Card Carrying Feminists vs. Reality

I just read this posting, which lead me to this one. The latter one is from a very unhappy woman who deeply believes she is a true feminist. She's extremely unhappy because the Canadian 'Best Feminist Blog' award didn't go her way. Here's a sampling (language warning) :

Within hours, sda received a slew of nominations from her tongue-lolling, crotch-scratching fans. Other rightwing female bloggers were nominated, albeit without the attendant frenzy of the admirers that sda commands who rushed the CBA site like so many grotty little boys comparing the length of their posts and the ejaculatory reach of their verbosity. All deleted now by a CBA moderator who had to dip her laptop in bleach after that little display of frothing fannitude for sda.

To this woman I just had to share my thoughts:

A Little Background . . . I'm one of those metrosexual guys who has always believed in and advocated for full equality for women and minorities throughout my life. Within my technology company I've hired people from around the world, including many women. Gender, race, skin colour, sexual preference - none of these things mattered one whit in terms of hiring or promotion. There was zero discrimination. In fact, women often have the more senior management roles and often the highest salaries! In my professional life there has never been a feminist agenda per say, but rather just a glorious meritocracy.

So for me the word "feminist" has always meant "equality for women", which is the original & proper meaning, is it not?

How naive I was to think that everyone still shared this definition. The recent U.S. election revealed a dirty little secret about card carrying feminists, didn't it? The infamous posting of the CBC's Heather Mallick showed a deep-seated HATRED (there's no other suitable word) toward Sarah Palin and women like her. And why? Because she's a strong proponent of the Pro-Life Movement and a Republican. Wow, what a horrible person!!

I actually don't share Palin's beliefs on abortion but do recognize them as being morally consistent. So while I don't agree with the 'no exceptions' views of Pro-Lifers, I do respect them.

It seems crystal clear that you and your like-minded readers have a long road to walk before you will ever understand that "feminism" simply doesn't equate to "pro-Abortion". The fact that you deeply believe that a feminist MUST be vociferously pro-Choice is a mystery I'll leave for Sherlock Holmes to unravel.

Another mystery is why you believe that feminists can ONLY have Radical Left political views? "Socialism is the only path to set us free, sisters" ? ! ?

The 3rd Requirement in the Trilogy for Card Carrying Feminists seems to be a certain degree of antipathy toward men, especially if they're Caucasian. If you think I'm exaggerating then you really need to hire a different polling firm.

So in summary, there are you you and your ilk who believe that Feminism means:

• Pro-Choice (anytime, anywhere)
• Radical Left political views
• A little or a lot of dislike towards men
  

Then there's the rest of us. Thank goodness there's the rest of us!

Until you realize how far off the rails your movement has veered, you will never be able to grasp why women like Sarah Palin, Kate McMillan, Michelle Malkin, Amy Alkon, Laura Ingraham, and Patricia Heaton are the TRUE feminists of the New Millennium.

Permanent Victim Syndrome

Amy Alkon had an interesting column about how she got in an argument with a fellow about personal responsibility. Here's a little snippet:

Yesterday, I debated a guy I started talking to in Starbucks about the big problem in the black community. He said it was poverty and unequal schools. I said it was daddylessness. I also think there's a huge problem with victimhood. Read the rest here . . .

---

Here's the comment I left:

Picking up on something "Toubrouk" said, look at the similarities between the Mainstream Black (MSB) views and the Mainstream Feminist (MSF) views.

Both are steeped in a never-ending mentality of victimhood. Look what Phyllis Schlafly said about the MSF movement here:

Feminists never boast about [so-called conservative feminists like Sarah Palin] because feminism's basic doctrine is victimology. Feminism preaches that women can never succeed because they are the sorry victims of an oppressive patriarchy. No matter how smart or accomplished a woman may be, she's told that success and happiness are beyond her grasp because institutional sexism and discrimination hold her down.

Doesn't that sound strikingly familiar to what we continuously hear from the leaders of the MSB movement?

Whenever the topic of racism in America comes up, I often tell my American friends to come up to Canada to see how the same "Permanent Victim Syndrome" canards are preached to the electorate by at least 2 of the political parties here and echoed by hundreds of like-minded organizations, almost all of whom are funded by taxpayer dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how they ensure that gov't $ keep on flowing in.

But up here, there is no particular racial component so it washes away the illusions perpetrated by the MSB talking heads.

