My Issues with Feminism

[McScribe]

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

REDSTOCKINGS MANIFESTO (1969)

I. After centuries of individual and preliminary political struggle, women are united to achieve their final liberation from male supremacy. Redstockings is dedicated to building this unity and winning our freedom.

II. Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men's lives. Our humanity is denied. Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.

Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition. This creates the illusion that a woman's relationship with her man is a matter interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually. In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.

III. We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy: men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest. All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.

IV. Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from men to institutions or to women themselves. We condemn these arguments as evasions. Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor. To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors. On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men.

We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women's submission is not the result of brainwashing, stupidity, or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change our-selves, but to change men.

The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men. The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution.

V. We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.

Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions. Consciousness-raising is not "therapy", which implies the existence of individual solutions and falsely assumes that the male-female relationship is purely personal, but the only method by which we can ensure that our program for liberation is based on the concrete realities of our lives.

The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty, in private and in public, with ourselves and other women.

VI. We identify with all women. We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited woman.

We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status privileges that divide us from other women. We are determined to recognize and eliminate any prejudices we may hold against other women.

We are committed to achieving internal democracy. We will do whatever is necessary to ensue that every woman in our movement has an equal chance to participate, assume responsibility, and develop her political potential.

VII. We call on all our sisters to unite with us in struggle.

We call on all men to give up their male privileges and support women's liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.

In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is "revolutionary" or "reformist", only what is good for women.

The time for individual skirmishes has passed. This time we are going all the way.

 

[Hetta]

I agree with a great deal of it. IMO, the writer/s were looking for equality. I am for equality between all races, religions and both genders. Some of the language is grandiose or extremely assertive perhaps, but it was written at a time when women had only just obtained the vote and some form of beginning of equality. I do believe that equality is very good for marriage. It certainly works for my husband and myself, and a host of other married couples with whom I am familiar.

 

[Avniel]

To me it reminds me of the teachings of dr huey p newton and his black panthers. Instead of finding a loving way to deal with oppression they created hatred a coping mechanism used as a defense mechanism. I think the feminists views are very much the same in that regard, primitive and very animalistic view on survival. Have you ever done a research on feminism and terrorism they mirror that of the violent side of the civil rights.

The one that hit me the most is that all men are oppressive. We see this in women that have been abused the "all men syndrome" is what I call it. Similar to in the black community the "all whites syndrome."

Of course you are not saying that women are never oppressed by sexism however Misandry like reverse racism is not the answer.

You know what I find interesting there are a few not many but a few women that respond to women with sympathy and men with distrust. If a man posts an issue these few attempt to excuse and understand the woman, who is a non poster. However when it's a reverse the woman is taken at face value and the man is wrong. I think this speaks to the exact mentality you speak of. But it's not all its a select few.

To me when I hear someone claim feminism I put them in the same extreme category of Black militants. Often times its not to far off ideology wise.

 

[Avniel]

I agree with a great deal of it. IMO, the writer/s were looking for equality. I am for equality between all races, religions and both genders. Some of the language is grandiose or extremely assertive perhaps, but it was written at a time when women had only just obtained the vote and some form of beginning of equality. I do believe that equality is very good for marriage. It certainly works for my husband and myself, and a host of other married couples with whom I am familiar.

My question to you is why do most women that claim to be feminists have very extreme opinions of men in general? Why do the support divorce so intensely? Why do we on this forum see more feminists vs women advise divorce so freely? Why are some of the most confrontational and aggressive people(not just women) feminists?

 

[McScribe]

I agree with a great deal of it. IMO, the writer/s were looking for equality. I am for equality between all races, religions and both genders. Some of the language is grandiose or extremely assertive perhaps, but it was written at a time when women had only just obtained the vote and some form of beginning of equality. I do believe that equality is very good for marriage. It certainly works for my husband and myself, and a host of other married couples with whom I am familiar.

It was written in 1969.

 

[McScribe]

To me it reminds me of the teachings of dr huey p newton and his black panthers. Instead of finding a loving way to deal with oppression they created hatred a coping mechanism used as a defense mechanism. I think the feminists views are very much the same in that regard, primitive and very animalistic view on survival. Have you ever done a research on feminism and terrorism they mirror that of the violent side of the civil rights.

