Feminism: Explained for Ladybrains

I use the tag surfer and the Readomattic with great pleasure. Sometimes it brings me to awesome blogs the existence of which I didn’t know of. For instance it caused the recent addition of Feminist Whore to my blogroll. However, it also sometimes brings me to blogposts about feminism, written by people who have no clue. Sometimes these people are women, sometimes they are men. Mostly those posts are so inane and ignorant that I don’t waste my time on them. This time, however, I wasted my time with much amusement, because this post was simply SO ridiculously hilarious. Now, it seems to me that the blog it’s posted on deals mostly with conspiracy theories of the New World Order kind. And with “deals with” I mean, believes in them and fervently believe in the theories that most people consider codswallop. This should give you some idea of where the poster is coming from.

As for the poster himself: I know nothing about him other than that he is clearly male, and I think he may be black or at least non-white. This seems irrelevant right now, but in his arguments later on, the colour of his skin unfortunately does become relevant. I’ll explain when I get to it.

The reason I read his post was the title: Modern Feminism is not Feminism. It had me go: “Uhhhh, and here I thought the dictionary told me otherwise.” But anyway, his post was so incredibly off mark that I simply have to write about it, because rather than becoming annoyed with a gross misrepresentation of women and feminism, I was so amused and chuckly, because it reads more like a parody of anti-feminists. And with no further ado I shall now share with you the ridiculousness:

When women hear the term feminism they envision white males in board rooms making decisions that negatively impact their lives or being excluded from corporate America in general or construction workers cat-calling them as they walk by in a sexy outfit or even just being underpaid by their white male counterparts for the same job.

Now, for all his conspiracy theories in the rest of his blog, he sure is quick to admit that he, in fact, can read minds. Perhaps he’s working for the government himself? He certainly does believe that all women are the same, believe the same things, and envision the same tings with the same verbal triggers. His above description is not what I think of when hearing the word feminism, though, that’s more like when I hear the words patriarchy, kyriarchy, sexism, and misogyny. The white males in board rooms is right enough. He completely forgets, though, that women receive cat-calls even when wearing non-sexy outfits. He actually lines up pretty accurately some of the things feminism opposes. But then he adds in a parenthesis:

(Black men do NOT make those decisions!!!).

Uhh, what? I do realise that very few black men are in the board rooms in the big companies and that has to do with racism obviously. But don’t bloody well tell me, that no black male manager has ever been sexist (with regards to pay) towards a black female employee. This guy seriously just tried to absolve the men of his race from sexism. When, in fact, all races include men who are sexist towards women. And this upstanding gentlemen just completely ignored/forgot/diminished the sexism black men exercise against black women (or for that matter women of other colours). But oh no, black men are not sexist. This guy needs to read up on intersectionality, being a victim of racism doesn’t mean you can’t possibly be sexist, and entirely forgetting all the women of your own colour seems, well, rather sexist to me. Just like me being a victim of sexism doesn’t mean I can’t behave in racist ways at times. I try not to, but I’m pretty sure I fuck up at times. Anyway, he goes on:

Those are all valid concerns from a society supposedly based on equality. The problem with it is that men and women can never be equal because we are inherently different as beings.

Disregarding the jumbled language in the first sentence (I think his meaning is clear enough), he now goes on to completely misuse the word equal. This guy clearly hasn’t grasped that equal does not mean identical. Yes, we are inherently different beings, he’s completely right about that, but just like Tracy and Sean are different beings, Rory and Martin are inherently different as well. In fact, as far as I’m aware, researchers have found greater genetic variety within a gender than between them. What does this mean? It means that we should all be equal before the law, and that we should all be awarded equal respect and acceptance of our personal choices.

Men and women are designed to complement each other other by our very nature, not be replacements and substitutes for each other. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce. It doesn’t matter how science can take an egg and a sperm and artificially fertilize it. The premise remains the same. Science and technology are destroying our basic humanity and turning everything into for profit business.

And here he just goes and gets confusing. From a reproductive point of view, yes, males and females complement each other. But, you know, ever since humankind achieved sentience, our doings have involved so much more than just reproduction. Our basic humanity is the same for all humans no matter their gender and sex, because out basic humanity is just that: human. Our basic humanity is not gendered (nor is it coloured for that matter – all those distinctions are all applied AFTER basic humanity is established). It doesn’t matter what science can do at all, he’s kinda right about that, we are all still human, and should all be afforded the same decency and treatment.

Since women have this built-in defensiveness when feminism is brought up [...]

No, that would be feminists who have a built-in defensiveness about their worldview. Not all women are feminists, in fact, due to feminism’s unfortunate and completely unacceptable history of racism (some of us are doing what we can to move away from that branch) a lot of black women (and other women of colour, obviously, but to my knowledge primarily black women) are not feminists, but declare themselves womanists instead. Way to go forgetting women of colour again. And not all women believe in equality for women either, there are female traditionalists out there, and while I disagree with their views, they certainly should not be disappeared like this. Way to go lumping us all into the same stew.

[...]it often precludes discussion of the real issues.

There you go, little ladies. Let the man tell you what the real issues are. Certainly not such silly little things as equal pay, equal respect and such.But he’ll spell it out for our insipid little ladybrains:

Feminism is not feminism.

See here, this is the issue. Y’all just think you know what you’re doing and that you know what you believe, when he knows way better that you believe something else.

When modern feminists say feminism they mean that women should be the complete equal of men in every way: on the job, at home with the kids, socially, sexually, emotionally, etc.

Yes, please. We’d certainly like that yes. And we’d also like for men like you to realize that we can think for ourselves, and that we know, what we’re saying, and what our words mean. But no, this here is a Man Who Explains Things, and because he is a man, he doesn’t need such silly things as definitions of words. He’ll make his own definitions, because he’s a Man Who Knows Things, and what he says goes.

That is not true feminism. It is gender neutrality aimed at creating more drones for corporate profit and consumption.

See, little ladies. All you want to be are drones for the megacorporatocracy. Nevermind that feminists clamour for the right to be the way we see fit – as in be individuals – no, we’re all just mindless drones. Seriously. Can’t this guy see that if he were right about what feminism is, feminism couldn’t even exist. It’s a paradox. No, he’ll tell us what true feminism is.

True feminism recognizes and embraces the differences between the sexes.

Feminism recognizes and embraces the differences between PEOPLE. No matter their sex, gender, race, ability, etc. But otherwise, yes.

It only seeks to provide equal rights for women in a society of white male patriarchy.

Wait… are you telling us that we really OUGHT to promote the white male patriarchy, ’cause that’s totally not what we’re going for here. Especially not those of us, who are of colour. (and since people tend to think I’m black, because I advocate against racism, I feel I must reiterate that I am white, but I acknowledge that there are a lot of women of colour in women’s movements, be they feminists, womanists or another label of their choice)

It seeks equal pay for women for the same work.

Check. That is exactly what we’re doing, you schmuck, only you’re apparently too obtuse to see what’s in front of your nose.

It does not seek to destroy the family by turning women into unfeeling, objectified automatons like gender neutrality does.

Check. I know of no feminist (or other women’s rights advocate) who seeks to turn women into robots. Rather the opposite. All the feminists I know are quite annoyed that women are continuously told that we’re too emotional even while people walk all over our emotions, and that we’re constantly objectified, not by ourselves, but by males like this bloke, who clearly do not view us as anything but objects with no individual thoughts of our own.

It does not deny our basic nature.

And check. Since basic nature differs from person to person (it’s called personality – fancy that) feminism is all about the freedom to be individuals. Something this guy is clearly not too cool with.

And then comes his screed against false feminism, some of which doesn’t even make sense to me. Even when I’m being charitable and really trying to understand what he meant:

False feminism is social engineering designed to undermine the family, which is the basic unit of societal stability and morality.

Yes, ’cause all those upright members of society, who have settled into families surely never cheat, lie, steal, murder or anything else. Remember, kids, as long as you have a family, you’re good. No murderer ever had a wife. No father (or mother) ever stole anything. No parents ever beat/raped/murdered their spouse and children. Nope. Never. Families are the new Jesus, and feminists hate families. That’s why feminists have partners, spouses and children whom they love just like everyone else… uh… wait a minute. I don’t think, I’ve ever seen such a logicFAIL. In which universe does this guy live?

It is also the one mechanism through which humanity can take back what the elite and their corporations have taken from us.

