Feminist #1: ‘Why should women want to merely be ‘housewives’? Why should women participate in porn? Why should women dress to please a man?’
Feminist #2: ‘What if they *want* to do those things? Isn’t that ’empowerment™’?’
Feminist #1: ‘Uh.. you’re an oppressor!’
Exposing Feminism 
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 3, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Rachel
Feminist #3: yes, if you want to stay at home, that’s fine. If you want to dress to please a man, that’s fine. If you want to participate in porn, that’s fine.
The point is that you have the *choice*. It is the fact of you choosing that empowers you, not which choice you make.
If it makes you happy and it hurts nobody else – enjoy.
But it’s good to think about *why* you want those things at all.
January 3, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Kuuenbu
I know what you’re trying to say here, EF, but if I were you I would have put more effort into having more realistic, clarifying examples. Resorting to eerie replications of anti-MRA stereotypes does the movement no good, you know.
And it’s even better to take a universally philosophical stance on such matters, rather than adopt the biased worldview of feminism which limits discourse to deconstruction and gender-based antagonism. It’s kind of hard to break out of the “X is something degrading to women supported by men, Y is something empowering to women that is ill-supported by men” line of thought when adopting a feministic lens.
Matters of choice have wide varieties of interpretations; feminism, like many philosophies, encourages only one, which is why legislating and indoctrinating it is so harmful.
January 3, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Renegade Evolution
what Rachel said.
January 6, 2008 at 7:14 pm
rachel
I’ll agree that feminism does indeed give one a “biased worldview”, but then, so does any kind of political leaning.
And it’s not as simple as “X is something degrading to women supported by men, Y is something empowering to women that is ill-supported by men”.
Feminism can and does help men – because sexism works both ways, and feminists try to eradicate sexism.
For example, a law in England that meant that widowed women were supported more than widowed men, since men were traditionally thought of as breadwinners, was changed to allow men to receive help as well.
So funnily enough, it’s not all about women.
It’s about equality – whichever way round that happens to be.
January 7, 2008 at 12:55 am
dmz001
@rachel
Sure feminists may toss a few crumbs here or there to men/boys to give the appearance of “equality”.
The truth is, feminism is a female supremacist movement designed to steal the rights, money and dignity of men/boys. Feminists don’t want “equality” – they never did. They want for women to have rights and choices and benefits, and for men to bear the costs, obligations and responsiblities for those choices. They want to be “free” from the rules of the traditional female role yet expect men to adhere to even stricter rules for the male role. You want something for nothing. You want chivalry not equality. You want to have the same rights and money as men yet expect us to protect and provide for you. You want to behave like dependent children while proclaiming yourselves to be independent adults.
Feminism is a hypocritcal, disingenuous, manipulative, sneaky little movement. Younger men such as myself KNOW what you THUGGETTES are all about. You think you’re so much smarter, sitting back manipulating men to your advantage. You think we don’t see you. Think again.
January 7, 2008 at 9:13 am
Rob Case
Feminism can and does help men – because sexism works both ways, and feminists try to eradicate sexism.
Feminists have named their thinking after the feminine, and then claim to be acting in the interests of men? No thinking man would accept this.
The very word screams female supremacism. The only real doubt in my mind is whether feminists genuinely believe their world view is sounder than ours, or if they know very well they have no such advantage but cynically operate behind a front of naive righteousness.
All people see the world differently. We all have differing priorities and senses of justice. None of us will get everything we want, and insisting on it is dangerous. None of us has a monopoly on the right world view, because there is no such thing. The time is coming for feminists to face facts and get ready to negotiate.
A good start for them would be an honest evaluation of the advantages they enjoy over men. The same biases that prevent women from holding the very highest of positions also protect them from the very lowest – women may well be under-represented in politics and company boards, but they are also under-represented in jails and execution chambers. These are the opposite ends of the merit system that characterises life in the West.
If you want a place at the top, be prepared for men to insist that there is no longer any need for them to bear the burden at the bottom.
This is the elimination of sexism and helps men, but I don’t call it feminism. I call it bargaining, and it’s been around as long as humans – indeed, when bargaining is denied, a system of repression is at work.
January 8, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Jim
“Feminism can and does help men – because sexism works both ways, and feminists try to eradicate sexism.”
Rachel, you can never generalize about feminists and you can never generalize about what feminists do. Many feminists are rabidly sexist and pursue rabidly sexist agendas. Rad Fems are rabidly sexist. Policies and laws such as VAWA are blatantly sexist, as is for instance NARAL’s resistance to shared parenting initiatives in states such as Washington. Those people and the proponents of those laws and policies call themselves feminsts, and who are you and I to say that they are not?
January 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm
bachelor tom
My impression is that feminism is very much about personal choice and individualism. For example, choosing not to be a housewife or mother.
Traditional culture did place more emphasis on “duty” for both men and women, specifically the duty to reproduce. We all know Western birth rates are declining, which means eventually the shortfall may be made up by non-Westerners. This may not be a bad thing, but what about the loss of any sense of fulfilling nature’s primary goal, survival and reproduction? Will we enter a downward population spiral for several generations, followed by a return to more traditional female reproductive behaviour?
Obviously we have choices thanks to the affluence of our society. If the affluence disappears, will we still have choices?
January 10, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Kuuenbu
The problem with this method of “helping men” is that it assumes their problems as originating from women’s problems, casting a dogmatic guilt upon the male sex that can basically be described as “male original sin”. Hardly “equal” or fair, but not surprising considering how easy the feminist philosophy makes it to justify misandry.
January 17, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Susannah
Both of feminists No.1 and 2 are selfish second one appear to be better but is thinking only about herself too.
I believe for as women being selfish is natural state which need to be outgrown. But it is not easy task and today cultural and political climate is not being very much helpful.
Feminists are all me, me, me, I, my. And children are the ones using these words most. Compare using these words between men and women and there you have evidence which one of us is more selfish.
Perhaps the difference between girl and women is that women can think about other people needs and girl only about herself. And it is more comfortable to to be girl than grow up.
January 17, 2008 at 8:17 pm
bachelor tom
I agree with Susannah. Feminists who talk and act like children set a poor example.
It’s easier to think of hardcore feminists as a lobby group made up of neurotic Marxo-lesbians, this way their positions make sense. They scorn ‘traditional’ women almost as much as men.
I doubt that feminism ever spoke for all women, but it certainly doesn’t today.