Who wouldn’t support equality? It’s a rhetorical question. We know what kind of person doesn’t. Worse, some promote inequality under the guise of equality – a truly Orwellian situation.
From voting rights to reproductive rights, feminism’s advancement of equality has changed the course of world history for the better. But this ideal has coincided with a belief in women’s moral superiority. As first wave feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton put it, “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men”.
By the time second wave feminism was in full swing this had become, in the words of Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan, “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them”.
TV programs and commercials portray most men as either brutes or idiots, but there are no feminist objections to this sexism. Indeed, feminist films from Thelma & Louise to Maleficent portray all men as bad and all women as good (or if a woman appears bad it’s because a man made her that way, but deep inside she’s really good).
But feminists did object to Cheerios airing a commercial featuring a caring, involved father.
Women have had full legal equality with men for decades. So Valenti’s new frontier is to push for the right to free government tampons. Granted, most women must use feminine hygiene products several days each month. But the list of products all people must use several times every day is endless: toilet paper, toothbrushes, soap, and so on. But only feminine products matter.
The two main strands of feminist thought – legal equality and women’s superiority – are not mutually exclusive and most often have gone hand-in-hand. It’s no surprise, then, that feminism has jettisoned legal equality for special privileges:
- Not just free products for women only,
- but the right to serve in combat with exemption from the draft,
- greater government spending on women’s healthcare than men’s healthcare,
- maintaining the criminal sentencing discount for women (which is even greater than the white discount),
- maintaining family court’s discrimination against fathers,
- programs to reduce violence against women while denying that women’s abuse of men is a significant problem,
- special programs and scholarships for women to enter fields where they’re underrepresented but no such programs for men to enter female dominated fields,
The defence for this is that the dictionary says feminism is about equality. Which reminds me of the fundamentalist defence of homophobia that the Bible says God is love.
When describing the disturbing popularity of neo-fascist political parties in Europe, Naomi Wolf states:
Her op-ed, “Women-the kinder, gentler fascists?” begins by acknowledging that:
We’ve all heard this before. Yet, while feminists promote male control theory, empirical findings not only refute this notion but actually show women are slightly more controlling than men.
When it’s explicitly patronizing, feminists say putting women on a pedestal is sexist. And it is. But most of the time it’s feminists putting women on a pedestal, which enables them to go unnoticed as they promote inequality while calling it equality.
Those who point out the truth as labelled misogynists, which effectively ends the debate.
But authoritarianism isn’t just right-wing. Left-wing, Marxist authoritarianism is just as much of a problem. And as I noted in a previous post, research shows feminism to be an authoritarian movement.
Victim status is an important authoritarian tool. A group seeking power over others first claims a grievance against the other group, of such severity that extreme measures are called for.
Patriarchy theory claims an historical conspiracy by all men to oppress all women. But historical reality is quite different.
Throughout almost all of human history, starvation and deadly disease were unrelenting threats. Wars were battles over scarce resources. Men did the fighting because they’re physically stronger, and because historically women spent most of their adult lives pregnant or caring for children. This is biological reality, not a conspiracy against women.
Successful armies need a strong leader, and thus a small number of men gained political power, becoming kings. But the king needs subordinates who are disposable and who will follow his orders without question. So it’s false to say all men benefit from the privileges of a few men – quite the opposite as these men become cannon fodder.
The primary male role was to protect and provide for women and children amidst all this. It was a male obligation rather than privilege. And this greater risk is still seen today with men being 9 out of 10 work place deaths, 97.5% of combat deaths, about three-quarters of all suicides, and almost two-thirds of the chronically homeless.
On the other hand, grouping women with children meant women couldn’t achieve their full potential. But in the past, almost no one could.
Today, death is no longer immanent on a daily basis. We have low-risk, high paying jobs that greatly reduce our dependency on others. And birth control. In short, the old gender roles that survival necessitated are moot.
While feminism has fought to free women from the protective restrictions of the past, feminism has failed to understand the male gender role, indeed has demonized men, and has failed to support men’s freedom from traditional gender roles (feminist claims to the contrary notwithstanding).
That is, feminism promotes inequality under the guise of equality.