In this entry, I would like to draw attention to a post written by the chairman of the PA Association of College Conservatives and former president of the C-- College Conservatives, Mike Armstrong. (He is the subject of previous blog entries.) This post, entitled "The Problem of Radical Feminism" appears on the Facebook fan page for the C--- College Conservatives.
I am going to re-post it here and dissect it in its entirety, so that everyone may retch at Mike's obvious contempt for women hidden under a guise of sympathy for 1st wave feminism. It is truly disgusting to behold.
But before I begin, I would like to dispel a common myth that people - especially uber-conservatives - often make about "radical feminism." Let me be very clear. Radical feminism has NOTHING to do with misandry, or hating men. It has NOTHING to do with women thinking they are "better" than men. This is a very common myth, perpetrated by the likes of Phyllis Schlafly and anyone who still equates the concept of feminism with "bra burning." In actuality, radical feminism is the "radical" belief that men and women are equal AND that women are still to this day oppressed by the patriarchy (and that this system must be dismantled and replaced with an egalitarian representation of male/female rule.)
As you will see, Mike does not actually know anything about feminism. For those of you who are struggling with stereotypes of feminism in the media or misconceptions of feminism, then I urge you to get started over at Finally Feminism 101.
And now, on to the dissection:
My name is Mike Armstrong, and I am a feminist. Of course, you may think that such a confession is strange to hear from someone who calls himself a conservative. Nevertheless, it's true, as it is for most conservatives today, whether they realize it or not.
It's not strange to hear at all. I'm used to hearing lies from conservatives.
In what ways is Mike a feminist? Hmm... let's start with some basics...
In fact, true feminism embodies the ideas that shape the conservative worldview. Beginning primarily in the 19th century, feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony led the fight for equal rights and women's suffrage.
Don't you just love how he thinks the only "true" feminism is 19th century feminism? Howcome uber-conservatives can't wrap their mind around the idea that feminism has made progress and EVOLVED since the 19th century? No, they would prefer to stick to the prototype, the pilot episode of feminism. Women can vote. That's it. No more. Anything after that is dangerous, fake feminism. Right guys, right?
They sought to remove real barriers that prevented the advancement of women, and were enormously successful.
"REAL" barriers. Because only voting and running for office was important? Oh, yeah, I guess you forgot about all that important stuff that happened after the suffragist movement. Or did you...?
How about the pill in 1960? Oh, right, it made us all into "sluts." Sorry, I forgot.
What about the acceptance of homosexuality, specifically with the Daughter of Bilitis, the first lesbian organization in the US in 1955? Oh, right, homosexuality is an "abomination" and against your "religion." Sorry, I forgot.
What about the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Executive Order 11375 of 1967, which barred discrimination based on race and sex in the workplace? Oh, right, you think affirmative action is itself "racist" because it "discriminates" against poor, oppressed white men. Sorry, I forgot.
How about that ruling in 1968 that barred sex-segregated help wanted ads? Oh, right, you think that women are BIOLOGICALLY PREDISPOSED TO BE SEAMSTRESSES, TEACHERS, AND NURSES. Sorry, I forgot!
What about a woman's right to safe & legal abortion in 1973? Oh, right, abortion is murder/genocide/evil/harmful to the woman. Sorry, I forgot.
How about that marital rape law in 1976? Oh, right, a husband can't actually rape his wife because as soon as she marries him, she gives him her body, and she says "yes" to all future sexual encounters with him forever and ever, even if she doesn't feel like it... because that is God's way. Sorry, I forgot.
What about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, which barred employment discrimination based on pregnancy? Oh, right, we can't trust women to do their job right when they're pregnant, because everyone knows a woman's only *real* job is "Mother." Plus, you can't forget those dangerous pregnancy hormones... we just can't have that in the workplace, no sir. Sorry, I forgot!
And how about the 1986 Supreme Court ruling which found that sexual harrassment is a form of illegal job discrimination? Oh, right, I forgot that it's not really sexual harrassment if she "dresses a certain way" (she was asking for it) or if the guys were "just showing their appreciation." Sorry, I forgot!
