On Modern Feminism from a Male Perspective

burning-bra2by FJ Rocca8/10/15
A small contingent of women (probably today’s feminists) take the same position as other “minorities” that there is a large majority keeping them down. They are playing on political correctness to accomplish certain goals they define as improperly as those of women in general. But the concept is false on two levels.

First, it defines women as a class, a mass, a collective. Women are individuals just as men are. Each woman has a mind, heart, lungs, a brain, the capacity to learn, act and achieve, and the ability to choose her own goals. And by the way, the 2010 census tells us that women are a majority, not a minority. They comprise 50.8% of the US population.

Second, it defines women’s goals as universal. They aren’t. Because each woman can define herself, she also can decide what to do with her life’s energies. Many women become lawyers, doctors, politicians, business owners, technicians, cab drivers, school teachers, IT specialists. As the King of Siam says in The King and I, “etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.” Lo and behold, some women even choose to be housewives, mothers, homemakers and matriarchs.

Yes, women have not always received proper treatment in society at large. According to the great historical author Barbara Tuchman, many women in the Middle Ages chose the convent over a marriage in which they would be dominated, often cruelly, by a husband who thought they were chattel. Up until the early 20th Century, women did not have the vote. There was a glass ceiling forty or fifty years ago. My wife once told her father she wanted to be an architect. He discouraged her. It was unlikely, he explained, that a woman could be accepted in the profession.

But not anymore. Women are seen in all walks of life and a great many of them are visibly and admirably successful. Ask Condoleeza Rice. Ask Carly Fiorina. I’d say, ask Hillary Clinton, but she takes the lying narrative to new heights, as does Michelle Obama, who recently claimed that America had somehow been unfair to her. Sure.

The narrative is false because certain people use it as an excuse, a tactic. Without the narrative, they can’t portray women as victims, and being victims is the way they gain sympathy—and inspire guilt in all the rest of us. This is not the way most women feel, of course. Most women nowadays work. They have jobs and responsibilities outside child rearing or cooking dinner (which they do in addition to doing their outside jobs). Women feel like individuals. They act like individual people, persons. They don’t act like a class, a mob or a collective, because they aren’t one.

The narrative may be partly a plot to elect Hillary Clinton, the intent being to inspire the kind of guilt that got Obama elected because he was black. However, Carly Fiorina is also a candidate and willingly puts the notion down. It is true that the position of women in the society has improved, but in the minds of most women, it is probably about the same as it has always been because human nature does not change. Women want marriage, family, solvency and children. They want a home and all the other “entitlements” they’ve always had, including having men open doors for them and buy them diamonds. They want to be attractive and sexy and often easily compete on an intellectual level with men. They don’t really need to compete, of course. They just need to be what they are, naturally smart and talented in many areas, and they need to take credit for what they do.

By the way, getting a woman elected President does not improve the lot of women in general, because achievement is not a class thing. It’s an individual thing. A woman who wants an education can get one. Even if she doesn’t have a university door held open for her, even if she isn’t married or even if she isn’t encouraged by a father to become an architect. She can work hard and make her own way. Nobody is holding women back. In fact, it is rare among men even to stereotype women nowadays. Not only is it Politically Incorrect, but it’s also repugnant to everyone but the crudest types.

Nobody needs permission to achieve, at least not in American society. It’s what makes our country desirable for women, unlike Muslim countries where women are less than chattel and in many Hispanic countries where males often engage in traditional misogynistic attitudes. And there are pockets in our society where the attitude toward women in general is negative. But women do not need to remain in those pockets. They can break free fairly easily—by reading books, acquiring skills and learning to move themselves forward and upward in society. Attitudes are only attitudes. The glass ceiling no longer holds anyone down if she exhibits intelligence, talent and the will to work smartly hard. The best ammunition with which to fight a fictional war on women is to ignore the enemy that doesn’t exist.


FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com. • (615 views)

Share
FJ Rocca

About FJ Rocca

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to On Modern Feminism from a Male Perspective

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Note that women make up a larger majority of (e.g.) voters or college students than they do of the population as a whole. Part of this is the wretched condition of black males, but not necessarily all of it. Christina Hoff Sommers differentiated between equity feminism (which basically sought equality, and has pretty much succeeded) and gender feminism (which is explicitly anti-male). Most women favor the former, but modern feminism is oriented toward the latter, which is why it’s really a fringe group — except in the liberal cultural elite, of course, which is really a congeries of lunatic fringes that together make up a lunatic mainstream.

  2. Rosalys says:

    I never thought I, as a female, needed liberation, because I have never been anyone’s slave or chattel – and always looked askance at anyone trying to convince me otherwise.

    I love the thumbnail picture accompanying this!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think Elizabeth would agree with you, having served at times as an English teacher (to Japanese students in Kokura) and fingerprint technician (at the Fort Worth PD) as well as a factory worker. She also is very knowledgeable (which no doubt helps), and thus was suitably skeptical when she encountered feminists referring to their “herstory” (since she knows enough etymology to know that “history” has nothing to do with gender). (She’s also a rape victim, but didn’t allow it to ruin her life.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I never thought I, as a female, needed liberation, because I have never been anyone’s slave or chattel

      I can believe that, lady. 😀

      Feminism has had a profound impact on our society. Nothing, other than the various entitlements has so “fundamentally transformed” America. Politics, and family, will never be the same either.