Teach a man or a woman how to fish and they will never be hungry. Give them a fish and they will be back tomorrow. Keep on giving them fish and they will depend upon you for a lifetime. Get the government to fund your fishing program and you will be employed for a lifetime. Follow the money, folks, follow the money.

Is Sarah Palin an Anti-Feminist?

Earlier today I was referred to this editorial from Ann Althouse's popular blog. To it I added this comment:

If I happen to not hate Sarah Palin does that make me a “troll” by your way of thinking? Put another way, all of you are of course free to think any way you wish (as am I), but thinking the way you do, are you open to actually listening to others who happen to have another point of view?

Here are two interesting articles that I found most enlightening:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28410/pub_detail.asp

Compare those with these:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html

If you still choose to label me as a troll, simply because I very politely and respectfully chose to post this then that’s your prerogative. It would be sad though.

Someone with the moniker of "JPlum" responded with this:

Robert, we have listened to other points of view, and disagreed with them. Reality, in fact, disagrees with Paglia’s opinion that Palin is a feminist. You see, feminists advocate for the rights of women. Palin advocates taking away the rights of women. Therefore, she is not a feminist. How many times do we have to say this? Opposing policies and funding that would help women is the antithesis of feminism. Palin opposes policies and funding that would help women. Therefor she is the antithesis of feminism.

I could say that you, Robert, are a turnip. Does that make you a turnip? Do you possess many-or any-of the qualities that make up a turnip? No? Then, I could call you a turnip ‘til the polar bears come home* and it wouldn’t actually turn you into a turnip.

*Ssince Sarah Palin wants to take polar bears off the endangered species list, we could be waiting a while for them to come home

To that I responded with this, which I felt I should repost here:

Thank you for your thoughtful response, JPlum. Consider this though: Your political views assert that more government funded programs are the answer to solving problems. Fair enough. But others just as sincerely believe that such programs are unnecessary and, in fact, often have the opposite effect. You have every right to disagree with such people and believe that your way is the better way. But then to go the extra step and conclude that therefore such people don't care about 'X' or want to take away the rights of 'X' is a logical leap of faith that is not warranted.

I'll give you a good case in point. Checking out my blog you would have learned that I'm a Canadian living in Vancouver, BC. We're currently engaged in our own federal election these days.

One of the parties asserts that the best way to provide low-cost childcare is to create government funded childcare programs to which any family (no means test) can take their children to for less than $10 per day. There's only so much money available for this, so once the funds are spent, no more families will be eligible.

Another party doesn't think such a program is equitable because it provides no funding for families who choose for either the mother or the father to stay at home with the children until they enter school. So they've decided to give money directly to all parents, totaling a budget amount that's comparable to what the first party wanted to spent on their program.

A 3rd party may come along and feel that current funding for current health care and education is also strapped and choose to increase the budgets of these existing programs instead of creating a new childcare program. Or perhaps they feel that with a rapidly growing elderly population, more money needs to go to low income seniors instead of to families where both parents are still of working age.

Like you, I would have my own opinion on which party's platform makes the most sense but perhaps unlike you, I would never say that any are "taking away the rights of children or parents". It makes for a great soundbite but only goes to stifle debate.

Here's another example. I frequently visit Chicago. I have a good friend there named Melissa who has been a registered Democrat all of her adult life. We've often discussed the massive ghettos that exist on the Southside of Chicago. She carefully explained to me the history of how they got to the abysmal state they're now in. Back in the 1960's well meaning politicians felt that the poor needed to be provided for. So they built huge apartment complexes which later became known as "The Projects". Apartments were provided at low or even no cost. Over time they deteriorated so badly that now many are being demolished.

Why did this happen? I think it can be summed up in one word: Incentive. More accurately, the lack thereof. If you give someone something for nothing and continue to do it over time, most people take it for granted. This is because you've taken away any incentive for them to try harder, work harder, and strive for more. I'm not a particularly religious person but there's an old parable that is quite apropos: "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day (and be back again tomorrow looking for another fish). But teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

I realize that some consider this parable to be a fallacy. I, on the other hand, adamantly believe it is the cornerstone of human psychology.

In case you're interested, I passed on our conversation to a female friend of mine here in Vancouver. She's 46, a single mom, upper-middle class but not wealthy. In times past I've heard her describe herself as a strong feminist, but not a radical one. Her words, not mine. She's no fan of Sarah Palin (or Barack Obama) but is adamant that Palin is just as much a feminist as you or she is.

