The F-word by MaryH10000

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

The F-word by MaryH10000

I used to think feminism was a synonym for women’s rights. I don’t any more. Many people still do.

According to Wikipedia, “Most western feminist historians contend that all movements working to obtain women’s rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves.” [emphasis mine]

Of course feminist historians do. They don’t care whether I consider myself a feminist or not. No one is against giving women the vote. But by calling that a “feminist achievement,” it can be framed as “winning rights” from “male oppressors,” whether or not the people at the time saw it in those terms, or even whether people today see it in those terms.

But there is a different way to see the improvement in women’s rights. We could see it as the result of the natural alliance between men and women to create and protect children. And personally, I also see it as having been greatly enabled by the increased health and wealth brought about by the industrial revolution.

Why does this matter?

First of all, because someone advocating for women’s rights as a feminist will normally miss important factors of the particular “women’s issue” they are discussing. For example, why shouldn’t we have women on Seal Teams? To a feminist, the only reason someone would be against this is because men or “the patriarchy” want to oppress women. The actual reason is that women aren’t strong enough.

It’s amazing (and actually dangerous) how many women, and especially how many young girls, think that women are a match for men in a close-in physical fight, without weapons or some other “equalizer.” And no, martial arts alone will not make a woman the equal of a man. Sorry, Cobra Kai.

Secondly, by framing everything in terms of “oppression,” it misses the real purpose behind some of the differences in the treatment of women. What this means is that when the difference in treatment is removed, the real purposes they served are also removed, which can actually lead to more harm being done to women.

I’ll use one common example. Women have historically been more severely judged for sexual promiscuity than men. That is not only a difference in treatment. I would agree that it is also, to some extent, unjust.

The feminist answer is simply to normalize sexual promiscuity for women as well as for men, because in the feminist point of view, any difference in the treatment of women springs from the oppression of women by men. Which, by the way, is why the male is always used as the baseline by feminists. Whatever the oppressor has or does is always superior to what the oppressed has or does.

The problem is that sexual promiscuity is, in fact, worse for women than for men. The sexual double standard is based on actual, meaningful biological differences between men and women. Because, of course, the primary dangers of sexual promiscuity for women and their children was, and still is, the danger of becoming pregnant without the adequate support of a family.

So how do we handle the injustice of the sexual double standard? The answer in the middle ages was to apply the female standard to men. No, it wasn’t perfectly enforced. But it was, actually, the goal or standard of the Christian west.

Then it became an issue again, after the industrial revolution destabilized the primary reproductive and economic contributions of women. And actually, come to think of it, those of men as well.

The level of wealth increased so dramatically, for everyone, that the maternal death rate, even for poor women, was lowered drastically. Women were healthy enough to get pregnant earlier and more easily, they were more likely to survive childbirth, and their children were more likely to survive infancy. This lead to many more children being born, and surviving, by women of all classes. It’s not hard to see how the increase of children got spun into the Malthusian fear of overpopulation leading to disaster. Which is where we still are today, even as demographics show that the problem is not overpopulation but rather the opposite.

What do we do?

The feminist framing sees “many more children” as a matter of the oppression of women, as opposed to a pretty great problem to have. So the answer to “many more children” is to kill the extras while still in their mother’s womb, and to use whatever medical means are necessary, including hormonal disruption of the female reproductive system, to keep women from conceiving. The end result, of course, is to see the most uniquely feminine ability, the ability to create new people from her own flesh and blood, as an inherent matter of oppression.

A pro-woman viewpoint, in alliance with men, would first of all frame the issue as returning to a more normal level of child spacing, to improve the ability of the family to care for their children. This might still lead to average family sizes of four to seven children (not sure of my statistics there). They would simply be the result of only four to seven pregnancies, rather than constant pregnancy and high infant mortality.

Secondly, the female reproductive system would not be framed as an enemy to be overcome, as most current child spacing methods do. The idea would be to work with the reproductive systems of both men and women. This might actually include hormonal therapies to improve the health and predictability of the incredibly complex female reproductive system,to come up with non-destructive methods of child spacing. And part of the solution would still be to discourage promiscuous sex for both men and women, because it would still put women and children at greater risk.