The family… Sure. The family is a mechanism through which we can get back at the megacorporatocracy. And that’s why married women have lower pay than single women. That’s why mothers have lower pay than women with no children. That’s why fathers get more pay than men with no children, and that’s why married men earn more than bachelors. Wait…  think I see what he’s doing. Of course, as a man, he wants a family, because families are actually an investment for men. Whereas for women it’s a risk, jobwise as well as healthwise, men with families are also healthier than those without, and for women it’s the opposite. Having families all around would exclusively benefit men in all financial ways – wages as well as amount of sick days. Since he’s (presumably – I still don’t know for sure) black, I can completely understand that he’d want some of what could help him rise up against the white-run corporations, but damn if he should do it at the expense of women of any colour. And let’s face it, due to racism and in many cases ableism and classism: whatever affects white women negatively will affect women of colour all the more because of the added effect of those other isms. But to this guy, that’s okay, because he’s not a woman.

They know this so they had to attack it. The family had to be destroyed.

Hold on there. Feminists know that the family unit, as it is perceived and valued in this society, is detrimental to women and therefore we question how it is viewed and valued. None of us (that I know of) are denying that a family can have great emotional value to the individual. We are, however, demanding the right to choose our own families ie. who (if) we partner with and whether or not we have kids, and the right to choose when we do it. Oh but that means that some men cannot get the family they want, when they want. And it seems our friend here is totally upset about that.

Women had to be confused, misled and objectified because without women, men are nothing.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this. But the way I read it, if I were a man, I’d be very offended. Come on, dude. Men are people just like everyone else. Women have realised that they don’t have to be wed and live in marital misery if they don’t want to. Women have realised that if they exercise their right to choose their own partner and have a say with regards to time and place they might actually have marital bliss rather than misery. But I can see, how this is a bad thing to our male counterparts, because men without families make less money. But seriously, dude, just because men without families make less money, it doesn’t mean they’re lesser beings – not to mention nothing. Women and men are all full individual persons, whether or not they believe women and men should be equal, and whether or not they have significant others.

Now what do we have in America? a plague of angry, lonely, bitter women. Why? Because feminism has convinced them to ignore and suppress their natural instincts as child bearers, caregivers and nurturers.

The ‘funny’ thing is: Last I heard, the lonely, bitter and unhappy women were by a much larger percentage those who do not believe in equality. Those who have bought into the idea of child-bearing, care-giving, and nurturing being their only value are far more likely to be unhappy. Feminists, on the other hand, whether they have chosen to be SAHMs or working mothers or singles or partnered with no children or whatever are much more likely to be happy, because feminists are more likely to make the choices that are right for them, rather than the choices that look nice to prats like this bloke. Feminism does the opposite of what he says. Feminism tries to instill in women the knowledge and acceptance that what is right for them is not determined by their gender, but by their personality and preferences. And whether this is child-rearing or a high-powered career or something else, women should feel free to make the choice that feels right.

Also. Really awesome to see a male, who will never by any degree have natural female instincts (whatever they are) himself expound upon what women feel, and should feel and have always felt. Look, cupcake, you don’t know what women are like, not because you don’t know any women, but because you don’t know all women, and even if you did know all women you still wouldn’t know, because women are not all alike. But this seems to be the major problem with your grasp of reality. PEOPLE are different. Not just men and women as groups. All of us. Individuals. Do take notes.

Men are also unhappy because women do not need us as providers and protectors so we have been emasculated.

I was just waiting for this one. Speak for yourself, mate. I know plenty of men, who are perfectly happy that they don’t have to provide for the women in their lives. From personal experience I can say that both my boyfriend and I are quite stressed out and unhappy, because of the fact that currently he’s supporting me, due to a disability I have yet to find a way to deal with well enough that I can hold down a job. I’ll get there, because damn if I’ll sit on my arse for the rest of my life. (I’ll make an exception if I’ll be sitting on my arse working and making money – like, in an office – then I’ll be cool with the sitting-biz ). But let me just get back to the point here: This is just one more insult against men. So, dudes, feminists in general do not consider you lesser men or less manly just because women can make money of their own these days. That’s just conservative traditionalists like this bloke, who insist that a man’s only value is in his wallet. That’s not what feminists are saying, we’re saying the opposite, spite of what this guy would have you believe.