The list goes ON AND ON AND ON. But, no, conservatives insist on living in an alternate reality and an alternate time period (the 19th and very early 20th century) in which women have the right to vote, run for office, and work... but THAT IS IT.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled bullshit:
Traditional feminists overcame real inequities, and did so while remaining within the mainstream of society. They were supportive of established institutions, including marriage, and were vehemently opposed to abortion (not that liberals would admit it). They led a reform movement that stood for the same things that conservatives stand for today.
Again, notice his use of the words "real inequities," as though all of that stuff I just listed was faux feminism or somehow harmful to the established institutions of society. Mike also continues to perpetuate the myth that feminists are against marriage. Where the fuck does this come from? Sure, some women don't like marriage and think that the institution itself is oppressive to women, but that is not some kind of universal law of feminism to be "against marriage." I am a radical feminist who likes the concept of marriage, with a few additions and tweaks (being that gay individuals should be allowed to marry and also that women shouldn't have to take their husband's last name if they don't want to.) Yep, even I look forward to marrying someday.
Mike also thinks that liberals simply don't want to "admit" that 19th century suffragettes were opposed to abortion. If they were ACTUALLY and truly VEHEMENTLY opposed to abortion, I would be the first to admit it. I am all about objectivity and transparency. But let's look at the facts. For one, the claim that Susan B. Anthony was vehemently opposed to abortion is based on an article (entitled Marriage and Maternity) in a newspaper briefly owned by Susan B. Anthony. It was signed anonymously by "A" and the author denounces "the horrible crime of child-murder." Anti-choice nuts often like to ignore the fact that in that very same article, the author also vigorously opposes "demanding a law for its suppression." See Sarah Palin is No Susan B. Anthony by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr.
There is also this strange belief that these 19th century feminists were "within the mainstream of society," that they were traditional, accepted, ladylike women who weren't criticized for going against the norm. The truth is that these early feminist activists were not so readily accepted by mainstream society. Most were mocked. Some were outright hated. Mike wants to present us with an image of 19th century feminism as the "true, accepted" version of feminism in which its founders were conservative and easily assimilated with society. But you need look no further than the people who thought the flappers were sluts or man-haters. You need look no further than the cartoons that openly mocked the suffragist movement in national newspapers of that time period.
Feminists since the 1960s, however, are an entirely different breed. No longer does feminism represent reform. Instead, it is a revolutionary movement that is inherently opposed to our social structure. Given all that mainstream feminism has accomplished, radical feminists have found themselves with little to truly fight for.
Oh, so I guess fighting for equal pay to THIS VERY DAY is not worth fighting for? That it's not worth fighting for harsher rape laws? That it's not worth fighting for women to be seen as PEOPLE instead of SEX OBJECTS in the media? it's not worth fighting to protect bodily autonomy? it's not worth fighting against female genital mutilation and worldwide violence against women? That's it's not worth fighting for rights of individuals who made no choice to be gay, but are hated and killed for it anyway? That it's not worth fighting for better maternal healthcare? That it's not worth educating teenage boys about how they can grow up to not be rapists? it's not worth telling men that she doesn't deserve to be raped because she was drunk or because she was dressed a certain way? That it's not worth fighting the mainstream belief that a woman's morality & worth is based on whether she's had sex or not? It's not worth fighting for women to stop hating their bodies and for men to stop imposing sexual standards on us? It's not worth fighting for women to be single mothers without SHAME?
"Little to truly fight for"? Sorry, but... Fuck you.
They have become a movement simply for the sake of being a movement. Midge Decter described it as "a momentary escape contained in the idea that she is not free at all; that she is, on the contrary, the victim of an age-old conspiracy that everything troubling to her has been imposed on her by others."
