What feminism offers

More from GROIN:

Women had it better when they had a sacred role. Now, they’re pieces of meat. Meat to fondle and fornicate with, like a prostitute but they don’t get paid (except in dubious “pleasure”). Meat to throw into the wheels of the machine as some desk-bound functionary. Meat to watch hundreds of hours of television that saps its self-esteem, compelling it to buy more products.

The result of feminism is femicide: the destruction of female lives. Not quickly, like murder, but slowly over the course of decades. We turn them into pieces of meat and cogs in the machine, then tell them that “empowerment” means casual sex followed by years alone in their lifeless apartments, sipping Chardonnay and surfing Amazon.com, wondering about the could-have-beens: could have been a mother, could have been really loved, could have been something more than a desk-bound functionary with a high wine bill and low self-esteem.

What we think of feminism, female empowerment and pro-grrl ideals are in fact a subtle trap that lures women from a place of importance, and instead turns them into chattel. The ideal alternative is a traditional society, but trillions of dollars of movies, government propaganda, books, magazines and TV shows tell you otherwise.

13 Responses

  1. It’s true. Life was better when they were pieces of meat to be used by only one male. That is far more “empowering”.

  2. HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME BONALD? SOME SARCASM WILL PUT YOU IN YOUR PLACE, YOU ASSHOLEBASTARD!

  3. Now, they’re pieces of meat. Meat to fondle and fornicate with, like a prostitute but they don’t get paid (except in dubious “pleasure”).

    Let’s also not forget, feminists want to be treated like meat, and will fight tooth and nail for that special right:

    Slut Walks

  4. Of course, husbands don’t view their wives as pieces of meat to be exploited. I-thou vs I-it, and all that.

    The very idea that wives were exploited by husbands in traditional society is completely false, the mirror image of reality, in fact. If we saw the same relationship among animals or insects in nature, we would recognize it quite clearly: the male is self-sacrificial slave for the sake of the female and her offspring.

    The history of feminism is the ultimate proof of how stupid females are.

  5. I’d be inclined to ask why, if you’re right here, feminism has achieved such popularity among so many women (and, indeed, men). Justin attributes this to the stupidity of women – to be charitable, I am going to assume that he is being deliberately provocative.

    There are a significant number of women who embrace traditionalist conservatism. But there are many more who don’t appear to share the view that they have a “sacred role” and a “place of importance” in patriarchal society. This includes many women in (for example) Muslim and traditional African cultures who prefer the western model. What is it, exactly, that they are failing to understand?

  6. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but fafsa has a point.

    Some men will always treat women like pieces of meat, or chattels. The difference is that in a patriarchal society it’s easier for them to get away with it and in modern society it’s easier to call them on it. Conversely, those of us who love and respect our wives will continue to do so whether society is patriarchal or feminist in character (or somewhere in between). That, to me, is a strong point in favour of modern liberalism.

  7. They haven’t been given a choice. They’ve been shown only the same false dichotomy that you present at the end of your post – Muslim/African-style oppression vs “the Western model”; i.e., feminism. For women who weren’t raised in traditional homes or within those cultures, there’s a gaping mental void between “every single tenet of modern feminism” and “my husband beating me and making me wear a burka”. Rejecting one of these things leads directly to the other.

    Remember, in modern liberal education (which includes the media) all religion is the same, and the West is not exceptional except when it’s worse. Traditional patriarchy is not presented as an option. It’s simply not there. Even online, it’s hard for women to find out about these things because the majority of “patriarchal” blogs are haunted by misogynists who tend to drive them away before they might actually learn anything.

    That said, browsing Amazon with some nice wine actually sounds like a nice relaxing evening to me, so maybe I shouldn’t be listened to 🙂

  8. Another thing.

    “We turn them into pieces of meat and cogs in the machine, then tell them that “empowerment” means casual sex followed by years alone in their lifeless apartments, sipping Chardonnay and surfing Amazon.com, wondering about the could-have-beens: could have been a mother, could have been really loved, could have been something more than a desk-bound functionary with a high wine bill and low self-esteem.”

    There has always been a small subsection of women who simply are not cut out to be wives and mothers. It just does not interest them. Until recently, society had a great place for these women: nunneries. When countries rejected monasticism, women like this either had to marry or become spinsters, obviously a major drop in status. Florence King writes a lot about spinsterhood by choice if you’re interested, and a book by Carolyn Graglia covers it well (she talks about “spiritual virgins” who have been pressured one way or another into bearing children but cannot fully bond).

    Personally, I think naturally non-maternal women were at the forefront of the feminist movement. We didn’t know anything about androgens or masculinization in utero or the finger-length rule back then, so these women assumed that because they didn’t feel maternal, all the other “maternal” women must be faking it and just had to be roused from their chains of femininity (see: The Female Eunuch).

    The point is, the anti-feminism movement focuses on the “woman alone with her cats” character to its own detriment. From my own background, I know a lot of women like this. Their lives have not been ruined by feminism, because if they’d lived a hundred years ago they would have felt the same way: naturally solitary, no interest in young children, independent. They’re probably one of the few groups whose status has been improved by feminism compared to 50 or 60 years ago. For a start, somebody invented Livejournal.

