My Issues with Feminism

[ValleyGal]

To be honest--since you talked about transparency earlier--I'm afraid of it. Not because I might lose power or anything, since I hardly have any to speak of, but because I've so often seen these attitudes lead to real injustice and ill treatment. And when I've protested, I've found that the injustice gets justified, at the very least by people who say 'those were exceptions'. So the manifesto dismisses the concerns of say men who have been abused or ill treated by women as being aberrations. What I read in that is that men can expect no justice from women because women claim to be powerless with regard to men. Therefore if men did receive ill treatment at the hands of women--it didn't really happen.

It's probably easier to see it in a positive life because, to be blunt, it lets you off the hook. It requires nothing of women except that they state their preferences; it requires that men give up everything with the expectation of nothing.

My concerns would not dismiss in any way that women should have equal rights with men. I disagree with certain parts of it and will continue to do so.

Perhaps your experience is clouding an objective look? (I don't know) I wonder if you have had a bad experience and rather than put responsibility where it belongs, it is generalized to feminism. Certainly there are those feminists who take it too far and become oppressive to men. That is just as wrong as men oppressing women. Feminism is not an excuse to treat men poorly.

I also wonder if your assertion that feminism has taken away from the ills that men have suffered. For example, there are more women's shelters than there are men's. That is an injustice, imo, because there are definitely men who have been abused and would have benefitted from a place to go. I think that issue should be addressed separately from what feminism addresses. Men's issues and women's issues should be dealt with exclusive of the other.

I just want to mention one more thing....about why I see it in a positive light. When I graduated from high school, my family told me that I am not college material and should get married and have a family instead. So I got jobs to support myself until I found a husband, thinking that was my lot in life. I had very few responsibilities and life was easy when I just had to cook and clean and hang out with him. Now, though, I look back and see that since my ex ran away from home, I had full responsibility. I raised our son without any input, financial or otherwise from him. I went back to college and then got a job (nurses have a lot of responsibility for patient's lives and well-being). I bought a house, and that was a lot of responsibility. I then had an accident and could not return to my job so I returned to college and got a degree where I have now even more responsibility than I did when I was a nurse. I honestly don't think this manifesto lets me off the hook. If anything, it gave me far more responsibility than I would have liked. But what the manifesto did do is make me live up to my potential as a woman, as a mother and as a contributing member of today's society. The manifesto did not make my life any easier. It made it harder. But it also made it richer and more meaningful.

The best things in life require a lot of hard work...

 

[McScribe]

Yes feminism is meant to encourage women and empower women. And I'm glad you were able to overcome your troubled situation. It seems you are a person of resource and courage.

There are feminists who assert that there is no need for a 'masculism' though you say that there is. They say that because men dominate anyway that there is no need for this. And I look at how defensive some feminists have become here when I have tried to talk about gender issues. Frankly, I am sure that if every time you had dealt with Christians in your real life they treated you unfairly, shouted at you, justified bad actions against you that you'd be suspicious if you met other Christians who said 'we're not all like that'. They would probably seem to be in the minority and you'd wonder if they knew what they were talking about.

 

[ValleyGal]

McScribe, what you say makes me think about a conversation I had today with one of my college profs. I had been unfairly treated at my previous job and was dismissed without cause. It was my first real job as a social worker, and it was very painful to be dismissed when I had done nothing wrong. It took a lot of hard mental and emotional work for me to work it out and come out the other side with a soft heart. Today my prof reminded me of one of the things I learned, though, and urged me not to give up on social work because I had a bad experience working in an unhealthy environment.

I also think about church, and my bad experiences there. A man in active ministry that I married beat the tar of me three times, and nearly killed me the last time. And it was not the only time I'd been hurt by people in the church. A few months later, my best friend, a pastor's wife, betrayed my confidence and told friends and family terrible things about me, destroying my reputation. I have also been to terribly unfriendly churches, etc. But I am not going to say the church is bad just because there are people there who hurt me.