It is no conspiracy or momentary escape to entertain the fucking idea that the majority of government leaders and religious leaders have been WHITE MEN who consistently endorse sexist and patronizing attitudes in their legislature and speech. It is no conspiracy that there has never been a female President in the history of the United States. It is no conspiracy that the Catholic church is virulently anti-woman and that they have shielded sexual predators and yet it is somehow morally okay to them to EXCOMMUNICATE a nun who has performed an abortion to SAVE A WOMAN's LIFE but it's NOT acceptable to excommunicate ALL of the pedophile predators in the church. No, it's not a fucking conspiracy. It is a travesty.
Essentially, the modern feminist movement gives dissatisfied women a sense of solidarity in their fight against an "oppressive", "male-dominated" society.
Notice "oppressive" and "male-dominated" in quotes. Mike Armstrong is living in an alternate reality. This is a reality in which one's entire life, vision, actions, speech, and even human empathy is totally clouded by the beautiful privilege that society has granted them. They have never known what it is like - no, they have never even SEEN - what it is to be "the other" and thus they refuse to accept that oppression even exists.
They argue against the concept of the traditional family, most notably in their repudiation of the institution of marriage.
See what I wrote above-- here's a re-cap: Feminists are pro-family and most don't have any problem with people getting married, especially not me.
They rail against organized religion and capitalism as nothing more than tools invented by men to oppress women.
OH, RIGHT, BECAUSE ALL [RADICAL] FEMINISTS ARE ATHEIST COMMUNISTS. (Hence, the "perceived hatred of organized religion and capitalism.")
On a side-note, yeah, I am very much against organized religion because I am a militant atheist-agnostic (yes, such a thing exists). It has no place in my life, or the lives of my close friends and family. But the last time I checked, this does not make me a bad person or a RADICAL EXTREMIST because... guess what? people can be good/moral/ethical without god and oh, hey, this is America and we have something called the "separation of church and state." No, I do not believe organized religion was created originally to suppress women. But I do believe that a great deal of religious institutions today have evolved to the point where they do consciously seek to hold women back (see: the Catholic church and modern-day American Evangelicals.)
Perhaps most dangerously, they have been increasingly effective in bringing these viewpoints into the classroom, from the college lecture hall to the elementary school.
OH GOD FORBID THAT PEOPLE LISTEN TO DISSENTING VIEWPOINTS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION. It's so dangerous to think outside of the fucking box once in awhile.
The radical feminist movement began in the 1950s with the likes of Betty Friedan, who referred to the traditional family home as "comfortable concentration camps."
You would feel like you were in a comfortable concentration camp, too, if in the 1920's-1950's, your husband expected you to clean house all day, garden, make breakfast-lunch-and-dinner, watch the children, make babies, have sex, sew, iron clothes, wash clothes, clean some more, and act happy. Imagine that it is highly discouraged that you get a job, leave the house, speak your mind, object to having children, or care about anything that doesn't have to do with soap operas & gossip. Betty Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" was an analysis of the pervasive unhappiness of housewives in society. It's non-fiction. How the fuck would you feel if your life looked like that every day?
Since then, similar activists have conducted a barrage of unfair and deceitful attacks on marriage and the American family.
Who is to say what is traditional marriage or what is the "American family"? Why is my marriage or my family any of your goddamn business? If somebody personally objects to marriage, that is not going to affect you.
Marlene Dixon, a radical feminist and professor at the University of Chicago, claimed that, "the institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history." There was only one problem with Dixon's thesis: she was wrong. Marriage has been proven to be beneficial to men, women, and children.
Yeah, let's take one woman's opinion of marriage as an oppressive institution and claim that ALL radical feminists agree. Way to make sweeping generalizations, there.
And, yes, if Mike did his research, he would realize that marriage as it was originally designed, was incredibly sexist and misogynistic. It was essentially about property. In fact, in the Bible, wives were considered property of their husbands.
Obviously, marriage is not like that today. And though several aspects of marriage remain oppressive and sexist, that does not mean that the entire institution has to be done away with. It just needs reform.
Unmarried mothers, for instance, are seven times more likely to live in poverty than married mothers. In fact, 80% of child poverty occurs in broken homes, where children are more likely to fail school, get involved with drugs, and engage in early sexual behavior.
Ask yourself why this is the case. Did it ever occur to him that the reason unmarried mothers fare so poorly in our society is because of the amount of STIGMA, SHAME, and LACK OF RESOURCES that they suffer from the likes of sexist conservative assholes? Women are still paid less than men, so imagine how hard it is for a single mother to make money "without a man." And ask yourself why there are single mothers out there in the first place. Many have been victims of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and adultery from a previous marriage. Many have been coerced into giving birth because of conservative assholes seem to think that women MUST carry to term no matter what, but then turn around and claim that if she is a single mother, she's no good and her kids will be no-good bastard drug addicts.
The cohabitational relationships that feminists promote are actually more likely to be harmful to women. Domestic violence, for instance, is twice as likely in these kinds of relationships as in marriages.
Oh, right, so if those cohabitational couples just get married, then that domestic violence would just disappear? Putting a stamp on a relationship does not make it healthier. Maybe the reason there's more domestic violence in cohabitational relationships is because these abusive couples KNOW there's a problem and they refuse to get married because that would make it harder to separate in case things get worse.
By the way, as a warning to my readers, here is the worst fucking part of his essay:
Another major front of the feminist war on our society is in the economic sector. Radical feminists argue that, until women are represented in every occupation in proportion to population, our economic system is essentially unequal. The gender gap in professions such as engineering and manual labor, they claim, are a product of the "masculine conditioning" of society. But these so-called "activists" are missing the point by confusing gender equality with gender identity. There will always be gender gaps in occupations because of the natural abilities and desires of each gender. More men will be construction workers, and more women will be secretaries. That's nature.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mike Armstrong is claiming that MEN ARE BIOLOGICALLY & NATURALLY PREDISPOSED TO BECOME CONSTRUCTION WORKERS and that WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICALLY PREDISPOSED TO BECOME SECRETARIES.
What crockpot studies have you been reading, Mike?
Ahem. Having a vagina + identifying as a female person does not mean you are more naturally inclined to be a secretary. It does mean that society will TELL you that because of your body (female), you must subscribe to one socially-constructed gender role (feminine), and thus you can only be a secretary.
Furthermore, gender identity is not binary. Not everybody simply identifies as EITHER male or female and not every body conforms to gender roles. Gender roles are not biological. They are social constructs. This has been proven time and time again in academic literature.
There will be gender gaps in electrical engineering and construction work as long as we hold onto the belief that our girls are not "fit" for these jobs. It has nothing to do with our bodies, our gender, or our sex.
Of course, conceding that point would force feminists to drop their support for socialism- a fundamental part of their philosophy. Furthermore, it might force them to recognize the existence of gender roles, which are, they believe, an invention by men to only further control women.
Once again, Mike has no fucking clue what he is talking about. Gender roles are an invention of society and culture and are not biologically-based. All you need to do is look at the world cultures in which the "traditional gender roles" are reversed to know that they are merely a construct. Seriously, read any Sociology textbook and you will read all about these different cultures. And surprise, there are even some cultures that have more than 2 genders!
But who am I kidding? He probably doesn't read. (Mike, You probably haven't touched any more books since you first discovered Ayn Rand, Glenn Beck, and the Bible.)
In recent years, radical feminists have turned to our schools in order to promote their agendas. Colleges across the country, including our own Clarion University, have established "Women's Studies" programs in order to advance modern feminist thought.
He. is. seriously. against. Women's Studies. programs. Incredible. Un-fucking-believable. He's more of a misogynist than I thought. The reason we have a Women's Studies program at - GASP! - Clarion University of all places is because women are severely underrepresented in academia, in literature, film, math, music, science, and art. In fact, every academic subject COULD be called "Men's Studies" because all of the so-called Old Masters, pioneers, and visionaries are men. That is why we have Women's Studies to balance this out.
The argument that Mike is making against Women's Studies programs reminds me of how some racists are against BET (Black Entertainment Television) because, and I quote, "Imagine the outrage if there was a WET, WHITE ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION! Howcome they get BET and it's not racist?" Yeah, imagine the outrage. Because if you pay attention, most of TV already IS white entertainment. That's why we have BET for balance.