    You want to describe a tragic feminist scene? There’s dozens of them. Try the woman getting needles stuck in her ovaries because knowledge of peak fertility age has been actively suppressed. Or the 24-year-old couple splitting up over next to nothing because they’ve been given no model as to what a healthy relationship actually looks like. Or the woman of that couple 2 years later living in post-divorce poverty that no one ever told her about. Or the 17 year old that gets an incurable STD because nothing in her culture has given her a convincing reason not to sleep around. Hell, the millions of women who can only get sexual satisfaction reading Twilight because the only way you can get dominant men into popular culture past the feminist barricades is by *making them vampires.*

    THESE women are hurt. Cat ladies, for the most part, are perfectly happy with how feminism worked out for them, and don’t really understand why other people are not.

  9. I think that Catherine has a point.

  10. Hi Catherine,

    That is an interesting point. I think many anti-feminist bloggers, like Dalrock, tend to write as if all spinsters were women who wanted to have the standard family life but got derailed by feminism-inspired poor life choices. That’s probably true for some of them, but I have no idea what fraction.

    The existence of natural cat women would explain some of mens’ preferences as ways of avoiding them. For example, back when I was single, I would not have dated (or kept dating) a woman who didn’t make a fuss over babies. Of course, I have a similar standard for men and women: if you don’t think little kids are the cutest things ever, there’s something wrong with you. I have strong familial prejudices. It’s no use saying I’m being unfair; this is instinctual. I guess that makes evolutionary sense for those of us without the single calling.

  11. Good comment. This may have some relation to two consistent demographic findings on women in the workforce. The first I believe posted by Jesse Powell at Laura Wood’s site, and the second has been written about by the Social Pathologist blogger to some length.

    First, in modern America at least, these surveys have found three more or less consistent groups: it appears that 25% are strongly committed to spending time mothering and not working if at all possible. 50% are responsive to economic pressures and will go in or out of part- or full-time work while also placing importance on children. Then there is another 25% that always more or less shows up in the workforce, regardless of circumstances.

    Second is the basic statistic on female employment; pre-cultural revolution, around 25-30%. Post-cultural revolution, the nation fluctuates between 70-75% female employment.

    I believe traditional society had some organic understanding of the fact that there were non-maternal women. Even in countries with a strong monastic presence, I don’t think convents accounted for all of them. In English-speaking countries, we still have cultural memories of old maid aunts, governesses, teachers, etc.

    Religion is indeed problematic for solitary non-maternal women, though. Henry James’s “The Bostonians” is a very well-done fictional, but fact-based, account of the sociology of non-maternal women. The natural caring instincts of the feminine are universalized and thus dangerous in these women.

    I think it is apparent by now that an essential basic element of any restoration will be emancipating women from politics.

  12. I think this is just an incredibly blinded remark: “those of us who love and respect our wives will continue to do so whether society is patriarchal or feminist in character.” What kind of men does a feminist society produce? What kind of women does a feminist society produce? How do they relate to one another? What is marriage in a patriarchal society? What is marriage in a feminist society? If we start
    from the assumption that these are unimportant questions, we end up in that position.

    No personal offense intended to you, Reggie. This is just a notion that really exasperates me after seeing it implicitly assumed mindlessly in the popular and conservative press. Older male commentators seem especially unthinking on this issue.

    I don’t quite understand fafsa’s remark. It is better to be objectified by multiple men instead of one?

    You state the liberal case much better, and there is some truth in your point. Any cause always trumpets grievances, but there were some real grievances felt in the old culture. In a feminist society, however, it is much easier for women to shirk their duties to men and children, and much more difficult to call them on it. Modern liberalism spurs and promotes child abuse by pouring unrelated men, the worst offenders, into families as lovers or stepfathers. Liberalism has to answer for that. “Well,” it rejoins, “women are better off, so we can overlook that and other damage.” Perhaps, except that women were in aggregate happier and less depressed in the dark days before the cultural revolution than in the arcadia that followed. Men seem to be more adaptable to the new order. You are correct in your comment below that feminism is very popular among men. Spending too much time on the reactionary internet gives a skewed idea of the matter. And of course nearly every feminist victory was a result of liberal men not being very attached to patriarchy.

  13. “That’s probably true for some of them, but I have no idea what fraction.”

    Yes, and one problem is that it’s difficult to figure out what that fraction is, because they’re the fraction who make all the noise. Newspapers and movies and books are full of stories of women who left it too late to marry or have kids, and regret it. When was the last time you saw a story about a woman who didn’t have kids and then… continued to not want kids?

    Obviously I don’t think this is because the media is anti-feminist. I think it’s because of what you talked about in your post – most people, unfairly or not, find women who don’t want to have children creepy. We want to hear stories about them regretting it, not because we’re sadistic but because that way our feelings are eased. It’s not that these women REALLY didn’t want children, it’s that they didn’t know what they wanted, and only realized when it was too late! They’re just like us after all! You can see the same thing going on with men – like all those movies in which a playboy/confirmed bachelor/etc realizes the error of his ways and settles down.

    So, a women who says she doesn’t want children in her 20’s, and is still happy with her choices (and her cats) in her 40’s? Who wants to read about that? No editor will touch it. A women who deeply regrets her childfree ways? Now THAT’LL sell.

    And then, of course, bloggers like Dalrock pick up the story and it gets passed around as evidence of the vast crowd of unhappy spinsters out there – but how numerous are they, really? I have no idea. But I have seen several women age into pre-menopause with *relief* because of the terror they have of kids or pregnancy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: