The Problem with Today’s Feminism

Feminism claims to empower women to become the equals of men. Yet the painful truth is that feminism has gradually metamorphosed into a movement that trains women to gain government imposed advantages over men, while at the same time remaining dependent upon men’s money and the government, all under the false rhetoric of “rights” and “empowerment.”

Women have made great strides over the last century in areas where they were not historically equal to men; they gained the right to vote, they removed the barriers to traditionally male professions, and they changed the way society looked at them. Women are no longer viewed as primarily “nurturing” or “emotional” creatures, but are judged on their individual qualities. Consequently, this has left the feminist movement with very little left to do for women, other than helping women in less fortunate countries. To remain relevant in the U.S. and other democratic countries, feminists have championed odd issues, issues that are not about women’s equality, but are about getting one-up on men.

Abortion is the most obvious example. Feminists like abortion because it allows women to control a decision that involves both a man and a woman, and this power can be used to really hurt a man by aborting his child. Yet aborting children does not help women become equal to men. To the contrary, it devalues women’s ability to bring life into the world, gives them a guilty conscience, and allows men to have sex with women and leave them, which is a practice that society should be trying to stop, not encourage. Never mind that girls are aborted more often than boys. Abortion is the number one “right” that feminists support. Feminist groups like the National Organization of Women treat abortion “rights” as the number one issue facing women. What is interesting about this is that women in general do not agree with the feminists on this issue. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that a majority of both men and women equally oppose abortion except in very limited circumstances. Around 57% of both men and women oppose abortion except in cases where the mother or fetus might be harmed, or there was rape or incest involved. Clearly, this is not an issue women’s groups should be championing, considering most women are not in favor of mass legal abortion, and it is no more of an issue for them than it is for men.

When it comes to issues involving the family, feminists promote an agenda that keeps women dependent on men and the government. They are adamant that fathers should pay large amounts of child support when a mother and father split up, and they teach ex-wives that they are entitled to alimony from their ex-husbands, even if the ex-wife was the one responsible for the marriage breaking up. Instead of encouraging women to support themselves, or to obtain better careers like the men so they could perhaps become as successful and educated as the men, feminists train women to become dependent on their ex-boyfriends and husbands, even after they are no longer together. NOW lobbies against shared parenting, instead urging women to obtain sole custody of their children. Where is the “equality” here? Father’s rights groups, on the other hand, generally support joint custody. Apparently, it is no longer about equality for feminists, but using the government to obtain more power than men, while remaining dependent on their money.

Feminist created “domestic violence” laws serve as another way to give women an upper hand over men while keeping them dependent on men and the government. Domestic violence laws are not necessary, since there are already well-established laws in place preventing assault and battery. But feminists wanted to give women an advantage in the home over their husbands and boyfriends by teaching them to involve the government in order to win verbal arguments. Domestic violence laws now include “glaring looks” and “financial violence,” whatever that means. Somewhere less than twenty percent of all domestic violence calls even involve an allegation of assault. Domestic violence laws give women an edge over men because most men are five to nine times less likely to call the police over a dispute than women are. Police reports and restraining orders play a large role in deciding child custody issues, so the more a woman calls the police, the better chances she has at obtaining custody of any mutual children along with “free” child support.

Affirmative action is another area feminists champion that trains women to be dependent on the government in order to get ahead of men. Instead of encouraging women to work as hard as men, feminists teach women that they should use the government to artificially get ahead of men, which exludes men from positions they were better qualified for. How is this about equality or rights? It is not, it is based on the premise that women are not as capable as men and need extra help from the government in order to get ahead of – not just be equal to - men. It is true that women do not make as much money on average as men do, because women tend to pick careers that pay less. Yet instead of focusing on encouraging women to choose tougher majors and more ambitious careers, feminists urge women to take Women’s Studies and other touchy-feely majors that pay less than traditionally male areas.

Feminists efforts in these areas have successfully created a new type of woman – a woman who thinks of herself as a victim, chooses to underachieve, uses the government to give herself artificial advantages over men, and remains economically dependent on men. How feminists can continue claiming that they are about empowerment and supporting women’s rights is flabbergasting. Their record today demonstrates that their agenda is doing little to benefit today’s modern women. Their current leaders are women like Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton, who do not conjure up images of women who stand for equality with men. Instead, they are women who became powerful because of their husbands’ success, and strike most people as angry women who want to punish men. They would not understand what women’s equality is really about, because they really do not want to become equal to men, they would rather use the government to give themselves artificial advantages over men, while finding nothing wrong with relying on men for their money.

What is sad about this approach is that it only hurts women. Women who underachieve do not become the Einsteins, Beethovens, or Bill Gates’ of the world. Cheating to climb to the top does not instill the values necessary to become successful. If women are handed advantages by the government, and handed money from their ex-husbands, they are not going to develop the drive to work hard for success.

NOW’s membership numbers reveal its uselessness to women. NOW claims membership numbers of 280,000. Its equivalent organization on the right, Concerned Women for America, has over 500,000 members. The National Women’s Coalition for Life has over 1.5 million members. Apparently, women today see through the feminist message that tells them they are inferior and need to be dependent on men, and are choosing to join women’s groups that better reflect their needs. It makes you almost feel sorry for today’s feminists, they don’t even realize how embarrassing they are to women.

"Domestic Violence laws are not necessary since there are already well-established laws in place preventing assault and batter."

Hmmm...I have to disagree with this. When the police are called to a domestic disturbance, they will look at the parties involved in this disturbance and find out if an assault had indeed occured. If an assault is apparent, the one who caused the physical damage is automatically arrested, even if the victim refuses to press charges. This works both ways too....women have been arrested for causing physical harm as well.

I'll check out that link.
I lived in Berkely CA in the late 60's and had a room mate (who later turned out to be lesbian) who invited me to "womens' meetings" - the origin, as far as I know, of the "womens' liberation" movement. I've written about it elsewhere on FR - I was only about 18, and knew ZERO about anything. I was on a spiritual or religious search but was totally immersed in the sex, drugs and rock'n'roll zeitgeist (soon broke away from that, fortunately, due to aforementioned search).
Anyway, the feminist meetings were peopled with the angriest, most miserable, hate-filled bunch of bit**es I have ever seen in one place! Then after a meeting or two they all "came out" as lesbians, and that sex with women was a basic platform of their whole philosophy, and that men were evil. Even I realized this was crazy stuff and I never went back.
Feminism is evil, and an evil sister of the homosexual agenda. It is a branch of the evil tree of rebellion against the natural family, which is based on the natural law created by God. And this is not a sectarian understanding. It was true a million years ago, everywhere, and it will be true in one millions years, everywhere. It is reality. Men and women are different in the bodies, psychological natures, and the roles nature has us play. Feminism is a miserable attempt to disrupt, out of envy and rebellion, what God has created for our benefit.
There is almost nothing which is as destructive for natural family life and children as feminism.

The left lies constantly about early feminism, saying
that "women were oppressed," etc. Susan B. Anthony
threw tantrums to get support for Elizabeth Cady
Stanton's "Woman's Bible" (revision of the Holy Bible).

Here are some comments from those early feminists.

"I can never understand why intelligent girls should
want to marry fools just to get married. Many are
willing to do so. But I am not." --Susan B. Anthony

"It was wicked to allow white men absolute power over black
men. It is vastly more cruel, more wicked to give to all
men — rich and poor, white and black, native and foreign,
educated and ignorant, virtuous of monopolies. There never
was, there never can be, a monopoly so fraught with
injustice, tyranny and degradation as this monopoly of sex,
of all men over all women." [Susan B. Anthony also complained about black men getting the vote before
white women.]
--Susan B. Anthony in
"Women Want Bread, Not
the Ballot"

"No matter what the motive, love or ease, or a desire to
save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is
awfully guilty who commits the deed, but, oh! thrice
guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which
impelled her to the crime" (Susan B. Anthony, _The
Revolution_).

But look what feminists have brought us in numbers of
abortions.

"Abortion is to be classed, as with the killing of
newborns, as infanticide ... There must be a remedy
even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall
it be found, at least where to begin, if not in the
complete enfranchisement and elevation of women"
(Elizabeth Cady Stanton, _The Revolution_)?

Yeah, right. Then in the 1900s, Margaret Sanger,
another feminist, brought us even more pro-abortion
propaganda.

Susan B. and her friends brought us the "Tender Years
Doctrine," to automatically give custody of all small
children to the mothers in divorces. Before that, in
conservative tradition, custody went to fathers. But
feminists complained for over fifty years that fathers
used their children for labor (ref. to agricultural
upbringings).

Abortion is for feminists' ("women's," in their words)
"sexual freedom."