The one that hit me the most is that all men are oppressive. We see this in women that have been abused the "all men syndrome" is what I call it. Similar to in the black community the "all whites syndrome."

Of course you are not saying that women are never oppressed by sexism however Misandry like reverse racism is not the answer.

You know what I find interesting there are a few not many but a few women that respond to women with sympathy and men with distrust. If a man posts an issue these few attempt to excuse and understand the woman, who is a non poster. However when it's a reverse the woman is taken at face value and the man is wrong. I think this speaks to the exact mentality you speak of. But it's not all its a select few.

To me when I hear someone claim feminism I put them in the same extreme category of Black militants. Often times its not to far off ideology wise.

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.

 

[Hetta]

You see, this already turned into criticizing women on this forum, and the responses they make, and I am not interested in these kind of discussions that soon become arguments about who said what to whom, when it's all a matter of perception anyway. So, thankfully I will disengage and leave you all to it.

 

[LinkH]

I do not agree that women are an oppressed class, certainly not today. How long should this philosophy continue? When will feminists not consider women to be oppressed any more? There were 'minority scholarships' the last I heard in the US for women now when more women are graduating college than men.

If a woman decides to unilaterally divorce her husband or cheats on him and files on divorce, she has a very high chance of getting the children and making her husband pay child support in this country. If a man runs off and files a divorce against his wife or cheats on her and files for divorce, chances are he'll lose primary custody of the kids and have to pay to support them. I'm not against father's supporting their children, but creating a situation where he has to pay for two homes is a major economic drain compared to maintaining one home for the family.

Women still got paid less than men. Part of that may be the fields that women gravitate toward. Nursing pays pretty well. But school teachers don't get paid that well compared to a lot of other professions. I went to a pretty good business school for my MBA, and maybe a quarter or a fourth of the students were women, and of course the rest were men. Social workers and school teachers are usually going to get paid less than MBA graduations from a good program. There is also the issue of women leaving careers to take on the noble task of primary care-giver for young children, which could result in lower wages. I wonder how much of the difference in pay comes from factors like these rather than discrimination.

I wouldn't say that a society where the husband is the head of the home is innately oppressive. It would be wrong to say a society set up on commands given from God Himself is oppressive. I wouldn't say that Israel ever truly kept the law, but if they had, then a feminist would probably call that society 'male dominated' or 'oppressive.' It may be run primarily by males, but that doesn't make it oppressive or sinful. And the society Israel came up with to the extent they did keep the law was lead by men for the most part, though later Judaism became a bit more matriarchal in some ways.

If you are too free with the 'discrimination' label, then you may label God as a discriminator. After all, he had women give birth, not men. He cursed the ground for the man's sake and told the man to work it. Women are equipped to generally be able to nurse babies after childbirth. Some gender role distinctions are 'hard wired'. He told the woman that her husband would rule over her.

The idea that no gender role differentiation is an ideal that we should pursue can be damaging to society. If women don't nurse their babies so they can build careers for the sake of having a career to be equal to or the same as the men in their lives, that's not good for the babies. Some men pull off playing Mr. Mom, but it does seem like the average female has some characteristics that make her a bit more gifted when it comes to some aspects of caring for infants than the average man.

God has Israeli men fighting in the military. If there were a draft, does it really make sense to draft both men and women. Doesn't it make sense to have some gender role differentiation?

When we are two or three, we figure out there is a different between men and women. But it seems like western society spends the next decades of your life trying to convince you that there is no difference.

As Christians, it makes sense to examine these philosophies in light of what is God's word rather than basing our opinions on political philosophies we have absorbed from TV and the media.

 

[ValleyGal]

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

I believe it does….or it can.
I. Women should be free from male supremacy. After all, men are not supreme, just as white people are not supreme. If men get off this arrogant horse, they are more able to live in the humility that believers are called to, and humility, in turn, creates deep respect and intimacy in marriage.