Social work, church, feminism - no matter what group you look at - will have some who abuse their positions in that group, and there will be some who are authentic and genuine and have a heart that is full of goodwill. There are good and bad in all groups, but that does not make feminism in itself "bad." It does make some feminists harmful. In other cases, like mine, feminism does some good.

But that does not mean to take away from the people who have caused you pain. You have been hurt. Put the responsibility on the individual people who hurt you, not on the ideology that drives them. It is people who hurt...not feminism. When people hurt others, it likely comes from a very hurt place within them - a place that threatens their sense of security and emotional safety. It comes from a place in their heart that is trying to make them feel safe, like "I'll lash out at you before you can lash out at me." And if you were hurt by a woman, feminist, Christian, you may very well respond in generalizing that to all women, feminists and Christians, just like I could generalize my own pains to all social workers, bosses and Christians. It is important to narrow the focus to where it truly belongs.

So while I am sorry for your pain, narrow the cause to the person who caused it, minus the various groups they belong to. It also helps to recognize that she likely caused pain to you coming out of her own pain, just as some of your comments here may evoke some defenses and hurt in other women.

You might respond by saying that feminism blames all men....and yes, that is true for 1969, but not for today.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

Semi-blind post.

Some people have gotten into arguments with me on the basis of my views on feminism, previously expressed, and have stated that because they believe that I am against women's rights (since this is the only thing that most people know about feminism) that many of the things I say about marriage are suspect.

As a person here who has gotten into arguments with you about your views on feminism....

I have to say I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the actual statements of people to and about you in this forum.

It is stuff like this that lessens your authority and credibility in my opinion. Not your disagreements with feminism, btw.

I'd like to put this to rest, by producing the Redstockings Manifesto of 1969. Some very prominent feminists were involved with producing it, and it is a declaration of the values proposed by 2nd Wave Feminism which have not been seriously disputed by the 3rd Wave at all. it contains ideas prominent in the important writings of many feminists, and some of them are to me extremely problematic, and have nothing to do with whether or not I feel that women and men should have equal rights under the law. It places interpretations on history, economics, sociology and anthropology, religion and society in general with which I disagree.

You say that you have disagreements with this manifesto. You don't say what they are, specifically. I mean, are we supposed to presume that you don't like the parts in red? If you want to convince me that you have legitimate disagreements with or arguments against feminism as a whole, then you're going to have to at least start by explaining 1) what parts you think are wrong, 2) why do you think they're wrong (IOW what is right/correct), and what is your evidence that they are wrong?

You say you want to "put to rest" the notion that you're just anti-woman. You appear to be trying to do this by telling us you disagree with a fifty year old feminist manifesto but without specifying in what ways you disagree. And you haven't even tried to explain how it is that this manifesto can be used as a stand-in for all of modern feminist thought.

How is that supposed to convince us that you have good-faith and unbiased disagreements* with feminism?

*Disagreements you came to sincerely and thoughtfully and not because you were pre-disposed to disagree with and vilify feminism.

I don't know. Maybe you're just making the assumption that we already know which parts you disagree with and why?

We don't. At least, I don't. Not a mind reader.

Read it for yourselves and consider: does this point of view express ideas that encourage people to develop deeper love within Christian marriages?

Why on earth would anyone expect a feminist manifesto to have anything to do with developing deeper love within Christian marriages?

Feminism is about gaining social, legal, political, etc equality for ALL women. All of them in the WHOLE WORLD. It is not just about Christians. It's definitely not about "Christian marriage." Feminism has no obligation to make it's goal be all about tickling the ears of Western (USian) Christians with a first-world, narcissistic and myopic focus on their own marital satisfaction.

No more than any human rights movement or organization has any obligation to make it's goals all about what is best for "Christian marriage."

The goal is equality, not helping Christians have better marriages.

Many people believe equality has the nice effect of making marriages (not just Christian ones) better.

So that's why feminism gets talked about in regards to marriage stuff.

But the litmus test for whether feminist theories are correct, supported by evidence, verifiable, etc, definitely doesn't have anything to do with whether it "encourage people to develop deeper love within Christian marriages."
Anyway, the last time I checked the Bible it said that God is the source of love (both in and outside of marriage) and that the Holy Spirit is what makes Christians have love and be better at loving others.

Christians shouldn't look to ANY doctrine or philosophy to find their encouragement in loving one another. Whether that be feminism or complementarianism. Look to Jesus for that. If you're abiding in God, the Bible says, you will have love for one another.


About the manifesto.... I think it is very strongly worded, maybe even a bit hyperbolic at parts and that's okay. Sometimes a message has to be strongly worded enough to shock people into listening to it. The time period and circumstances in which it was written warranted the language used.

I think the claims made in it are mostly accurate. Male domination has, in actual fact, been the norm throughout human history the whole world over. I believe God predicted that men would dominate as an outcome of the sinful nature. It is in men's sinful nature to dominate women and sinful men have pretty much always done exactly that in all aspects of life and culture. And it's men who are the ones who need to learn to stop dominating and learn to cooperate fully with women. Although we've made progress, we don't have full equality yet. Especially not social equality. (I really think it takes a bit of obstinacy and willful ignorance to not see that.)

Where I tend to disagree slightly with the manifesto is where it says that women need do nothing to change. I believe that God predicted that as a result/consequence of sin, women's desire or "turning to" will be for men. I believe that means that women's sinful nature is a tendency to look to (turn to) men - especially those with whom we have relationships - instead of to God and that makes it easier for men to dominate. IOW, women need to learn not to depend on men but to depend on God.

That being said, I don't have any qualms about the claims that it's mostly on men to change because it's mostly men who have to give up their power and control in order for women and men to be equal.

 

[Hetta]

Prior to feminism many families would live on one paycheck.
Any secondary income was usually discretionary.

It was expected that a woman would stay home and raise children.

When the generation of feminism came along they flooded the job market, not really creating so many "new jobs" but instead making competition for existing jobs more fierce.

This meant that employers were able to lower wages and get employees at a cheaper rate. If one person wouldn't take it, surely another will.

This meant that both men and women were working but getting less combined income than they would if there were less people in the market and two people were working at previous pay rates.

Now there isn't much of a choice but for both the man and woman in a marriage to work. It wasn't expected of our generation to have many kids, much less leave the workforce to care for them. The economy doesn't really allow for it either. It's nearly impossible for the majority of Americans to survive on the paycheck of one spouse with children involved.

That's not evidence. That's opinion.

And .. don't you work? Shouldn't you be barefoot in the kitchen every day?

 

[Hetta]

"Previous research shows that youths who perceive that their parents disapprove
of substance use and who report that their parents are involved
in their day-to-day activities are less likely than those who do not to use alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs."

- http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k9/159/ParentInvolvementHTML.pdf

Parental involvement has decreased since feminism and the societal expectation of two working parents.

If you're not there when your kids get out of school and can't see them off, if you're not available during their school breaks to build that relationship with them...you're more likely to have a kid that uses recreational drugs.

I see nothing in that report that supports your comment that "parental involvement has decreased since feminism and the societal expectation of two working parents." That's opinion again. I have always worked full time - none of my kids abuse drugs. Am I just *lucky* several times over, or is it because my parental involvement is still 100% despite my career? Parents can work and be involved with your kids, you know? Or are you suggesting that dads haven't been involved with their kids for the 100's of years prior to women joining the workplace? Or is that different? And if so, why? Are you saying that a mother is superior to a father, and her time spent with the kids is the only thing that stops them taking drugs?

 

[Avniel]

I think the claims made in it are mostly accurate. 1Male domination has, in actual fact, been the norm throughout human history the whole world over. I believe God predicted that men would dominate as an outcome of the sinful nature. 2It is in men's sinful nature to dominate women and sinful men have pretty much always done exactly that in all aspects of life and culture. And it's men who are the ones who need to learn to stop dominating and learn to cooperate fully with women. Although we've made progress, we don't have full equality yet. Especially not social equality. (I really think it takes a bit of obstinacy and willful ignorance to not see that.)

Where I tend to disagree slightly with the manifesto is where it says that women need do nothing to change. 3I believe that God predicted that as a result/consequence of sin, women's desire or "turning to" will be for men. I believe that means that women's sinful nature is a tendency to look to (turn to) men - especially those with whom we have relationships - instead of to God and that makes it easier for men to dominate. IOW, women need to learn not to depend on men but to depend on God.

That being said, I don't have any qualms about the claims that it's mostly on men to change because it's mostly men who have to give up their power and control in order for women and men to be equal.

1. There are several societies particularly ancient, that not only respected women and viewed them as equals but also a few that even held them higher then men. There is one culture where the queen was seen as the reason the kingdom is possible. What has happened is there has been one culture that has influenced a majority of the world. It was never a norm I can name a village or a tribe or even an entire city where women were considered equal to men for every culture that you can bring up in the ancient world that hasn't. THe issue is the cultures that weren't built on sexism didn't go out and spread their way of life.

2. It's in people's nature to dominate someone they view as week. I see it while on the train during rush hour. The girls pick on the girls the boys pick on the boys the strong pick on in this society, those seen as weak. It's not about nature it is about how we view someone else based on what is acceptable. During the Jim Crow era a white woman would have the ability to dominate a black man and it had nothing to do with sin, it was a legal reflection of societies view.


3.When we look at the scripture at Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This doesn't of course represent the NT marriage where the husband has a sacrificial love for his wife. Anyway this scripture isn't about a woman's desire to be with her husband it is about a mutual desire to role. This scripture is where the battle of the sexes comes from.

You see if valley is a feminist I would support her movement because I am for equality. I am not for all men do.....all women do.....all blacks do......all whites do......all lawyers do.....all doctors do........all car sales men do.......we come from a society that is vast and a melting pot but we generalize too much.

 

[Avniel]

That's not evidence. That's opinion.

And .. don't you work? Shouldn't you be barefoot in the kitchen every day?

I think that's a tad bit of a stereotype. The fact is in historically in the immigrant communities women were more then just SAHM. These families often had children working, fathers working and mothers working.....everyone had to chip in

 

[Hetta]

I think that's a tad bit of a stereotype. The fact is in historically in the immigrant communities women were more then just SAHM. These families often had children working, fathers working and mothers working.....everyone had to chip in

Tell it to the person indulging the stereotype, who blames every modern ill on "women working" when she works herself.

And anyone who has ever read the Bible has heard of Prov 31 woman. I don't hear any criticism of the work she did outside of the home.

 

[Verve]

1) That's not just opinion. That's the economy and the basics of how markets function.

2) I'd be a WAHM if I could afford to Hetta, but the economy does not allow for that. We are currently DINKs because we haven't even been married a year. Who knows when we will even have time to think about kids with the economy in the shape it's in.

3) You're too old to even understand what our generation is going through trying to finance things in this economy.

You were obviously part of the generation of feminism and can't even begin to understand what it was like growing up post-feminism.

I can't even begin to imagine what it will be like for those in the generation after mine. Allowing students who claim that they "identify" as another gender to use changing rooms with that gender. Not having parents home very much. Public schools that teach a culture of humanism. It was bad enough for those I went to school with, in a liberal state, and I can't begin to see how bad it will be for the kids in school now.

 

[Hetta]

1) That's not just opinion. That's the economy and the basics of how markets function.

I have yet to see a market breakdown that put "feminism" as the top reason why we have market fluctations.

2) I'd be a WAHM if I could afford to Hetta, but the economy does not allow for that. We are currently DINKs because we haven't even been married a year. Who knows when we will even have time to think about kids with the economy in the shape it's in.

The economy doesn't allow for that? Or is that you want things that an extra salary brings? It's not a criticism, it's a reality.

3) You're too old to even understand what our generation is going through trying to finance things in this economy.

LOL. Seriously? Do you think that the economy doesn't affect me because I'm in my 50's? That doesn't even make sense.

You were obviously part of the generation of feminism and can't even begin to understand what it was like growing up post-feminism.

I was born in the very early 60's. My mother was not a feminist, and feminism did not actually have much of an impact on my childhood. It was not until I was your age that it began to have a true impact.

I can't even begin to imagine what it will be like for those in the generation after mine. Allowing students who claim that they "identify" as another gender to use changing rooms with that gender. Not having parents home very much. Public schools that teach a culture of humanism. It was bad enough for those I went to school with, in a liberal state, and I can't begin to see how bad it will be for the kids in school now.

If you think that the worst possible scenario is that a person who identifies with a gender other than the one they were born in might want to use the restroom, then I wouldn't worry too much. It's hardly a rampant problem. And bumping into a man/woman in a restroom is far less scary to me than the prospect of having an armed gunman storm my children's school or the college campus where I am employed. Is that feminism too?

My kids are in public school and college and doing fine. They are fine, upstanding Christians. They get that at home you see. I don't expect a school to teach my kids right from wrong, or about God. Anyone who does is just being silly.

I don't think you understand, btw, how the whole thing with parental input and children works. Just 'being there' doesn't do the job. A parent could be at home all day long, drop their kids off at school, pick their kids up from school, be home all summer - and the kids might still use drugs. Just saying "don't do it" doesn't work either - especially not when parents are saying "don't do it" while puffing away on a cigarette, and they have a 6 pack in the fridge, which they crack open every night. It's not the presence, it's not the words - it's the openess and willingness to talk the whole darn thing through, from beginning to end, and it's living the behavior that you want your kids to copy. You have to be the "anti drug" message for your kids. You can be that without being home all day long. You just have to be consistent and persistent.

 

[McScribe]

When people who are skeptical of Christianity approach it, one of the worst things you can do is to imply that the religion itself has no flaws. I'm not talking about Jesus Christ here, or the Gospels, but the actual theology and church views that are what most people encounter. To dismiss for example inquiring people's concerns about, say, the Crusades, religious bigotry, persecution of Jews, by saying "those weren't real Christians" is to imply that Christian views are never subject to misinterpretation or that Christians never do anything wrong. That's simply stupid. Many atheists came to be that way because of many encounters with stupidity within Christianity.

The same applies to feminism. Any criticism made of feminist points of view, manifestos, ideas, is dismissed, is deliberately misunderstood or avoided. Only a few feminists--people like ValleyGal--even try to admit that feminists points of view can be wrong. But many others misdirect and obfuscate in the face of criticism.

Why should feminism be above criticism? Why do its adherents refuse to ever admit that they can ever be wrong about anything? THAT is why I am against feminism. I am not against legal equality for women, but I am against feminist teachings generally because the vast majority of those who advocate on the behalf of feminism act as though feminism--and through it women--can do no wrong, ever. Those who deny that they are doing this are simply lying.

To compare to Christianity again--saying that Christians have done bad things in history isn't denying the message of Jesus Christ, the salvation, the grace, the righteousness the freedom from sin. Nor should it be the same with any social philosophy--if it proposes that it offers good teachings, then fair enough. People's criticisms of the applications of those teachings, or of people's approach to explaining the philosophy--should be dealt with reasonably.

Having said this, people are entitled to their opinions. I don't expect to persuade anyone who already believes in what the Redstocking Manifesto says. And I guess I don't expect them to believe my position either. So there we stand.

 

[Purge187]

If I may chime in here, anyone who's interested in thoughtful deconstructions of Feminism should log onto Youtube and watch videos made by a guy who calls himself TheIgnoredGender. Good stuff all around.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Feminism should not be above criticism.I think that is different though than tolerating nothing but criticism including criticisms that are blatantly false or wildly exaggerated.Including minimizing or even omitting all the good and what should be praised.

And I guess I'm a liar too.Because I am friends with many feminist and not one of them have ever claimed women can "do no wrong ever".That is exactly the kind of blatantly false "criticisms" of feminist I myself wont tolerate.ALL the women I know at some point in their life have encountered women that "did wrong" including women they loved that did them wrong personally or to someone else they loved..I think maybe the only difference is a feminist is not likely(at least not in all cases) to say what she did wrong is SIMPLY BECAUSE she is a woman(female instead of male) because men do wrong too.Including some identical wrongs so gender has nothing to do with it.

women abuse/men abuse/women lie/men lie/women manipulate/men manipulate/women are lazy/men are lazy/women are controlling/men are controlling/women steal /men steal/women murder/men murder etc etc..

 

[vincenticus]

1) That's not just opinion. That's the economy and the basics of how markets function.

2) I'd be a WAHM if I could afford to Hetta, but the economy does not allow for that. We are currently DINKs because we haven't even been married a year. Who knows when we will even have time to think about kids with the economy in the shape it's in.

3) You're too old to even understand what our generation is going through trying to finance things in this economy.

You were obviously part of the generation of feminism and can't even begin to understand what it was like growing up post-feminism.

I can't even begin to imagine what it will be like for those in the generation after mine. Allowing students who claim that they "identify" as another gender to use changing rooms with that gender. Not having parents home very much. Public schools that teach a culture of humanism. It was bad enough for those I went to school with, in a liberal state, and I can't begin to see how bad it will be for the kids in school now.

Your examples are flawed.

1) If parental involvement has been on a downward decline for 50 years, and lack of parental involvement contributes to drug use, then we would see a 50 year consistent increase in drug use. We don't. The rates fluctuate.

2) If an influx of feminist workers flooded the market and caused fierce competition for jobs for the past 50 years, then we would see a rising unemployment rate over 50 years. But we don't. These rates fluctuate too.

You called Hetta too old to understand what your generation is going through, but I think you might be too young to understand how the economy moves in cycles. You have probably spent your adult life in a downward trend and have extrapolated it to form your view of the past and future.

I'll give you an example. Beginning 1992 and ending in 2001, the economy was booming. Employers couldn't fill all the jobs they had. Yay feminism, right? From 2001 to 2003, unemployment went up. Boo feminism! From 2003 to 2007, it fell again. Yay feminism? 2007 to 2010, up. Boo! 2010-Present, down. Yay!

No, I doubt you'd credit feminism to low unemployment and a booming economy. Why? Because you have a negative view of feminism and you are attributing it to the world's ills. Unemployment is high right now, therefore, feminism. Drug use is on the rise, therefore, feminism.

You have started from a conclusion and have sought out evidence to support that conclusion. It's called rationalization and it is not research.

 

[McScribe]

My concerns exactly. I don't mind talk of ways in which women feel they are not treated equally. What I object to is the idea that all men oppress women and that no woman can oppress a man, and that women need to nothing to change in order for there to be equality. That to me is a key position.

@Puffinstuff: These are the things that I was stating my disagreement with.

 

[Puffinstuff]

THAT is why I am against feminism. I am not against legal equality for women, but I am against feminist teachings generally because the vast majority of those who advocate on the behalf of feminism act as though feminism--and through it women--can do no wrong, ever. Those who deny that they are doing this are simply lying.

And this.

 

[McScribe]

And this.

And that, because of a lack of willingness to admit that there are influential voices within feminism that encourage misandry. it is often presented as though only a rare handful of feminists create false dichotomies and as though radical feminists do not have a powerful voice. Which feminist authors for example do you admire most?

 

[Puffinstuff]

I will never and have never be in support of anyone encouraging misandry same as I will not support anyone encouraging misogyny.Its no different than encouraging the hatred of any one group based on race or even religion .How rare or not rare it is would require more than which authors I(as an individual) admire most.All I can tell you is that I do not support or encourage misandry.Nor misogyny.Nor racism.Nor ageism.Nor persecution for religious beliefs etc...

 

[McScribe]

I will never and have never be in support of anyone encouraging misandry same as I will not support anyone encouraging misogyny.Its no different than encouraging the hatred of any one group based on race or even religion .How rare or not rare it is would require more than which authors I(as an individual) admire most.All I can tell you is that I do not support or encourage misandry.Nor misogyny.Nor racism.Nor ageism.Nor persecution for religious beliefs etc...

But do you see how the parts of this document that I disagree with taint the whole of it and suggest lack of goodwill towards men? And btw, which feminist writers do you admire?