If an assault is apparent, the one who caused the physical damage is automatically arrested, even if the victim refuses to press charges.

You're partly right, and partly wrong. In some jurisdictions, when police go on a domestic call, someone HAS to be arrested, whether there's been an assault or not. Usually, it ends up being the man. The feminist theory here is that the presence of the police will tick the man off so much that he'll beat the woman senseless the moment they're gone.

The new domestic violence laws have helped defuse a lot of very bad situations. They've also hurt a lot of men who didn't deserve it. The problem is far more complex than the anti-male activists want us to believe.

"When police go on a domestic all, someone HAS to be arrested, whether there's been an assault or not."

Wow, I wasn't aware of that. In fact, it seems a little over the board....I had always thought when police responded to a domestic call and there were no assaults by either party, then no arrests were made, but the police did encourage the parties involved to seperate if only for one night. At least until things cooled down some.

I agree with your theory about men being hurt by this law when they didn't deserve it. One point though, I have seen women being arrested for domestic assault on there husbands, boyfriends or whatever. I give these men alot of credit for not striking the women when they themselves are assaulted. :-}

Good article. Just for the sake of acknowledging reality, it is always good to read breakdowns of the feminist War on Men.

Key line:

Feminists like abortion because it allows women to control a decision that involves both a man and a woman, and this power can be used to really hurt a man by aborting his child.

That sums up the root of society's problems right there.

To remain relevant in the U.S. and other democratic countries, feminists have championed odd issues, issues that are not about women’s equality, but are about getting one-up on men.

There was one (of many) good line in the movie The War of the Roses":

"Never try to out-do a woman in love or revenge."

In fact, the woman in that movie was a close to my ex wife as you can get.

This works both ways too....women have been arrested for causing physical harm as well.

And as always, there is the exception to the rule. 13 years ago I had to call the police once when my ex tried to rip out my throat. (maybe her renting "Roadhouse" at Blockbuster a week earlier should have been a sign ;) ). I had claw marks on my neck, witnesses, and she even went as far as admitting it and telling the cop that if they left me there, they would be back for me later with a body bag. The police were nice enough to tell me to leave...or they would take ME to jail.

Susan B. and her friends brought us the "Tender Years Doctrine," to automatically give custody of all small children to the mothers in divorces.

Only now it's not just the small children. During a custody fight for my daughter two years ago (after the ex's 3rd marriage that she flushed to hook up with the 4th husband) my lawyer was told by the guardian ad-litem that I shouldn't have custody becasue I stayed single and thus didn't have a women in the house and girls needed to be raised by a woman. I don't know about other states, but in mine the judges almost always rubber-stamp whatever GAL recomends.

Before that, in conservative tradition, custody went to fathers. But feminists complained for over fifty years that fathers used their children for labor (ref. to agricultural upbringings).

Now women are given judicial and procedual sanction to women using kids as a way to torment, control and extort the fathers.

One thing to always remember...the judges, the lawmakers and the committees that are appointed to draft guidelines and policy...99% of them are lawyers. They know that the more adversarial the system is, the more power they have. They are not going to operate in a manner that will reduce case load. That would reduce the number of cases, clients, money and head-count at the courts and related gocernment agencies. If keeping things as they are detroys families and screws-up kids, they can live with that.

"One thing to always remember...the judges, the lawmakers and the committees that are appointed to draft guidelines and policy...99% of them are lawyers. They know that the more adversarial the system is, the more power they have. They are not going to operate in a manner that will reduce case load. That would reduce the number of cases, clients, money and head-count at the courts and related gocernment agencies. If keeping things as they are detroys families and screws-up kids, they can live with that."

Yes. That's one thing we should remember for sure.
The divorce industry has grown huge bureaucracies and
that will not allow the divorce rate to go down, lest
they lose their jobs or fees. And the various Bars
vote on every divorce issue, whatever will increase
the rate. They even stooped to calling divorce law,
"family law" (doublespeak) a long time ago in typical
Gramsci-an linguistic fashion.

I've always said that feminism has done more to hurt women than any man has done.
The feminist movement gave women the 'thrill' of 'zipless' sex, and the wonders of being a tramp while screaming that they are not.
The wonders of screaming that they don't need any man, and screaming about polite gestures such as holding doors open for them. Somehow men are supposed to 'do the honorable thing' while being berated for doing so.
Feminism isn't about equality anymore, it's about control.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.