That was the true intention of the feminist movement in America, not to liberate women from oppression but to liberate them from their womanhood.

He’s almost right. He just kinda forgets that the womanhood he refers to is womanhood-as-defined-by-men. Feminists demanded the right for women to define their own womanhood, rather than being forced to bow to an artificial womanhood defined by and for men.

The natural instincts of women are not inferior to those of men.

Of course not. He actually says some sensible things – he should just leave them at these short sensible sentences, because when he begins explaining them he gets it all wrong.

They are just different and complementary. Men are the hunters and women are the gatherers. Men are the providers and women are the nurturers.

Which is why no woman would ever want a well-paid job or to go on a hunting trip and no man would ever want to hold his child affectionately. Yup. Case is proven clear. Yep.

We are barely out of the jungle as a species on this planet and no one knows where evolution may take us one day but this technocracy that seeks to neutralize gender for control and profit is stunting the process of evolution.

Wait, I thought he just said feminists were the ones trying to neutralize gender. Now it’s the technocracy? Can he make up his mind? Interesting how he’s totally considering all of us stone age folks as if evolution never applied to our species, but he’s at the same time worried that the process is being stunted. Is the human species evolving or is it not? Sheesh.

We are fighting everything that makes us human in an effort to conform to the propaganda from the media that is overwhelming our innate sense of self.

Actually, we feminists are fighting propaganda from the media as well as from idiots like him, who seek to make us into uniform little woman-bots, who are all the same and all have the same purpose in life. Sorry, dude, sometimes a woman’s innate sense of self (what the heck is that, anyway?) directs her to become someone not approved by him or any other Dudely Dude of Dude Nation. This guy really needs to learn to live with it for his own sake, because women are not going to stop being people just because he tells us to. That’ll probably be hard for him to swallow.

Yes, there are some women that want to work right along side men in cutthroat corporate careers where they can pursue money and validation. That is fine for them as long as it is what they really want

Yes, exactly, but what kind of short circuit happened in his head, when he figured that all women are at heart child-bearers and nurturers all the while some of them prefer to be competitive career people and don’t want children at all? This goes against everything he’s said so far. Which is it? Do women have the ability to wish something outside nurturing or do they not? And if they do, then doesn’t that speak against his argument that all women are nurturers? It does, in fact. I hope he can see how much he’s contradicting himself. Of course, if he’s like other anti-feminists, who come here, he won’t have read as far into the post as this anyway.

That is fine for them as long as it is what they really want and they are not trying to live up to the myth of false feminism as real feminism.

Aside from the fact that he’s completely botched his understanding of feminism as well as what he thought was “the real” (his own) definition thereof, I still don’t see what the problem is. Of course, since I believe that women are full adults who can (and should therefore have the right to) make their own decisions, even if they turn out to be mistakes, I don’t give a flying fuck as to whether a woman “really wants” what she’s choosing to do, or whether she’s just sorta doing that for lack of a more attractive option. It’s HER CHOICE, and choice and freedom cannot be limited by a clause saying “You must only choose what you really want”, mostly because it’s actually quite often that people don’t quite know what they really want, and if that was the clause to our freedom, well, now that wouldn’t be freedom at all, now would it? And here I thought this was basic knowledge.

Perhaps tomboys are naturally inclined to such behavior.

See, he’s willing to test the waters of this one, but he still claims to know what women envision when hearing a given word, and he also claims to know how our natural instincts work – for all of us is the implication in this post. I’m less and less sure this guy even knows what he himself means and thinks.

Either way, sexism is still a huge problem in this country that needs to be addressed

See? One more of those instances when he says something true and factually correct. And then he goes and messes it up again:

but what has happened is that women have become distracted

Yes, our poor little one-track easily distracted ladybrains…

by trying to become the equal of men

Equal. Yes. Identical. No. Learn the bloody difference

which in effect is more sexist to themselves than anything men could ever do.

Huh? We’re being sexist against ourselves be demanding equal rights and equal treatment? Something tells me this guy doesn’t know what equal means. I don’t think he knows what sexist means either. He certainly proved he hadn’t a clue what feminism means.

Women are objectifying themselves now as strippers. Girls Gone Wild, pornography and the like.

