Feminism isn't dead, but a new book wounds it badly

Some women protest, "I'm a feminist, just not a radical feminist." Kate O'Beirne is impatient with such qualifications. She is not any kind of feminist, and when you finish her sparkling new book "Women Who Make the World Worse," you won't be one either.

Feminism, far from promoting the happiness and well-being of women and society, has instead left great swaths of melancholy in its wake. O'Beirne cites "One large study of well-being data on one hundred thousand Americans and Britons from the early 1970s to the late 1990s found that while American men had grown happier, women's well-being had dramatically fallen during the period . . . women were 20 percent less happy."

The so-called "women's movement" was and is a misnomer. Most women reject the anti-male, anti-family bias of the professional feminists. But a dedicated cohort of humorless, bitter, crusading women — mostly from miserable families — was able to dictate policy in some of the most important realms of life.

Feminists now claim that they were never against marriage and family. But O'Beirne has kept the quotes in her files. In 1971, Ms. Magazine founder Robin Morgan called marriage "a slavery-like practice," adding that "We cannot destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Australian feminist guru Germaine Greer recommended that all women leave their husbands in search of more satisfying "rambling organic structures" (sounds vaguely unhygienic). And Jessie Bernard, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist, asserted that the "destructive nature" of marriage was both figuratively and literally making women sick.

Strangely, while feminists were burning with indignation toward men, they also enthusiastically endorsed promiscuity. O'Beirne quotes Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, who notes that early feminists who sought the vote and other rights "saw that the ready availability of abortion

Very interesting book it seems.. and I would pay money to buy the book (if I could get it in Europe)...but, for all that I have been a major detractor of feminism and FReminism on FR...I *still* do not agree with this author's premises.

Feminism as a movement ostensibly for "women" that is "against the interests of heterosexual men over 30" is a problem to me. If the author wants a society without premarital sex...FReeper males who aren't "Paulist Christians" can decide for themselves if that is "in their interests" or not.

I've already noted that, according to the realities of South Park Republicanism, if a Republican Party candidate even tries to go down the path of condemning premarital sex, and IF the Democrats are smart enough to capitalize on the issue, he or she will get routed badly in an election cycle and even lose much of the military vote.

Howard Dean found the winning formula to beat President Bush in November 2003 when he went after Bush's adult abstinence program...but then he quickly made the mistake of ignoring this issue in favor of treasonous statements against Operation Iraqi Freedom. What puzzles me is that Howard Dean could have used common sense to determine that single males everywhere would be with him on the first issue and vastly against him on the Iraq Issue. The Democrats simply didn't care about winning the hetero single male vote in 2004.

The liberals got some things right: the weekend, child labor laws, women being able to ask men out for coffee. No need to reverse any of these improvements.

Let's take that bogus study: If 0 of 48 female college students were willing to walk up to an attractive stranger and ask for sex...that doesn't phase me. If, however, 0 of 48 female college students refused to walk up to an attractive stranger on campus and ask him for coffee at Starbucks...that only shows that the feminist movement needs more help.

But I can guarantee you that college students these days are, in fact, asking male strangers to have coffee with them. Their main criteria is that they see the male being conferred trust and status by others first (and this requirement goes back to cavemen days). The study mentioned in the article only shows me that women have more class (or are less willing to humiliate themselves) than 75% of men. :-0

And about combat: I respect some arguments against women in combat but I really don't admire much at all the concept that our troops need to have an emotional blackmail held over them in the form of a supposed need not to lose face in front of other men in combat. From what I have heard, women have been heroines in combat in the two Gulf Wars and I would love to marry a Silver Star winner. And I have also heard that males in combat can actually be more heroic than usual when there are women on the field whose lives depend on them (ignoring the argument that a specific woman would supposedly be a drag to an operation).

If my girlfriend had wiped out a cave filled with terrorists 4 years ago...the respect and admiration I already have for her would be several times higher.

So I think the women of the two Gulf Wars have collectively raised the estimation of women in American society today.

Meg Ryan is normally a sappy liberal to me. But the character she played in that Gulf War movie...really impressed me.

I have never considered myself a feminist. When I was little my mom conveyed to me that feminism was for women who were unfortunate enough to be both unattractive AND stupid.

However...I must say that while persistence, hard work and keeping my wits about me have given me a great career, freedom for travel and adventure, and financial success, all of that was made a little easier to achieve because of the feminist movement.

Feminism for all its faults did open doors. It's just that there are still a lot of ugly, stupid women standing on the threshold complaining instead of just walking through.

And I had no trouble getting married in my late 30s. That men are intimidated by intelligent, strong women is a myth. Men just don't like women who treat them like sh!t. And I don't blame them.

My wife and I are mentoring two young women, both without husbands with two children each. Their lives are in shambles and the kids are not being parented, which is why we are trying to help.

The common factor with both is that the males (each child has a different father, a total of 4) had their fun and left. It is tragic, that the freedom of feminism, to free women from all sexual constraints, has enslaved them and only freed the males.

Feminism had to be invented by males, since it has hurt women more than it has helped. Women no longer need to be protected and given security (basic to their nature) so they have kids to have Uncle take care of them. The children suffer. The men are free to do whatever they want.

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.