That’s just one example. And it doesn’t deal with the economic issues of a family of that size, or how the labor to support and care for such a family should be allocated. But it does describe the basic methodology in dealing with such issues.

So no, I’m not a feminist.

Because of the co-option of the term “feminist” to mean anyone who promotes women’s rights, I will not automatically assume that someone who uses that term is against women’s rights. I will, however, assume that she or he does buy into the “oppressor vs oppressed” narrative, and therefore is likely to promote solutions that hurt women. In general, if you call yourself a feminist, you must demonstrate to me that you are NOT using this frame before I will consider your solutions.

68 thoughts on “The F-word by MaryH10000”

  1. Modern feminism is not intended as a “solution” to anything. Marx’s stated goal of destroying the middle class rests on the destruction of the so-called “nuclear family.”

    It’s been years since I read the Communist Manifesto, but if I remember correctly he intended to get women away from the nurturing of their children, and put education in the hands of the government.

    Liked by 1 person

    2. No need to say “modern.” The term “feminism” is itself modern: 1895. That’s why the wikipedia has to backdate feminism to include all attempts to improve women’s rights “feminism”.

      Like

      2. My mother differentiated between traditional feminism and modern feminism. She was utterly contemptuous of the latter. She pretty much felt the same way we feel toward BLM womanhood.

        She considered herself a traditional feminist and said modern feminists just want to be substitute men, and destroy womanhood.

        Like

    4. The term ‘nuclear family’ always reminds me of Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority, and makes me go :-D

      Or, they’re energy independent because they’ve got a reactor in the basement…
      ———————————
      Grandpa voted Republican until the day he died — but he’s been voting Democrat ever since.

      Like

    1. I would call that an example of human rights, or women’s rights, not feminism. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m tired of using their terms. Since they STILL frame everything as oppressor vs oppressed, men vs women.

      Like

      1. I like human rights, or just rights, rather than women’s rights or feminism. I’m uncomfortable with any us vs them divisions, or phrasings that lead to, no matter who’s us and who’s them.

        Having said that I’m quite comfortable pedestallizing women, holding the door for such, walking on the street side with such etc.

        Vive la différence, yes, but no virtue in versus.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. BINGO.
          Human rights.
          Not women’s rights, not gay rights, not trans rights.
          Human rights.
          If you have to put any other label on it, you’re discriminating for personal advantage over others.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. That is obviously untrue, and lends itself to stupid arguments.

              e.g. “What the USA does affects the rest of the world, so it’s wrong that only US Citizens have a say in US governance.”
              Stupid argument, but you’ve already granted the assumption.

              Like

                1. It’s one of the arguments that Democrat have used for allowing non-citizens to vote in US elections.

                  Like

                    3. Well, Mike, if you want to start the boog, that would probably do it.

                      Because there’s no way that the Left wouldn’t deploy the military to hunt down the militia in that case.

                      Like

              2. Hum, not sure which post/statement above you see as obviously untrue, even so I think I can reply; Nope, only perceived as untrue if one’s a rather fuzzy thinker. Rights, human rights, all folks, period. Doesn’t mean such rights ain’t often, flagrantly, violated by some others of course.

                Governance is a different story we, theoretically, choose who governs us. Our Constitution, theoretically, delimits the government’s interference with our exercising said rights. Often governments, including ours, violate the rights of others and often violate ours, citizens of said government, as well.

                Such actions do not negate the fact we all have basic human rights.

                Like

              1. How would you determine consent? By voting in rigged elections? Even if the elections were honest, what about the people who voted NO and had their rights superseded without their consent anyway?
                ———————————
                “They can’t force us to bow down to them, yet we don’t demand that anybody bow down to us. We upset their authoritarian view of the world.”

                Like

      2. It’s amazing how every article I’ve read bemoaning that women don’t call themselves feminist is all speculation. The writer never even thinks of asking us.

        Like

  4. Sigh – I used to think of myself as a small “f” feminist: I believed that women ought to have the same pay for the same job, and have the same opportunities for education, and career (assuming meeting the same qualifications), and equal consideration before the law. Anything in addition to that was just quibbling over lifestyle choices. Be a girl boss, the modern answer to Marie Curie, stay home and devote yourself to raising children – your choice, I don’t care and I’m not going to bug you about your choices in life.
    Apparently, that makes me a die-hard conservative, now.
    Still don’t care.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Same here.

      I got ticked off in the 50’s because women weren’t allowed in the university where my father was teaching (University of Virginia), in the 60’s because too many people told me that girls couldn’t do math, in the 70’s because two of my bosses in succession told me that women ought to be paid less than men because they didn’t have families to support, dropped out of reading any politics in the 80’s when I had a family to partly support and didn’t realize until about 10 years ago that “feminist” had been redefined to a set of positions I found seriously obnoxious.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I had a (black) supervisor in Department of the Army once who kept sending me on TDY to spare the single black mom in the section from having to travel. Also in place of the white alcoholic who got damaged in a bar fight (I was told he was “ill” and unable to travel). In one case, after I got back he transferred the project to the black lady so she could get the credit. His reasoning seemed to be as a married but childless woman I could “afford” the travel.
        When I finally got relieved from the three-week-going-on-and-on trip, she was sent. And she told me later she had wanted to travel, her boy was a teen and cou,d stay with grandma, so he had messed over both of us.

        Like

  5. “Because of the co-option of the term “feminist” to mean anyone who promotes women’s rights, I will not automatically assume that someone who uses that term is against women’s rights. I will, however, assume that she or he does buy into the “oppressor vs oppressed” narrative, and therefore is likely to promote solutions that hurt women. In general, if you call yourself a feminist, you must demonstrate to me that you are NOT using this frame before I will consider your solutions.”

    Safe bet that any man (or “male human”) who calls himself a feminist is the latter variety.

    Like

    1. I’d go one step further: Based on what I’ve seen of their behavior, any man who advertises himself as a feminist is at best a pest, most likely a harasser of women, and at worst a predator covering his tracks.

      Like

  6. “And no, martial arts alone will not make a woman the equal of a man.”

    Case in point would be the instuctor I had for Tae Kwon Do way back when. At the time, she was 2nd Dan/Degree blackbelt, with 5 to 7 years more experience than me. In a one on one MATCH, I’d get beat every time. Why? Because 1: there were rules in matches. 2. She was prepared for my attacks. Throw the rules out, and let me pick the time and method, and all of a sudden that difference in ability becomes a whole lot more level, in my favor.

    If I had to put a label on myself, I’m certainly not a feminist. But I am a meritist, and an ableist. As long as you can do the job, and do it well, more power to you. If you can’t do it, then all the laws in the world won’t make you able to do it.

    Like

    1. Merit. First and last, merit.

      I had a retired fireman in the store (Cabela’s) the other day who tried to convince me that women firemen were just as qualified as the men, in all situations. Because so much of it was “mental,” he claimed.

      Nope. And I told him I’d rather not have a woman fireman try to carry me out of the house, and drop me.

      Like

      1. Forgot to mention he was recently transplanted from California, and may have been…. warped by that.

        Like

        1. The “Hamster” from Top Gear did a firefighter things with the DFW airport show and the girl they had to upstage him was a rather tall athletic looker. From what I recall their physical test was not gender biased. She was built like a swimmer.

          Like

      3. My wife had an interesting take on that, saying there might be a place on a firefighting team for someone small enough to get in places where the male firefighters couldn’t, but if the main job is carrying victims to safety and wrestling a gushing firehouse, then it ain’t for women. Probably not practical to encourage specialization because “everybody needs to be exactly the same.”

        Like

        1. I have a story where there are female knights. Magic is involved.

          Historically, the first women were knighted when they needed people to climb up to the nest of a flying monster. It would not take men’s weight.

          Like

          1. I think that’s the point. It takes something magical or Divine to put a woman at physical parity with a man. But that’s not reality. Otherwise, I wouldn’t need the forklift to move my lathe around the workshop; my wife and I could shove it around together.

            Like

    2. It’s an edge case, but a high level female martial artist CAN defeat a male with no knowledge. Watched a video the other night of a guy reaching for his waitress’s rear end – he got a fast arm bar and two elbow strikes to the throat.

      Like

      1. Well, being a high level female martial artist means getting quicker than the men. Move fast, run away fast, even in sports fights that are fair.

        And a lot of the tricks devised by/for women martial artists are also then used by men, so it can be a temporary advantage.

        Like

        1. Yeah. I was trying to teach my youngest sister, but our brother was watching and used everything I taught her against her.

          Of course, when he got dog-piked by six sisters, he could just bleat about it being unfair.

          Like

        2. This is so true. I may have done karate for 12 years, but I would never TRY to get in a fight with a guy, because I may kick like a mule and I can certainly throw you to the ground if you grab me, but I’m not stupid enough to start a fight. Overconfidence is poison, and way too many females have drunk that koolaid.
          But, see, I’ve taken tests with my brother, who’s 4 inches taller and 40 lbs heavier than me, and he has to hold back every time. The difference in muscle mass, especially in his upper body, is an actual physical reality that can’t be wished away or explained out of existence. He’s faster and stronger and has a physical advantage that I can’t hope to overcome.
          Doesn’t mean I couldn’t do some real damage to Joe Schmoe, assuming I don’t waste my one shot, though.

          Like

    3. Had a friend many years ago, a 5’11” tall, 180 lbs woman who was a world class black belt in karate. I saw her do things sparring that seemed damn-near physically impossible – spin around on one leg, foot face high to her opponent, and then stop an inch from his cheek and never even come close to losing her balance. She then slapped the dude gently with her foot – after he opened his eyes. Physical freak.

      She would say that, in a fight with a man, she would have at most one shot at taking him out, and if she failed, she was dead. She even said I would destroy her, based on the difference in muscle mass (I was 6’2″ maybe 220 back then).

      This was the early 80s. Since she wasn’t stupid, she carried.

      Like

      1. One shot is about right.

        When I started in Krav, I was paired up with a female blue belt for exactly one rotation in the first session. The instructor got mad at me for reducing power/speed of my strikes to the pads so she wouldn’t get hurt. Then fed me to the more experienced guys. I still held pads for and played training dummy in drills for her.

        Later referred her to my spouse, who is an trainer/RO for a lady’s shooting league. Also to my niece that taught her about blades. Combined that with the escapes and nasty strikes learned in Krav, she is prepped for today’s world.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think the point is, these are outliers, not the rule. I know a couple of guys that you kick them in the nuts, they’re just going to growl a bit louder as they render you into your component parts. Not normal guys. Just as you outliers who do not have normal reactions to someone cutting big holes in their circulatory system. Rather than go unconscious from drastically reduced blood flow and pressure, they keep going until they’re done. When these are good guys, they get called heroes. When these are bad guys, they get called monsters. And usually, but not always, they get called that posthumously.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Agreed. And it’s not just that she’s an outlier. It’s that she concedes that even in the best case, she will get only one chance. This is not what girls who think close in fighting is Cobra Kai realize. And for something like the Seals, you are putting women in with men who are chosen for being outliers among men. Can some women fight in combat? Sure. Some positions, maybe copter pilots, maybe even on an equal level. But close in, on the ground, no equalizing weapon, against a trained, fit, male soldier? Even an outlier woman’s got one chance, tops, to kill or disable, to get away.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Exactly – my daughter served as a Marine for two hitches. She’s tall, aggressive, physically fit. She was at her best physical shape of her life as a Marine. They matched her in a bout with a male Marine, her size and weight … and she says that it was all she could do to fight him to a draw.
              (She is also very much against co-ed basic training – as am I. That is just asking for trouble of a sort that the military services don’t need.)

              Like

      2. knew a gal back in the 80’s when I was a bicycle mechanic (she was training with the National Team for Velodrome racing) who was A: small (5′ 2-ish, maybe) and B: a Nautilus champion (I guess they had competitions on the equipment) and went out with rather large guys when drinking with friends. The guys were not (often) dates. They were to keep her from hurting folks when drunk. Very much an outlier, and she knew her limitations, but her hugs (or headlocks) could do damage if she was in her cups.

        Liked by 1 person

    4. Muscle mass matters, especially upper body (where men are most notably different from women… and boys). Not only does it allow you to hit the other person harder, but it also protects against hits by hands and feet. There’s that video floating around of Schwarzenegger at an event in South Africa when someone jump kicked him from behind. As can clearly be seen in the video, he took a single step forward, and that was it. He apparently later stated that he thought someone had bumped into him.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. “If women are paid less for doing the same jobs, why would any company ever pay more to hire men?”