      With many, if not most, women able to be economically independent, that changes what society is about, particularly what women’s roles are. Women are no longer thought of as home makers, care givers, and child makers and nurturers. They are seen as the political, economic, and now physical equal of men.

      You can sing “Hallelujah” for all that. And perhaps for some of it we should. And certainly many women juggle (with “juggle” being the operative word) careers and family. But the expectations for women are now on par with men in terms of achievement.

      This is where abortion comes in, because it is the instrument that is meant to allow women (even coerce them) to try to have it all. And they can, but there is a price to pay for that. Additionally, as women’s rights or expectations have expanded, those of men have shrunk. I’ve read where it’s becoming more common to have essentially “kept men,” where the men are loafers while the women work. Hurrah for feminism. Power to the women. Burn those bras.

      I think feminism is a mixed bag, at best. And I think it’s not quite correct to say that now women have the choice to be individuals like never before. No they don’t. Any society is heavily influenced by the prevailing cultural notions. And one of those is that unless you work and have a career as a woman, you’re missing something. You can’t possibly be happy and fulfilled. And so now we have many women who are indoctrinated into ignoring their biology (perhaps putting it off for a while) as they choose the man’s world of political and economic achievement.

      So women born in the West today are expected to take on man-like tasks. And they have balanced this somewhat by having children and letting other people (day care) take care of them. And single-parenthood didn’t erupt in a vacuum. The ugly side of feminism is that it inherently contains the belittlement and marginalization of men and masculinity. Men are considered expendable. And we now see more feminized men, or just men who stay in a juvenile-like mindset way into their thirties, as society teaches them that masculinity is bad and being woman-like is the way to go. With this marginalization, government do-gooders have stepped in to act as a surrogate spouse or parent for women, thus marginalizing men even further.

      And one can, again, cheer this as good or lament it. But the end results is that women are turned into mere economic cogs in a machine of “fulfillment.” And from what Dennis Prager reports, this isn’t working. Depression amongst women is apparently at an all-time high.

      Does that mean the only alternative is to keep women barefoot and pregnant? Well, compared to alienating women from one of the greatest blessings they have — being feminine, being a mother, and not just being a man but without testicles — there are aspects of it that are a step up, for it has not only been men who have been marginalized.

      And society suffers from the loss of the strengths men provide, including integrity, discipline, and the need to follow law rather than float around chasing feelings from one instance to another. It used to be a cliche to say “It’s a man’s world.” It no longer is. It’s a woman’s world now. Today’s politics cannot be understood unless you understand that most of it is meant to appeal to women.

      I think, for instance, the true heart of the libertarian movement (other than being just another offshoot of the Left) is that it is a movement by men to try to regain their manhood. But because feminism is the gorilla in the living room — and one that hits back hard — few are going to admit this, even if it’s true. Whatever the case may be, having a “man’s movement” of any kind is more likely going to be portrayed as part of a “war on women” just as saying “white power” would be considered a racist war on minorities, even if the agenda was simply appreciating the vast numbers of white Europeans who have defined and contributed to Western Civilization. You can have “black studies” but in many universities the equivalent of “white studies” (a focus on Western Civilization) is downplayed or actually forbidden.

      Welcome to the Brave New World where the truth really has become a revolutionary act. I’m one man who is either stupid enough or brave enough to comment on this. But we don’t play the PC game here.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I have one little caveat to your exegesis: While it’s true that elite liberal opinion (and thus the culture) celebrates professional women and denigrates homemakers, this attitude has spread much less am9ng the “great unwashed” (sounds rather French to me). I think this is one reason so many women reject feminism (another reason is the hatred of men, which most women don’t share).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I do agree (and have said before and elsewhere) that women on-the-ground have moderated the hard-core nails-on-the-blackboard screeching feminism of the leaders at the top.

          Still, it’s easy to be magnanimous when you hold the cards…as I think women do these days. Never let us forget the power of every man (just like every white person) who is culturally crucified for saying something or doing something feminist incorrect. That hard-core nails-on-the-blackboard screeching feminism still sits there in the background. Men know it does and act accordingly.

          Certainly Trump is throwing a monkey wrench into this. Good for him. He’s not dropping in the polls because of his war on journalistic tramp, Megyn Kelly. But then a hugely successful, good-looking blond woman isn’t necessarily going to get too many sympathies from the average woman, particularly considering she’s on Fox News. But wait until Trump comes up against a Sandra Fluke type of character who think she’s a victim because we all won’t pay for her promiscuous lifestyle.

          But then maybe he’ll face that down too. But when these issues come up, we’re going to learn a lot about Trump, and I think people will find that a lot of it isn’t particularly conservative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *