women are more moral and peaceful. It seems in that lack of moral equivalence between those two archies, some animals are more equal than others. Whether it’s patriarchy or matriarchy, it’s just simply a social order. It’s only when it mixes with a State, that it becomes bad.
There’s also of course no denying that women have had it bad in history and that men can be brutish jerks. I’m not arguing against the reality of that and I don’t think anyone else is. That’s not the issue here though. What this is though, is a reaction against constantly being attacked by feminists who want to blame everything on us and knock patriarchy as if women and matriarchy are somehow not involved at all in any of this. When women act like victims here and play this blame game, they’re just further making it appear as if they’re the weaker sex themselves when they wallow in this pity party. It’s similar to when other ‘groups’ have acted like they’ve had it rougher than everyone else, such as blacks and Jews. I can think of people in the Soviet Union who suffered on a larger scale with the Russian Gulags than Jews with the Holocaust in comparison. Everyone has suffered through history and stop acting like your precious ‘group’ is somehow uniquely persecuted and pointing fingers at others. Humans will always target any other human and try to submit them if given the opportunity, regardless of race,sex, and religion. Women have become whiny and seeking privileges over males. No wonder more men are running away from marriage as an institution.
If any anarchist says I’m using a strawman because they’re not talking about the State, well first, I haven’t just talked about the State in my post, and secondly, if the State isn’t your issue and you have equal rights and I’m an anarchist myself, then you’re kind of making my point for me. With liberty in equal rights for Natural Rights and especially with a stateless society with no mandated rulers, all of this becomes moot. With equal rights, comes responsibility as well. If you don’t like marriage and see it as slavery to a patriarch, then fine, don’t marry. End it there. Why go on and moan about things here? Somehow, I get the feeling equal rights aren’t enough for these people.
Flip the roles around through history and with women running things, do you really think it would have been any better? Just for me to take a jab myself and perhaps exaggerating a bit, I don’t know if we would have gotten modern sanitation. If it’s a level playing field with equal rights, then there’s no problem in seeing competition sort out the best men and women. Oh wait, is competition somehow a patriarchal trait?
Behind every violent man, there’s a violent woman
11:36 pm
“Yes,most of histories wars are dominated by men, but it’s not out of a lack of desire on the part of women for this violence.It’s just that either men are perhaps better at rising through the ranks of the State,better meet the upper body physical strength criteria to fill the role of a warrior,or women just didn’t have the opportunity to rise through the ranks of the State. Regardless,a woman in power can be just as dangerous, violent, and susceptible to the corruption of power as a man”
Actually what those man-hating ignorant fucktards are always saying is “Men start all the wars!”. It would be more accurate to say that men are coerced to fight in wars. Tell me, Mzzzz Feminist, how an 8 year old boy in Africa “starts a war”. In America, that boy would be reading Dick and Jane and See Spot Run at that age,and the most complex thing he could start would be a dodgeball match.
At 8 years old he gets two guns, one placed in his hands and another placed against his back and he is told to fight or die right there. The situation is similar in America except we tell 18 year old boys that they must sign up to fight in a war or have their credit, that shit that women use for almost everything, severely limited for their entire life.
MEN don’t “start all the wars”,politicians do (they sure as fuck don’t represent US),but MEN are forced to die in them.
2:22 am
First of all we need to dispell the notion of women ever being oppressed in the past before we can even begin to approach the present day. Somehow the notion of women being “locked away” in the home in the past as a form of punishment became popular. The men of those days were dying of black lung in the mines, lumberjacks, carpenters, mill workers, ect. We’ve all seen pictures of loggers riding logs down river, sometimes they went under and didn’t resurface. Dying in wars they had no stake in, or if they did to protect their loved ones. Those women in the past were grateful, and lovingly cared for their men. They knew they were privileged, not oppressed.
Women couldn’t vote until 1920, well men as a whole couldn’t vote until the mid 1860s, before that only land owners could vote. Do you think men would vote for something that would harm their mothers, wives and daughters? Ridiculous, of course not. In education girls were always better educated, even young boys many years ago worked with their fathers to support the family. Girls were would be taught to read at home, many husbands years ago relied on their wives to read them legal documents. Was this the so called oppression? Heres a link from over a 100 years ago showing how women were privileged even back then. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1909/09/women.htm
Women before the 1900s washed clothes at rivers with washboards and basins, gathered firewood, they could cook and sew, ect. Todays pampered princess in her push button world acts as if she does all these things and works a full time job. I hear claims of laundry taking 2 hours, it’s ten minutes unless your staring at the machines that do it for you. The horrors of cleaning the bathroom as if without a man using it the toilet would be self cleaning. Sewing? Ha! Cooking consists of instant coffee and a microwave dinner, oh the effort. Slave over a hot stove? They’ve never even turned it on, it’s more a conversation piece that occasionally boils water.
Where did all these fine gadgets and gizmos that makes a womans life effortless come from? Men of course. Over the past fourty years 2 to 3 times as much money has been spent on womens education as compared to men. Well wheres all the inventions, art, literature, medical and scientific innovations women promised if they were free to engage in all these fields? They all still come from men, why? Well because of biology of course. http://medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69 http://www.boysadrift.com/2007Giedd.pdf
From these two sites you can see the massive differences in brain structure between man and woman, and they are massive. Women don’t do any of the aforementioned because they simply can’t. Theres nothing oppressive or sexist about stating bilogical facts, yet men are routinely barred or excluded from these fields by Title IX, quotas, entitlements, ect.
Women speak of men killing in war. Well if the dead could talk I doubt if someone aborted would say at least I wasn’t killed in war. To run to the State to clear your concience and called it a right changes nothing. A fetus is a person, no one, and I mean no one alive today wasn’t a fetus. At an average of 1.5 million a year in this country that means for every 3 that lives women kill the 4th. In one year women in the U.S. kill as many people as the war dead of ever single american war. Worldwide there are 60 million abortions a year. Thats 600 million in ten years, which I’d hazard a guess is more than every war and every plague in 5000 years of recorded history, in just ten years. And you have the audacity to call men killers? We’re mere novices compared to you morally superior women.
Women say they want equality? I think not. The equal right’s ammendment was shot down by women en mass, they wanted no parts of equality. Heres a link and an exerpt from the Equal Rights Ammendment in 1972…Schlafly became the most extreme opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s as the organizer of the “Stop the ERA” . . . an acronym for “Stop Taking our Privileges”, because Schlafly argues the ERA would take away ‘privileges’, including “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security and exemption from Selective Service registration. Thats right they voted it down, STOP being an acrony, for stop taking our PRIVILEGE. Heres the link…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly
So it seems women have been privileged for quite some time and have literally countless more privileges in that last 100 years, all paid for by men.