II. Personal is political. Under male supremacy, women were the underclass, and this inequality definitely prevented deeper love in Christian marriage. Personally I have a hard time having a deep love with someone who lords himself over me just because he is a man. In contrast, God calls us to “consider others better than yourselves” and to “serve one another in love.” Does a supremacist show this kind of humility?

III. Identifying the agents of oppression as men is simply acknowledging the truth. It has traditionally been men who wrote public policy, including policies on the treatment of women. It is also truth as supported by the passage in Genesis where God says to Eve that because of her sin, “men will rule over you.” There is no argument there. Men have ruled over women all this time. Women cannot oppress men, the same as reverse racism does not exist. In marriage, this destroys intimacy and actually forces women into a subservient role, which was undone with Jesus. He treated women with respect as equals, and this increases intimacy between a husband and wife.

IV. How can men shift this responsibility to women, when it is men who created the policies in the first place? The women are not the ones who need to change; rather, men need to address their sense of power over women. Shifting blame onto women is like blaming the victim, and that is a good way to totally destroy a woman in marriage. When everything is “her fault” even when it is not her fault, it is a heavy burden for any woman. Blame is what Adam did to Eve in the garden, and it is still going on today. It destroys a woman’s respect for her husband. God tells us to take responsibility for our own load (daily stuff) and to carry each other’s burdens (such as policies that oppress women).

V. Men have created ideologies based on what they think the experience of women is, rather than on what women say their experience really is. The two are not synchronous. Men cannot tell me what my experience as a woman is, when he has not experienced it. So policies for women are based on what men think, not on what women say. Here is an example. Man thinks woman has it easy all day, staying home and taking care of the home and children. He does not think she needs a break and refuses to take her on a date every week. Then he gets injured and needs to be the one to stay home, so she goes to work. Now that he is the one at home, he realizes how challenging her life really is, and how hard she works. He now has new respect for her, and decides that he was unfair by not taking her out for a date once a week to give her a break. Men only think they know what women need, and that is what they base their policies on…not what they actually need. So for men to quit basing their ideologies on what they think we need will actually increase intimacy in the relationship.

VI. Identifying with all women is fighting for social justice, not motivated for self alone, but doing what God calls us to do in speaking for those who have no voice. There is nothing wrong with this, even in Christian marriage, as all women have friends outside the marriage. And if she doesn’t, she is more oppressed than most women. God calls us to live in community, and this is good for Christian marriage. If a young woman has an older woman to mentor her, she will be a good wife. It says that somewhere in the Bible.

VII. Calling on men to give up their male privilege is actually a good thing. It is about calling them off the arrogance high-horse. Let’s say power is represented by pennies. There are 100 pennies for 100% power. Now, traditionally, men have had all 100 pennies. Where are women going to get any pennies, unless they get them from men? Men have to give up some of the pennies in order for the women to have some. So the call is for men to give up willingly, so women do not have to revolt and fight for them. There is no reason other than arrogance or fear for men to hold onto all the pennies. They can share. Women are asking men to share. But we are still undervalued as an underclass unless we have 50 of the pennies. This is another feminist value that upholds biblical teaching. If men were actually to live out the verse that says to consider others as better than yourself, he would give his wife all the pennies, and then seeing how much he loves her, she would push at least 50 (if not more) of the pennies back to him. But when a man wants to hoard all the pennies, she is then treated as an underclass and does not experience love the way that the sacrificial love of Christ is meant to be.

The language of the manifesto had to be strong. If it were weak, it would only be reinforcing male ideology that women are not strong and need men to be the ones in the place of supremacy.

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.

When we talk about feminism, it is important to realize a feature of feminism. Feminism is a movement and involves a collective. It is sociological, not psychological. Psychology looks at individuals. Sociology looks at the whole group. In any given group, you have a bell curve. The bulk of them are in the middle, but you will have a few extremes on either side. So it is with men. Not all men oppress women; in fact, some men are very strong advocates for feminism.

 

[Avniel]

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.

It's a counterproductive ideology. Particularly in a society where women get less jail time then men, women are ordered to pay less child support then men.....It just teaches women "women don't need men"(something that won't work in the cooperate world). Feminism in my opinion is unnatural a desire to be equal is.

 

[McScribe]

Number four is the most insidious of them all.