This, it seems, is only part of a larger effort to encourage "diversity" on campuses, as African-American and Gay and Lesbian Studies have become increasingly popular as well. Of course, no one is insinuating that there is anything wrong with studying different cultures, religions, or lifestyles. But could you imagine the outrage if a university were to establish a Caucasian, Heterosexual, or Men's Studies Program?
Hello, you have just revealed yourself to be a raging racist and a homophobe. Oh, I'm sorry, are you feeling oppressed because there's an African-American studies program? Oh, scary, I bet you'll call it "reverse racism"! Waah, where's YOUR Caucasian studies program? Oh, that's right.. it's in EVERY ACADEMIC SUBJECT EVER. Notice how many black people you learn about in history, science, art, etc. etc. Name somebody THEY told you about in elementary school besides Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, or the guy who invented peanut butter. Again, that is why we have African-American studies in college to BALANCE OUT THE WHITE.
By the way, there IS a Men's Studies Program in many colleges. It's called "Masculinities" or "Male Studies."
Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues, a man-bashing, near-pornographic "play" that masquerades as a solution to domestic violence is just another example of this being played out on college campuses. These are all attempts by radical feminists to demonize masculinity at an age when minds are still impressionable; and unfortunately, it is working.
Man-bashing? Pornographic? Has he ever even SEEN The Vagina Monologues? My guess is HELL NO.
First of all, Mike does not understand the word "pornographic." The word "vagina" is not pornographic in the least. He again reveals his raging misogyny by being so offended by female anatomy that he labels a fully-clothed work of ART as "pornographic." Let us examine the definition of pornography:
"pornographic: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"
There is nothing overtly arousing about Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues. There are scenes in which women moan sexually and wear non-revealing lingerie and discuss sex in a frank manner, but you would have to be BEYOND SEXUALLY RETARDED to be legitimately aroused by the play. Those parts are meant to be comedic, and if you can't handle it, that says a whole lot about your level of sexual maturity.
And if Mike actually saw the play, he would know for a fact that it is not "man-bashing." In actuality, it often calls on men to join the cause to end violence against women. Ensler acknowledges the crucial role that men play in the lives of women. See "V-MEN" for proof! Plenty of men see this play - both liberal and conservative men - and they will tell you that it was at turns funny and incredibly sad/moving. It is primarily about ending violence against women.
And if he sees it as anything less than that, the problem lies within himself and he should probably look at talking to a professional about being randomly aroused by monologues that are for the most part about rape and violence against women.
And maybe grow the fuck up?
Modern feminists would like us to believe that they support the advancement of all women. Nevertheless, this is a façade. In their minds, there are three types of people: 1) women, 2) evil, oppressive men, and 3) people who could be women if that hadn't decided to be Republicans instead. For evidence, you need to look no further than how these "feminists" treated prominent conservative women like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Sarah Palin.
Hahaha. I guess he doesn't understand that not all women are feminists. Sarah Palin is the epitome of anti-feminist; she wants to take away almost every right that women have earned in the last century -- except voting and running for office.
They were the epitome of what the 19th century feminists fought for, and yet they were trashed by modern radicals because they refused to buy into a leftist ideology. Unfortunately, feminism in 21st century America has little to do with equal rights and everything to do with the expansion of government in order to limit masculinity.
Government expansion? Limit masculinity? As though masculinity/femininity are limited commodities? Um, no. What the fuck are you going on about?
And what is Mike's definition of masculinity, I wonder? Oh, I know! "NOT A WOMAN AND NOT GAY." Or maybe: CONSTRUCTION WORKER AND BREADWINNER. AND NOT GAY.
When you can only define yourself as a man by the negative, then it's time to question what masculinity and femininity really mean. They are really just constrictive labels.
The word "feminist" has been hijacked by the far left. Now we can only ask ourselves: how do we take it back?
Believe me, you never had it in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment