Feminism is inconsistent about most things, but not this. It has all but invariably recruited the power of the state to restrict the freedom of individuals. Abortion rights are the notable exception and even they constitute one aspect of female power over male fertility. Rape laws, DV laws and practices, workplace laws involving alleged sexual harassment, divorce and child custody laws, the diminution of due process of law, getting people fired for wrongthink, the amazing expansion of the "definition" of violence, etc., etc. It all points one way - diminished freedom, particularly for men and greater female power over them.
I am awestruck by Janice's deep knowledge of feminist history and feminists affinity and ties with socialism and communism. Of course, she is completely correct that feminists' partisan commitment precludes a disinterested commitment to freedom. It was evident from the beginning that feminists wanted to advance anti-male sexism, not gender equality. And, worse, gender equality was to be based on equality of outcome, enforced by the government, rather than equality of opportunity. Feminism is thus a strong ally of state despotism.
Speaking as an arch-libertarian myself, the feminism problem (moreover, the gynocentrism problem) within libertarian circles is so glaring that it takes top grade space age technology to completely blindfold and ignore it - but it keeps happening. Libertarians have been dead set on being "big tent" that they're trying to pull out all the stops and get everyone possible within their movement, while failing to win them over by philosophy and rational persuasion. What happens in turn is that the feminists, socialists and communists keep getting welcomed into the libertarian circles that the circles become metastasized with those that couldn't care about individual liberty and instead promote their collectivist ideology. All this waste in the name of being ideologically diverse. They fail to see the problem of political correctness and the Woke.
I find this interesting considering the Conversation (Canada) published a recent article "Why women’s studies programs in Canada are more important than ever".
Authors, Jacquie Gahagan, Adwoa Onuora, Tegan Zimmerman using techniques such as "Catastrophizing" and "fear mongering" to justify their gender bias. Looking at life only through a feminist lens.
Such "motivated reasoning" handicaps their intellectual and cognitive skills. It puzzling how "equality" has become afflitated with ignoring the negative consequences of such an ideology.
Interesting how it's always "more important than ever" to advocate for special privileges for women and to propagandize against boys and men. Are these pundits saying that things have become worse for women since the first women studies programs, since the start of Second Wave feminism? In which case, why keep on with the programs, why keep on with feminism?
That's telling them, Janice. It is so good to have your knowledge and insights to set the record straight when feminists claim to be on the side of the angels.
Some people have criticise equality as part of the Marxist philosophy. Knowing this, it's near inescapable to internalise what Vladimir Lenin had once said, "To control the opposition, we lead it ourselves". So, those who reject feminism and espouse equality are falling into the same Marxist trap. What do you think?
I think one can advocate for equality before the law and equality of opportunity without accepting Marxism; definitely not equality of outcome. Each person should be able to bring their gifts and abilities to the world without hindrance based on race, sex, etc. (unlike our modern day affirmative-action injustice, whereby white men are consistently discriminated against). We need to accept that there will be differences in outcome because people are different; some are more ambitious, smarter, more beautiful, more dedicated, more driven, more talented.
But how is this concept of equality going to work out when whites become the minority? Do you think blacks in South Africa extended the same treatment to the whites? In case you didn't know, racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion. Read Robert Putnam's 'Bowling Alone' on this.
Then again no civilisation is built on equality - let alone be sustained by it. To me equality I'd just another woke idea.
Now THAT is another matter altogether. I'm thinking about the ideal in white-majority countries, which are where I would prefer to live. I don't believe that equality should be the highest goal; I believe that merit and truth should be. It seems undeniable that racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion.
Still, I'm sceptical, just because a women fits the qualification, doesn't mean her nature, especially her sensitivity, is gone. Even you wrote about this in your blog, 'I hope the future isn't female'. The West was at its best prior to the 1960s when the gender roles were clearly defined and had taboos on what the sexes can or cannot do for the other to fulfill in marriage. This collapsed, now everyone is just an individual. I personally know women who argue that women shouldn't have voting right and be able to engage in politics, arguing that it's a space that should be left solely to men.
I really do think the West is on its way out. After all rise of women into the work place isn't new. It happened in Greece and Rome when they were in decline.
