Feminism owes its existence to capitalism. Capitalism made our work much more efficient and our lives much safer, so being a mother was no longer a full-time job. It meant that the average woman had much fewer children; 200 years ago you would expect to have six, in the hope that some would survive, but now the average woman in most industrialized countries has fewer than 2. Capitalism meant that childbirth and early childhood became incredibly safe compared with the past.
“That’s a very tiny of proportion of men. A huge proportion of people who are seriously disaffected are men; most people in prison are men; most people who are on the street are men; most victims of violent crime are men; most people who commit suicide are men; most people who die in wars are men; people who do worse in school are men.” “[W]here’s the dominance here, precisely? What you’re doing is you’re taking a tiny substrata of hyper-successful men and using that to represent the entire structure of Western society. There’s nothing about that that’s vaguely appropriate.”
It probably would have been simpler to title the article: “10 Ways Every Intersectional Feminist Can Die Single and Alone.” But I suppose that doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate what Ms. Witt is doing here, and I sincerely hope every feminist takes her advice. This way a man can immediately ask for the check and call it a night the moment his date demands to know whether he has taken active steps to dismantle The Patriarchy. Even better, he doesn’t have to pay for the meal before he leaves. The empowered woman on the other side of the booth would be, I assume, thrilled to take on the masculine role and handle the bill herself. But if a feminist does not helpfully declare herself by forcing her date to take an entrance exam, it may be necessary for the man to ask his own set of questions in order to ensure that he is not about to court a woman who suffers from latent feminism. I’m not really joking about this. I hear from single men all the time who have nearly given up on the dating scene because their girlfriends end up being cold, bitter, unaffectionate man-haters. Here’s a quick survey that should filter them out:
It is difficult to root for people who are self-glorifying and narcissistic. And the self-glorifying narcissism of female athletes is even more annoying because it comes dressed as empowerment. There are plenty of jerks playing male sports. But nobody hesitates to call them jerks, and nobody is tempted to hail their jerkiness as a sign of strength. We all just say, "Wow what a jerk," nod in agreement with each other, and move on. Female jerks, on the other hand, will have a whole chorus of cheerleaders welling up with pride and insisting that boorish, stupid behavior from a woman is actually beautiful. And that just makes the behavior all the more irritating to the sane and reasonable among us.
For years, women held the keys to controlling sexual activity, because they were the ones who had the most to lose. Men could have sex and move on. Women, because of the long-term consequences of pregnancy, could not just “move on.” Feminists claim this “sexual inequality” repressed women. Abortion, even more than contraception, allowed women to have sex without consequence – just like a guy. Theoretically, this would benefit women, freeing them sexually as well as in the workplace.
By “empowering” women to behave like men, feminists have failed to accommodate the real needs and desires of everyday women. Erika Bachiochi explains, “For women who hope to have and raise a family…the feminist quest to imitate masculine reproductive detachment from child-bearing works very much to the women’s disadvantage.” This is clear in just one statistic. In the 1960s the first birth control pill was introduced and women were finally able to have sex without the consequences of a child. From that year on there is a heartbreaking upward trend of single motherhood. The rates of mothers raising children alone have risen from an average of 5% in 1960 to a terrifying 41% in 2010. Contraception and abortion have provided a one-sided solution to female sexuality that exempts men from their responsibilities to home and family.
Feminism has clung to abortion as the means to female empowerment. But it has backfired. Abortion has allowed men to shirk responsibility as fathers and encouraged the workplace to penalize motherhood and family.
In her new book, "Free Women, Free Men," Paglia explains that feminists have zero regard for procreation. “Feminist ideology has never dealt honestly with the role of the mother in human life,” she writes. Indeed it hasn’t. The truth is, women change when they have children. They care less about what they do for a living and more about how their children are faring. They also realize they’re needed at home in a visceral and primal way.
In an interview with Hollywood Life, the group’s leader Marissa Heart explained, “We have the opportunity on World of Dance to express ourselves and inspire other women to be unapologetic, to be fearless, and to empower one another and to be unapologetic about it.” As fierce and noble as her words may sound, the only hearts Marissa’s brand of fearlessness breaks are those of women who fall for the lie that sexually objectifying themselves is somehow empowering.
