My school has a society for the discussion of gender issues, and in a couple of weeks I'm going to be holding a session there on why I'm no longer a feminist. I thought I'd post the script here and see what PFers' opinions are. (It is of course intended for oration, which is why I refer to "those of you", "many of you" etc.).
Making a distinction between feminists and, 'radical feminists' is like making a distinctinction between Nazis and 'radical' Nazis. You don't have to qualify nazi with radical and you don't need to qualify feminist with, 'radical' either. If you're a nazi you most likely believe caucasions are superior and other races are inferior. If you're a feminist you most likely believe women are superior and men are inferior. Of course there are exceptions to every generalization. For example there was even a Nazi who saved jews, Oschar Schindler. Oschar Schindler was a Nazi who saved the lives of thousands of jews. However, most Nazis did not save jews. Similarly there may be isolated examples of feminists who do not hate men and who do not believe women are superior and men are inferior. However the vast vast vast majority of feminists hate men and think women are superior and men are inferior. For Example, This is mainstream feminism: Below are quotes by feminists one of which is a supreme court justice, another who’s the editor of Ms. Magazine, a former congress women, an advisoress to Al Gores presidential campaign, Authors a feminist dictionary, as well as a video of dozens of feminists sexually and physically assaulting peaceful passive men while thousands of other feminists cheer them on.... "All men are rapists and that's all they are" — Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." — Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman "Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." — Andrea Dworkin, "Pornography: Men Possessing Women" "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." — Marilyn French "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." — Robin Morgan, "Ms. Magazine" Editor "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." — Andrea Dworkin "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." — Catherine MacKinnon "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." — Susan Griffin, "Rape: The All-American Crime" In a speech in Banff, Canada, Andrea Dworkin exhorted her audience to "stop men who beat women", "Get them jailed or get them killed. ... When the law fails us, we cannot fail each other." "Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." — Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood "Women have their faults. Men have only two: everything they say, and everything they do." — graffiti frequently found on university campuses with active feminist movements From 'A feminist Dictionary', edited by Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985: MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female. MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man... TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning." Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court Justice "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T9Qqpc
There's no such thing as reasonable feminism. Just as there's no such thing as reasonable Nazis. All Nazis are radical and all feminism is radical. Feminism is our ages politically correct supremacist hate movement just as the KKK was the early twentieth centuries politically correct supremacist hate movement. I don't really know how you plan on making feminism even more radical than it already is. Wanting all men to be castrated and believing all heterosexual sex is rape is pretty radical. How do you plan on making feminism even more radical than that???
Not that I find Feminism or any other Gender Abra Kadabra even remotely funny, but I do feel a distinction between different kinds of Feminism has be made. Mainly because the term has come to be singularis and thus “Feminism” has automatically come to be synonymous with “radical Feminism”. The radical Marxists have stolen and monopolixed the term and it is up to the decent Feminists out there (I know there are some) to ensure the situation is changed and take back what is theirs! …If they want the movement to survive that is. (Radical) Feminism has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and most women and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s know this. Therefore it is important for those who do define themselves as Feminists to use prefixes such as “Differential” or “Libertarian” to point out what kind of people they are and ensure they are not labelled as disgusting, screaming Stalinist Gender-wankers. Also it is important that other Feminists and normal people continue to mock and badmouth radical Feminism ‘til the movement is dead. Repulsive, anti-human misogynist all of them! It is sad these people are the spokespersons for Feminism. I do not like Feminism or Feminists (most famous ones and the ones I’ve met irl are often very repulsive individuals) but there are of course always exceptions. The only Feminist I can say I like…only a tiny little bit, is Camille Paglia. She of course is hated by the entire Feministosphère.
"Reasonable" is not the opposite of "radical." Liberal/Enlightenment thinkers were once radicals; so were republicans and advocates of universal suffrage. You don't think they were unreasonable, right? I wouldn't go that far, but I'm not a feminist, so I'm not sure why you're raising this point. Read the OP. I described why we need something more radical than feminism and what changes can be made to achieve this. I feel like you came into this thread with preconceptions about how I'm some sort of super-extreme man-hating feminist and posted without even reading the OP. I'm not a feminist at all anymore, because feminism is not radical enough in its analysis of gender-related problems and solutions.
Absolutely irrelevant. My proposal was that feminism is not small-r radical enough and we need an entirely new solution to all instances of gender-based oppression, including the oppression of men. I am not a feminist and this thread is far from feminist apologism. (And most Marxists are not feminists, from my experience.)
So advocating for the castration of almost all men isn't radical enough for you...thats marxism for you folks
It's a very eloquent speech and very well written and I give you props for it. Well done and I appreciate your views and agree with some. Just going by your forum name and the fact that you say you are doing this for a school speech, I'm going to assume you are still in high school. I don't know what kind of future you envision for yourself, if it involves a husband/another woman, work, kids etc., but all of those things change everything to some extent, so I'm just going to post some of what reality is for some. I met my wife in college and we actually work in the same profession. When kids come into the scenario, lots of decisions have to be made. Lots of sacrifices, from both sides. My wife wanted to work full time after having two kids. I was fine with that. Someone has to take care of the kids, whether you like it or not, it still has to be done. So, daycare it is. We were lucky enough to be able to adjust our schedules so that I get the kids ready for daycare/school and she picks them up (not always possible for people). So she is gone before they wake up, I see them for an hour before they go to bed. Throw in weekend trips to grandparents/special events, sporting events/practices, swim lessons, fun times, cub scouts, homework, birthday parties, etc. you have little time for yourself, let alone with your spouse/significant other. We push along and make it work, but it is far from easy. This means most chores are split. I do my own laundry, I help with the kids laundry, I do the dishes, I mow the lawn, I pick (*)(*)(*)(*) up, I mow, etc. And I know lots of men that do the same thing. If you want to be a career woman with no attachments, more power to you. I guarantee, if that's what you want to be, you will have little trouble achieving that compared to another male of the same caliber in today's world.
Advocating the castration of men isn't radical at all. "Radical feminism" isn't radical, it's just stupid and pointless. What I mean by "radical" is that we need a movement which breaks free from the liberal paradigm and moralism and takes a radically different approach to analysis of oppression. Any sort of feminism does not meet these criteria.
Thanks for your feedback. I'm certainly glad that some progress is being made with dissolving gender roles within the family, though much, much more needs to be done. Most of the families I know are still very traditional in terms of who does what, including my own family. There is still a great deal of unfortunate stigma surrounding some men's choices to be house-husbands, and although employers try to make out that they're all for women's employment to boost their credentials, workplace sexism and almost subconscious discrimination remains, as well as strict gender roles (see the Heidi and Howard experiment, for example). I wouldn't say I'd have little trouble becoming a "high-flyer" compared with a man at all; I might have an affirmative action advantage, especially as an Asian, but I'll still have gender-based judgement and roles to deal with. If it were that easy for women to rise to the top, many more would be there. - - - Updated - - - Really? If they are, they're very inconsistent Marxists indeed. Conceptualising a "gender struggle" and blaming women's oppression on men is not a materialist position.
Well you are correct that advocating for the castration of almost all males is not radical for feminists, on that we agree.
Feminist just like Marxist view society as a polarized and hierarchic entity. Instead of "class struggle" they talk about a "gender struggle" and instead of Proletarians vs Bourgeoise they talk about "Marginalized" vs White, heterosexual men.
Nonetheless it is a notion that is deeply rooted in Marxism. Feminist theory is the same as Marxist theory. It is conflict rooted, views society as hierarchich and advocates for the surpressed "class" (gender) to step up and revolt. The theories eolving from the Frankfurt school are mostly created by Marxist and therefore their tone is Marxistoid. Foucault, Derrida and Levi Strauss are all Marxist-influenced sociologists.
Many people were influenced by critical theory and other such ideas without being Marxists. Following the same "template" as Marxism does not make one a Marxist, and in fact, applying Marx & co.'s analysis of class to something other than class rules out the possibility of being a Marxist, since we necessarily view the fundamental struggle and engine of social evolution as class struggle, not gender struggle or some other non-existent concept used to justify misandry.
Feminism argues that male superiority is rooted in the class society. White, cis male own all production and are both the founders and sustainers of Capitalism. As long as Capitalism is around women will always be oppressed and the only thing that can save them is a full-out revolution ("Smash Patriarchy!") Feminism is much of Materialistic as it says that women are regarded as inferior (and therefore are they also oppressed) due to their role in production which is that of subordance because it is men who both own and control the production. Feminism just like Marxism focuses on: Conflict Revolution Polarization Hierarchy Relation between oppressor-oppressed Recognizes structures that prevent and/or favor our ability to act. Edit: Note that this is referring to Radical/Equality Feminism. Other types of the ideology might be harder to qualify as Marxist.
Well, when you post a wall of text and don't bold any sections or give cliffs, many people respond without having read it.
It was paragraphed, not too long, and easy reading. I don't see how reading the OP would be much different from reading an article or blog post. Besides, even skimming the post would have revealed that it was not feminist apologism, and it would probably be a good idea for people at least to skim posts before replying to them. This is gravedigging, anyway, but w/e.
Nobody reads my posts either. I think most internet goers are high or drunk and don't read more than 2-3 lines. Just look at the 1-liners they write. I'm gradually adapting my style. Also, just because it is the length of an article does not mean people will read it.