Feminism is inconsistent about most things, but not this. It has all but invariably recruited the power of the state to restrict the freedom of individuals. Abortion rights are the notable exception and even they constitute one aspect of female power over male fertility. Rape laws, DV laws and practices, workplace laws involving alleged sexual harassment, divorce and child custody laws, the diminution of due process of law, getting people fired for wrongthink, the amazing expansion of the "definition" of violence, etc., etc. It all points one way - diminished freedom, particularly for men and greater female power over them.
Robert, thanks so much for this very specific itemization of the ways in which feminism restricts liberty.
To quote TS Eliot, "and this and so much more..." Keep up the good work, Janice.
Thanks Janice for fighting back this socialist/communist tyranny. They deceptively call it "equality". Time to fight back good people.
I am awestruck by Janice's deep knowledge of feminist history and feminists affinity and ties with socialism and communism. Of course, she is completely correct that feminists' partisan commitment precludes a disinterested commitment to freedom. It was evident from the beginning that feminists wanted to advance anti-male sexism, not gender equality. And, worse, gender equality was to be based on equality of outcome, enforced by the government, rather than equality of opportunity. Feminism is thus a strong ally of state despotism.
Speaking as an arch-libertarian myself, the feminism problem (moreover, the gynocentrism problem) within libertarian circles is so glaring that it takes top grade space age technology to completely blindfold and ignore it - but it keeps happening. Libertarians have been dead set on being "big tent" that they're trying to pull out all the stops and get everyone possible within their movement, while failing to win them over by philosophy and rational persuasion. What happens in turn is that the feminists, socialists and communists keep getting welcomed into the libertarian circles that the circles become metastasized with those that couldn't care about individual liberty and instead promote their collectivist ideology. All this waste in the name of being ideologically diverse. They fail to see the problem of political correctness and the Woke.
I find this interesting considering the Conversation (Canada) published a recent article "Why women’s studies programs in Canada are more important than ever".
Authors, Jacquie Gahagan, Adwoa Onuora, Tegan Zimmerman using techniques such as "Catastrophizing" and "fear mongering" to justify their gender bias. Looking at life only through a feminist lens.
Such "motivated reasoning" handicaps their intellectual and cognitive skills. It puzzling how "equality" has become afflitated with ignoring the negative consequences of such an ideology.
Interesting how it's always "more important than ever" to advocate for special privileges for women and to propagandize against boys and men. Are these pundits saying that things have become worse for women since the first women studies programs, since the start of Second Wave feminism? In which case, why keep on with the programs, why keep on with feminism?
That's telling them, Janice. It is so good to have your knowledge and insights to set the record straight when feminists claim to be on the side of the angels.
Some people have criticise equality as part of the Marxist philosophy. Knowing this, it's near inescapable to internalise what Vladimir Lenin had once said, "To control the opposition, we lead it ourselves". So, those who reject feminism and espouse equality are falling into the same Marxist trap. What do you think?
I think one can advocate for equality before the law and equality of opportunity without accepting Marxism; definitely not equality of outcome. Each person should be able to bring their gifts and abilities to the world without hindrance based on race, sex, etc. (unlike our modern day affirmative-action injustice, whereby white men are consistently discriminated against). We need to accept that there will be differences in outcome because people are different; some are more ambitious, smarter, more beautiful, more dedicated, more driven, more talented.
But how is this concept of equality going to work out when whites become the minority? Do you think blacks in South Africa extended the same treatment to the whites? In case you didn't know, racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion. Read Robert Putnam's 'Bowling Alone' on this.
Then again no civilisation is built on equality - let alone be sustained by it. To me equality I'd just another woke idea.
Now THAT is another matter altogether. I'm thinking about the ideal in white-majority countries, which are where I would prefer to live. I don't believe that equality should be the highest goal; I believe that merit and truth should be. It seems undeniable that racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion.
Still, I'm sceptical, just because a women fits the qualification, doesn't mean her nature, especially her sensitivity, is gone. Even you wrote about this in your blog, 'I hope the future isn't female'. The West was at its best prior to the 1960s when the gender roles were clearly defined and had taboos on what the sexes can or cannot do for the other to fulfill in marriage. This collapsed, now everyone is just an individual. I personally know women who argue that women shouldn't have voting right and be able to engage in politics, arguing that it's a space that should be left solely to men.
I really do think the West is on its way out. After all rise of women into the work place isn't new. It happened in Greece and Rome when they were in decline.