However, the twentieth century saw the focus of feminism turn from fighting for women to fighting against family. With the emersion of radical feminism, feminist theory blamed marriage and family life for creating sex roles that perpetuate the oppression of women. Consider these quotes from early twentieth century feminists: the family is “simply an institution for the more complete subjugation and enslavement of women and children;” marriage is “an institution which robs a woman of her individuality and reduces her to that of a prostitute;” motherhood “is a calamity to be avoided” at all costs; and “The family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization.”
Their thinking was, and is, that men have an unfair biological advantage in the workplace. Therefore, in order for women to rise to their highest potential, they need to be free to have sex without the consequence of childbearing, and free to engage in the workplace without the burden of family. This is a decidedly male-centric worldview. How exactly does it advance the place of women and womanhood, who still overwhelmingly value marriage and motherhood, if, in order to find equality in society, they must refashion themselves in the image of non-childbearing men?
Objectification occurs when a woman is seen only as a body, body parts, or for her sexual function. She becomes a thing, not a person, good for viewing, touching, groping, owning. Sexual objectification of women drives oppression, systemic sexism, sexual harassment, and violence against women. But a novel form of feminism called sex-positive feminism believes that for women to truly be free and empowered, they must be unashamedly sexual.
Sex-positive feminism often embraces legalized prostitution (non-exploitive sex-work – as if there can really be such a thing), pornography (as long as it isn’t violent), and casual sex (after all, a sex life is important even if you don’t have time for committed relationships). Sex-positive feminism believes in the de-stigmatizing of women sleeping around – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The problem with all this positivity is that in the end it reduces women, yet again, to sex objects. The sad reality is that young girls have gotten the message.
But how, exactly, does it empower women if the only way they can get society to listen to the “thoughts in their heads” is by displaying them on their naked bodies?
Men and women are distinct creations with unique perspectives and complementary strengths. For instance, women release more of the hormone oxytocin in their system than men do. This has the effect of enabling bonding between humans, especially between couples and between mothers and children. Women are also more verbally communicative than men. It is differences like these that allow women to contribute in unique and powerful ways in society, in the workplace, but most of all, in the family.
Studies indicate that women and girls who engage in sports and dance have greater body image and body appreciation. The irony here is that dance, which can help women see that their bodies are useful in non-sexual ways, is used by Marissa & The Heartbreakers to instill self-objectification. Studies also indicate daughters are positively influenced when mothers use television and movie viewing as teaching opportunities. Also, the sexualization of young girls that comes with media exposure can be offset by religious mothers. Moms, what you do and what you say makes a difference in how your daughters view themselves!
Well on me, I said to the motto believe women I don't believe women and I don't believe men I believe evidence. I don't understand why that's controversial The idea that gender determines truth is perverse. It's just another perversity women don't lie That's it that's as absurd as men don't lie There are honest women and honest men and lying women and lying men.
In the fight to ensure equality, as we preach to girls that they can -- and should -- do anything a boy can do, we are failing to prepare women for one of the greatest challenges so many of them will face; motherhood. We are teaching our young people that there is no value in motherhood and that homemaking is an outdated, misogynistic concept. We do this through the promotion of professional progression as a marker of success, while completely devaluing the contribution of parents in the home.
We are functioning in a society that pretends women don't grow up to become mothers. We are so driven by the focus that women can do the same and be the same as men, that we completely fail to provide them with education or understanding of what may be ahead for them, as future homemakers and those who raise children. How can we ensure equality for all women, when we place so little value on the role of the mother?
We need to view and offer this as just as an important career option as any other; because for many women, the ones who, for whatever reason, do not return to the workforce and instead stay home to raise their children, this does become their career.
Young men need to understand the value of this role as well. They need to be shown that a homemaker -- male or female -- provides an essential contribution to society. They, too, need to be given the option to become the primary caretaker. We need to ensure that we lift up the value and recognition of this role to the point where it is just as viable an ambition as any other career prospect.
The men of our society, when not performing the role of stay-at-home parent themselves (as so often is the case) need to be taught to see the worth of the parent who stays home. There needs to be a change within our society in how we speak to and about homemakers. If our only marker of success is what you do in the workplace, how can we ever achieve that degree of equality?
We need to stop acting as though when we provide women with these traditional skills, we are taking away their power. Teaching women to care for children and a home empowers them. It prepares them for a path that may lie ahead. What really takes away their power, is telling them that doing so is worthless. Feminism, it's time to catch up. Our women deserve better. Let's tell them they can be anything they want -- including a Mum, and let's start telling them just how important that is.