I can only conclude therefore that what you're really against is Sarah Palin's more libertarian views on the size and breadth of government. In the democracies we both live in you have absolutely every right to oppose her political views. In fact, I sincerely compliment you for exercising your democratic rights. But when you then jump the shark and assert that she is not a feminist, you choose to stray far away from what this woman has actually accomplished in her life and how much inspiration she is giving little girls to aspire to be anything they want to be.

The Roots of Palin Derangement Syndrome

On August 1, 2008, long before Sarah Palin became a national figure, an academic & author named Christina Hoff Sommers authored this lengthy but fascinating essay that documents the history of feminism and how it has evolved (devolved?) into its current state.

She was vilified in despicable ways by the same feminists for the same reasons they attack Palin: both women do not subscribe to the extremely radical left-wing views of the "official" feminist movement.

Her essay is indeed a long one but well worth reading if you want to understand what is fueling PDS. Here are some key parts:

Pick up a women's studies textbook, visit a college women's center, or look at the websites of leading feminist organizations, and you will likely find the same fixation on intimate anatomy combined with left-wing politics and a poisonous antipathy to men. (Campus feminists were among the most vocal and zealous accusers of the young men on the Duke University lacrosse team who were falsely indicted for rape in 2006.)

But modern "women's liberation" has little to do with liberty. It aims not to free women to pursue their own interests and inclinations, but rather to reeducate them to attitudes often profoundly contrary to their natures. In "Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (2003)", two once-committed women's studies professors, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, describe how the feminist classroom transforms idealistic female students into "relentless grievance collectors."

In 1991, the culture critic and dissident feminist Camille Paglia put the matter even more bluntly. She described women's studies as

a jumble of vulgarians, bunglers, whiners, French faddicts, apparatchiks, dough-faced party-liners, pie-in-the-sky utopians and bullying sanctimonious sermonizers. Reasonable, moderate feminists hang back and keep silent in the face of fascism.

Truth be told, there are also great numbers of contemporary American women who would today readily label themselves as feminists were they aware of a conservative alternative in which liberty, rather than "liberation," is the dominant idea. Today, more than 70 percent of American women reject the label "feminist," largely because the label has been appropriated by those who reject the very idea of a feminine sphere.

In a 1975 exchange in the Saturday Review, the feminist pioneer Betty Friedan and the French philosopher and women's rights advocate Simone de Beauvoir discussed the "problem" of stay-at-home mothers. Friedan told Beauvoir that she believed women should have the choice to stay home to raise their children if that is what they wished to do. Beauvoir candidly disagreed:

No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

In Beauvoir, we see how starkly the ideology of liberation has come to oppose actual, practical liberty--even "choice." Her intolerance and condescension toward family-centered women is shared by many in today's feminist establishment and has affected the education of American students. Historian Christine Rosen, in a recent survey of women's studies texts, found that every one disparaged traditional marriage, stay-at-home mothers, and the culture of romance. Perhaps there is a sensible women's studies text out there somewhere, but, for the most part, the sphere of life that has the greatest appeal to most women and is inseparable from traditional ideas of feminine fulfillment is rejected in the name of liberation.

Today's feminist establishment in the United States is dominated by the radical wing of the egalitarian tradition. Not only do its members not cooperate with their conservative sisters, but they also often denigrate and vilify them; indeed they have all but eliminated them from the history of American feminism. Revisionist history is never a pretty sight. But feminist revisionists are destructive in special ways. They seek to obliterate not only feminist history but the femininity that made it a success.

[Young women of the U.S. can] make the movement attractive once again to the silent majority of American women who really do not want to be liberated from their womanhood. And then take on the cause of the women who have yet to find the liberty that Western women have won for themselves and that all women everywhere deserve.

Victor Davis Hanson: Palin uproar reveals ugly side of today's feminism

Victor David Hanson is one of the best writers of our time. Period. In this article he describes why so-called feminists have shown themselves to be nothing other than phoneys and hypocrites in the past two weeks.

Here's the opening paragraph:

The media went hysterical over Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president. She may have appeared to the public as an independent, capable professional woman, but to a particular elite she couldn't possibly be a real feminist or even a serious candidate. And that raises questions about what is — and what is not — feminism.