Uhhh no, men are doing the objectifying aplenty. Some women have merely decided to make them pay for it. Women can’t be objectifying themselves unless we were the ones to look at and pay for these female strippers, which I’m sure some women do, mainly individuals who are of the lesbian persuasion. He also handily ignores the existence of male strippers – a phenomenon that some bi and straight women fancy quite much. Same goes for the rest. Way to go disappearing all non-het persons out there.

It’s not just those glaring examples either.

Hold your breath! On second thought, don’t. It’s not worth it. Use it to laugh instead.

Women approach men as if the only thing they have to offer men is a nice rack and a tight ass.

And why would that be I wonder? Surely not because men have spent a lifetime or more telling us that T&A is all we’re worth. What about those of us who approach men as people? Where are we in this equation? We’re not women or something? We can’t be, because this guy KNOWS women. Trufax.

Women have almost completely stopped cultivating nurturing, caring, loving personalities and environments that men need to make long term commitments to them.

Yes, because it’s the women’s responsibility to create “environments” that men want. How about men create the environments they want themselves and the women do the same. Then some people will decide that their “environmental politics” match and they’ll shack up (or not), and others will be happy where they are. It’s not even all women who want or even need long-term commitments. If a man doesn’t like a woman’s natural personality, how about he not date nor marry her? How’s that for a solution. Asking women to cultivate the personalities men prefer is like taking a moonlight stroll at day and asking the sun to be less bright or at least more like the moon. How about you seek out the moon if that’s what you want? There are plenty women with “caring, loving personalities” out there, but since one man only needs one woman, why should all the rest of us be what he wants as well? Obvious: He wants his free pick.

Men want to protect women and take care of their families.

And all those nasty feminists won’t let the men do what they want with no regard for what the women in their lives want. How evil of us. Also, note how he completely forgets that some men are gay and couldn’t care less about having female partners. But, I suppose, in his worldview, those men don’t count as men, even though according to biology, which he seems so oddly fond of, they are, in fact, men. That goes for cis men, at least. I suspect trans men and women don’t show up on this guy’s radar at all. It’d just make him all the more confused, and then we wouldn’t have such insightful posts as this one.

That doesn’t make women weak or dependent.

No, it makes men seem neurotically disordered control-freaks. Having such a need to be the bread-winner and protector that you cannot possibly be happy in any other situation is in fact frighteningly close to a disorder that the rest of us would seek treatment of therapy for. But men? Nope, they just demand that the rest of the world cater to their preferences. It’s much easier for them, as it doesn’t actually require any work except that of their surroundings.

It makes a family and that is what the elite fear.

So, a bunch of blood relatives are only a family if the MAN is allowed to protect and take care of the rest? Damn, there are a lot of families, I mean, groups of related people, who think they’re families even when they’re not. Whooey, glad someone told them.

It is the only weapon we have against them and they know it.

Yes, for all of those anti-feminist guys to set up families in which they can treat women and children like chattel and possessions, that will surely bring down feminists all across the world. Wait, he didn’t say feminists, he said elite. Now it’s the elite, that’s the problem? Huh? First feminists, then false feminists, then the technocracy, then the elite. Seriously… this guy seems to have it in for a lot of different groups.

It’s such a shame, though, ’cause the only one who seems to think the family unit is a threat against anything is him (and possibly people like him), everyone else knows that there are feminists (true and false ones both), members of the technocracy and the elite that have families. Quite many do, in fact. And tat doesn’t seem to bring them down any. I wonder if family is some secret code word for some hitherto unknown weapon of mass destruction.

Begone, foul creep, I have a family, and I’m not afraid to use it!

…

That sounds kinda wrong, no?

Anyway, I should really thank this bloke, because despite his complete disappearing of women of colour, feminists of colour, feminists with families etc etc those offenses fade into insignificance in face of his not making an ounce of sense in his entire blogpost. Only for a moment, though, because a brief glance at the rest of the blog will show you frightening levels of hatred against Jews, women’s rights, President Obama and other groups that I didn’t identify because the drivel and hatred was simply too saddening. In good proper spirit of blogging I shall link to this unwillingly hilarious post, and I shall shudder to think what sorts of commenters it will bring here. Hooray for the eternal moderation queue. Here’s the link, read at your own peril, absolutely none of the content is suitable for kind-hearted persons.