U Not Gonna Like This

From the archives of the Desert Light Journal (link):

posted 07-26-06



The other day, this article in the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0719/p14s02-ussc.html) caught my eye. Entitled, NOW at 40: What's left to do? The subhead on the article was: Feminists rocked the 1970s and '80s, profoundly changing US society. Today's challenges are more subtle, but still urgent.




Looking back, (for those of us old enough to remember) there was a time during the so-called “second wave” of the 1960s when it seemed feminism was about equality. In the original NOW statement of purpose, it included language that alluded to women freeing themselves from society’s lack of respect by taking charge in their lives and advancing themselves through their own efforts. For a brief period of time, there were feminists promoting ideals of self-reliance and responsibility, but that time was over almost before it began. The radical extremists took over and today’s feminism is more about hating men, and propagating a constant state of outrage about their version of equality, the definition of which keeps changing.




Unlike the “first wave,” which achieved its goal of getting the right to vote, and then simply faded away, it would appear this second wave isn’t willing to recognize their work is done, and it’s time to go on to something else. That’s because their work isn’t done. Certainly, equality in most things has been achieved, but that isn’t what the new breed of feminists are looking to change.



If you look back at the history of the women’s movement, you find that behind the concept of votes for women, which many people believe was the entirety of the 19th and early 20th century feminist activism, are the ideas of Marx and Engels and the philosophy of eugenics as advanced by British feminist Frances Swiney. These were new and attractive ideas of the time. First-wave feminists were quite open about their hopes for communism and an androgynous society achieved by eliminating men through a variety of means. They sought also to eliminate marriage and the family. Many of those same people also doubted the intelligence and abilities of ordinary women.



It doesn’t take much digging, but if you look carefully at the attitudes expressed by today’s feminists through their writings, the social programs they’ve established, and the laws they’ve enacted, you find that almost nothing has changed since Victorian times. You won’t find many beliefs that are more retrogressive than feminism. It’s as if, despite a century of advancements in culture, science and politics, feminism remained suspended in time under some sort of impervious bubble.




The differences between today’s feminists and those of Victoria’s day are that deceit has become part of the package, and their tactics have changed. The bigotry expressed in feminist thought was once considered acceptable, but today’s society would not tolerate those ideas. The communism that was once a Utopian ideal has proven to be unsuccessful, with a tendency to mutate into a state of totalitarianism. There is a clear need to keep recognition of actual feminist goals to a minimum.



While the early feminists damaged property and engaged in overt violence to get their point across, today’s feminists mostly use behind-the-scenes threats and intimidation, in addition to public accusations of wrongdoing against anyone who disagrees with them. Their attacks on heretics are no less vicious for being non-physical. They have destroyed lives and careers, and created an atmosphere where few are willing to challenge even the most preposterous notions expressed by feminists.



Feminists will go to great lengths to try and maintain the fiction that they’re working for equality, and probably aren’t entirely unhappy with their public profile suggesting perhaps they’re just an eccentric bunch of complainers, safely ignored. If you read the whole article at CSM, you find almost nothing of substance was said by the NOW figurehead. Her remarks included the usual self-congratulatory feminist party line, along with the same erroneous statement about their membership they’ve been using for the past five years, at least. The reader may wonder why it is that an important milestone event such as a 40th anniversary would only attract 800 participants, but shrug and go on to something else.




Many believe that the abortion issue is the only thing feminists still care about, but the fact is that feminists and their extremist ideals are firmly entrenched in many aspects of modern life. They have been allowed to further their political principles, their anti-male, anti-family agendas, and their basic disrespect for women under the guise of “equality.” They’ve made a lot of noise, and convinced enough lawmakers (and enough women) they had answers to difficult social problems, that they’ve been given what they wanted; often in hopes they’d just shut up and go away.



The legacy of feminism is a quite different scenario than they would have the public believe. Let’s take a look at their true accomplishments:





* Because of programs established on the basis of feminist attitudes, it is now virtually impossible for anyone, male or female, to find practical, realistic help for relationships where domestic violence is a problem.


* Divorce has become a battleground, rather than the “solution” it is often touted to be. Families, and especially children, have been reduced to a monetary value, with their emotional needs almost universally ignored. The opinions of legions of court-appointed personnel take precedence in this situation.


* Child protective services seem bent on imposing state control on families, rather than addressing their problems in a way than could have positive results. It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the value of a family in concrete terms, and the attempt to do so has destroyed too many families needlessly, while leaving some
children in danger.


* Education at all levels, from kindergarten to graduate school, has become feminized to a degree that forces boys and men into a situation of having strikes against them before they even begin. Expected to conform to unrealistic and uncomfortable standards of behavior, boys in the lower levels are often drugged into compliance. Men in higher education are at constant risk of violating unknown and illusory standards that vary widely and are imposed by individual women, based on their personal opinions. Girls schooled in feminist doctrine are never allowed to develop emotional maturity.


* Feminist-imposed laws regarding sports programs have removed or restricted support from men’s programs while forcing sports on disinterested women.


* In the workplace, the constant threat of lawsuits based on perceived sexual harassment or discrimination has damaged employee/employer relationships and inserted a degree of mistrust and suspicion that ultimately has a negative effect on productivity.


* The “Battered Woman Syndrome” was initially devised to justify premeditated murder when committed by a woman, and is now also used as a defense against lesser charges such as DUI. This same syndrome was used to explain the need for imposition of “no-drop” laws that prevent women from dropping assault charges. In this usage of the syndrome, women are presumed to be under the thrall of evil men, and therefore cannot do anything to cause them harm. Apparently we’re not supposed to notice the two situations are diametrically opposed.





These are just a few of the most noticeable examples of the changes in society wrought by feminism. These changes have resulted in several organized movements against the feminist’s programs, and these may increase as the radical leftist political agenda behind their programs and the damage they cause becomes better recognized.




If these leftist activists are allowed to continue unchallenged, we can look for future laws making it harder to arrest or jail women for any crime. Proposed under the guise of “protecting” women from domestic violence, these laws will only erode women’s rights to take responsibility for their actions or make decisions regarding their families. Some women in situations of domestic violence may find themselves forced by law to leave their homes and take up residence in women’s shelters for a defined length of time, despite the fact these shelters provide little more than divorce assistance.




Children and the elderly will also be adversely affected, as the “all males are abusers, all females are victims” philosophy takes hold in child and elder abuse programs, which previously have operated under more realistic principles.




Feminism has a rich tradition of myth-making and storytelling, so it should come as no surprise that they would apply this creativity to justifying and rationalizing their actions and beliefs. They have told an appealing story of a benevolent movement for women’s rights, which entirely obscures the ugly reality. NOW is simply a convenient façade. It allows the public to believe in a feeble, irrelevant organization while the real activists pursue their ambitions of power and control.