IV. Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from men to institutions or to women themselves. We condemn these arguments as evasions. Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor. To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors. On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men.

We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women's submission is not the result of brainwashing, stupidity, or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change our-selves, but to change men.

The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men. The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution.

First: is it not feminists who say that "the personal is political"? Yet this is not true when it is men who express concerns. Strike one.

Second: The implication in this feminist manifesto is that women do not benefit from existing social systems. When men have tried to point out that both sexes benefit and lose, this is disagreed with. Now think about this a moment: why would that be? Why is it that feminists dislike the notion that men are treated as expendable but women are treated as property in traditional systems?

I don't believe that the notion supported in article four supports Christianity at all. I think it supports the idea that women are hard done by and men benefit. That's a false dichotomy and does not lead to greater cooperation between men and women. If someone professes to be a Christian, then they cannot propose that only men need to change. This clearly goes against what scripture says about how we are all sinners, all needing the redemption of Christ.

 

[McScribe]

I would like to add as well that class systems do not just split men and women. They split rich from poor, middle classes from both, race, politics and religion.

Point V as addressed by ValleyGal:

V. Men have created ideologies based on what they think the experience of women is, rather than on what women say their experience really is. The two are not synchronous. Men cannot tell me what my experience as a woman is, when he has not experienced it. So policies for women are based on what men think, not on what women say. Here is an example. Man thinks woman has it easy all day, staying home and taking care of the home and children. He does not think she needs a break and refuses to take her on a date every week. Then he gets injured and needs to be the one to stay home, so she goes to work. Now that he is the one at home, he realizes how challenging her life really is, and how hard she works. He now has new respect for her, and decides that he was unfair by not taking her out for a date once a week to give her a break. Men only think they know what women need, and that is what they base their policies on…not what they actually need. So for men to quit basing their ideologies on what they think we need will actually increase intimacy in the relationship.

With all due respect, you might want to ask the average guy on this forum how much housework he does, how much he cooks, cleans, looks after kids. One thing that can be very frustrating when talking about feminism is the extent to which this meme persists in spite of everything. Those men who are active in their households or who do a lot for their households seem to be marginalized. Could it not be that in some cases it is actually women who don't value their own contributions, or imagine that men do not?

 

[mkgal1]

My question to you is why do most women that claim to be feminists have very extreme opinions of men in general? Why do the support divorce so intensely? Why do we on this forum see more feminists vs women advise divorce so freely? Why are some of the most confrontational and aggressive people(not just women) feminists?

Could you remind me of the times that's happened (where divorce was advised....."freely"?).

It's interesting how you made the distinction between "feminists" and "women". Are you suggesting that feminists are *not* also women? IOW....that a person cannot be both at the same time?

 

[seeingeyes]

It was written in 1969.

So was that the case in 1969?

Let me remove the red parts:

III. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy: men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest. All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy.

Do you agree that this was the case in 1969?

 

[mkgal1]

Wasn't it in the 1970s that divorce and family law changed? Wasn't that when no-fault divorce was enacted (after this time---1969). That seemed to have made improvements in the lives of women:

A 2004 Stanford Business School study[20] compared outcomes in states that adopted no-fault divorce versus those that did not. It found:
20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men
33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men.

Another issue that wasn't addressed in 1969 was marital rape......

Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1

That doesn't mean it was 'allowed' necessarily. But that it wasn't classified as rape.

I've read that according to CDC classifications, it is impossible to 'rape' a man. It falls under some other category.

 

[ValleyGal]

I would like to add as well that class systems do not just split men and women. They split rich from poor, middle classes from both, race, politics and religion.

Point V as addressed by ValleyGal:


With all due respect, you might want to ask the average guy on this forum how much housework he does, how much he cooks, cleans, looks after kids. One thing that can be very frustrating when talking about feminism is the extent to which this meme persists in spite of everything. Those men who are active in their households or who do a lot for their households seem to be marginalized. Could it not be that in some cases it is actually women who don't value their own contributions, or imagine that men do not?