    Any company that did pay more to hire men would be at a disadvantage competing against more rational companies that hired women for less.

    IF women were actually doing the same jobs for less pay.
    ———————————
    Imposing your idea of “equity” on people is every bit as evil as somebody else imposing inequity on them.

    Like

    1. Because…. uh… because The Patriarchy wants all wymyn to be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen all the time! And because shut up mysoginist.

      NOTE: the above should be read in either an extremely hammy tone, or dripping-to-the-point-of-overflowing sarcasm.

      Like

    2. Our second tax year, when we’d both started and been on the same job. Went to tax accountant (dealing with the then, income averaging when one suddenly has a major jump in income, and we did). Handed over our W-2’s. “Why is his income more than yours?” Easy. He worked more overtime (generally volunteer), and more nights (differential). How we preferred it. Early ’80s, while I worked my share of nights on the log shipping docks pulling log tags off logs getting shipped out, it wasn’t particularly safe. Which meant more work for not only me, but the others I was working with.

      Even though I have “non-traditional” female trades, both physical (forestry) and mental (math/programming) never considered myself a feminist. Never expected special treatment. Did learn my limitations. Forestry learned being vertically challenged (5’4″) I could keep the pace, with those taller than I, or I could keep going all day, not both. Not sure where my height is related to my sex. Also learned it is a more difficult (not couldn’t) for me to carry 40#s than most on the crew. OTOH they weren’t carrying 1/3 their weight either. I was.

      Like

  8. Feminism…..my fathers sister (b. 1910) went to Cornell…the real Cornell on a scholarship and graduated Cum Laude. Fast forward….she taught high school then was principal then was Head Administrator for the School district. Retired in 1960. When she was the principal she had an antibullying policy. The two kids were taken down to the boxing ring in the basement by her and the coach (yes boxing was a gym requirement). Put on gloves and mouth pieces. Kid who started it had to stand for fifteen seconds while the other kid punched him. Then they finished the 2 minute round. Bullying, at least at he school and later in the district dropped way off.
    My mother went to schoolon a scholarship for engineering. tutored a student a year behind her. Got a good job with big engineering manufacturing place in town. Going to be department supervisor after one year. Kid she tutored got the job. His grandfather was Chairman. He knew and everyone knew that she was better than any three men….but even if he quit she wouldnt get it as the war was now over and all those boys would be home looking for brides.
    She quit went and had adventures in NYC with her best friend, got married and had kids…..which was all she ever wanted. The engineering was because no good men around.
    Neither had anything good to say about Feminism. They rated women that needed help to take cake courses as worse than sissy men (not gay…but the kind of man who would not stand up especially when they would get pounded).

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I no longer give a single crap about whether feminism hurts women or not.

    If it hurts men, then should be enough of a reason to oppose it and all it’s works.

    Like

    1. Agreed. Feminism hurts all people, not just women. Just pointing out that it does, in fact, hurt women as well. Since the purpose that feminism publicly claims for itself is an interest in women’s rights. I reject the right of feminism to stand for women’s rights.

      Like

  10. Back when words still had meanings, I preferred “wymynist” to describe the aggressively “Down with the Patriarchy! Grrrrrrrrl Powr!!!” types, and feminist for the moderately aggressive “Equal pay for mostly equal work; birth control for free” sort. This was after someone made a fuss about the words “woman” and “women” having the word “man/men” in them. feline eyeroll here

    Liked by 1 person

  12. If a biological female is not allowed and cheered on for being a wife and mother, if that is what she chooses to be in life, then no choice is valid. Freedom is not being anything you want to be, freedom is being the best that you can be. It is no more complicated than that. You can not be what you are not. But you can be the best of what you chose to be.

    Like

  13. Way back in the 70’s, I used to say,
    “You know in the old days, when a man got an unmarried woman pregnant, her daddy would get the shotgun and make sure they got married.”
    “Now if a man gets an unmarried woman pregnant and offers to pay for half of her abortion, he’s considered a feminist hero.”
    “How is that better for women?”

    Like

  15. OT – I see that SecState just showed up in Ukraine with another $billion in hand. I wonder who they had to fire to get this round?

    Like

Comments are closed.