The article was written in 1969, when most women stayed home and took care of home and children, and men were disinterested in both. It was up to women to keep the children seen and not heard. Today things are much different, and yes, most men are stepping up and being more involved at home. Often this is because women also work outside the home now, and also because "science" is becoming a social god and science says homes are healthier when men are involved with their wives and children. Things are different now than they were in 1969.

And yes, I think a lot of women do not value their own contributions...for many of us it's because men don't value our contributions. Women get their sense of importance, their sense of identity and value primarily from their husbands (I am speaking generally, but as believers, we also get this from knowing who we are in Christ). If a man devalues (overtly or by taking her for granted) his wife, she will feel devalued. So yes, for many of us, we do not value our contributions for the simple reason that our husbands don't. How many times do men thank their wives for cooking dinner or cleaning the bathroom? Yet when men do something at home, they often want recognition for it, and if they do it on a regular basis, they feel like they are being taken advantage of, being used as a maid, etc.

I am fortunate that my husband appreciates my contributions and that he shares in the housework. I am even more fortunate that his perception is not that he is being taken advantage of just because he sometimes has to do more work around here than I do. I make sure to express my gratitude for his contributions.

But this is not 1969. Back then, I could see how my mom was expected to have dinner on the table at 5:30 every day without fail, how he would come home and spend his weekend watching sports while mom had to keep us kids quiet, and how he was so removed from the home that he had no idea how to buy Christmas gifts for us - he had no idea what we liked or what was age-appropriate. Back then, dad expected home made dessert every day, and when it seemed mom had too much time on her hands, he decided she needed to tend a garden and grow our own food. Things were different when this article was written, so it would be inaccurate to suggest the article applies in its entirety today.

Back then it was very true that women did not benefit from social systems. Today we benefit more. And saying "personal is political" is true as well, because of the policies that guide what women qualify for versus what men qualify for - including social expectations. Yes, the same is true for men, but it is not recognized as such because it is men who make policies in favour of men. It's the standard, so it is okay for women to stand up and recognize that personal is political because it was not women who developed policies for women.

Article four describes locus of blame and responsibility and points out the truth that men who are feminists are (in 1969)treated as women - or the underclass. Remember how some boys were accused of "throwing like a girl" when they played ball? Same idea. And yes, it was true. But in reality, the Bible calls us to treat each other as brothers and sisters, to treat each other with respect, to consider others better than ourselves - and that is not limited to how men treat men. It includes how men are to consider their wives. So just because it is not biblical doesn't mean it does not reflect some historical and biblical truth.

 

[LinkH]

MkGal1,

I don't see any evidence of the studying going through the peer review process to make it into a journal. Stating there is an effect of unilateral divorce based on quasi-experimental data seems a bit bold, IMO. I know that's their hypothesis, but it's hard to prove causation. I also wonder how many other things they tried to prove before they came upon a model that supported their idea.

I'd like to see a study done showing the connection between teen suicide and other social ills and the introduction of unilateral divorce.

 

[mkgal1]

MkGal1,

I don't see any evidence of the studying going through the peer review process to make it into a journal. Stating there is an effect of unilateral divorce based on quasi-experimental data seems a bit bold, IMO. I know that's their hypothesis, but it's hard to prove causation. I also wonder how many other things they tried to prove before they came upon a model that supported their idea.

I'd like to see a study done showing the connection between teen suicide and other social ills and the introduction of unilateral divorce.

The numbers that they came up aren't their own:

6 Suicide data for 1964-1967 were hand entered from annual editions of the NCHS report “Vital Statistics:
Mortality, Vol.2”. Data for 1968-78 are calculated from ICPSR Study No. 8224, “Mortality Detail Files:
External Cause Extract, 1968-78”, PI: National Center for Health Statistics. Data from 1979-96 have been
downloaded from the Center for Disease Control’s Wonder system which accesses the NCHS

 

[mkgal1]

Mkgal1

That doesn't mean it was 'allowed' necessarily. But that it wasn't classified as rape.

I've read that according to CDC classifications, it is impossible to 'rape' a man. It falls under some other category.

Without it being recognized as against the law.....and assigned a legal name to it....there is no way to enforce what's allowed. IOW.......that's what our laws are......to lay out what is "allowed" or not. It's where lines are crossed (without getting into moral issues).