I recently read a review on an upcoming TV drama called “Mrs. America” staring Cate Blanchett. The drama centers around the polarizing female figure, Phyllis Schlafly and her fight against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). But the substance of the show was less interesting to me than the way the review discussed the show.
The authors said something to this effect: “When we can get back to focusing on gender inequality after the corona-virus ends…” The ironic insinuation, of course, is that, right now, it is a bit petty to focus on issues such as gender inequality.
I rolled my eyes at this. Clearly, without even realizing it, the authors of this review (who were overtly feminist and against the Phyllis Schlafly character, and therefore glad that her depiction in the show was anything but positive) unknowingly just made feminism an obvious “first world problem”.
Feminism (not to be equated with fighting for women’s rights in countries where women are severely mistreated and abused) is one of those topics that, during a pandemic, does seem petty. Why focus on whether or not someone gets paid a little more or less when everyone is struggling to work and get paid? Which is why I think it’s the perfect time to discuss feminism. Maybe people will have a more open mind right now.
I’ve wanted to introduce you all to the underbelly of feminism for a while now and in this post I do. This blog post is going to simply be an introduction to feminism. Today, I’m going to step through a review of sorts of the different types, goals, and beliefs of the various branches of feminism. Do stay tuned because my follow up article will be one where I debunk and provide some of my own commentary in response.
Also, I want to give you all a fair warning. Feminism is a base and fundamentally perverted theoretical set of beliefs about gender, sexuality, and politics and at times revels in debauchery. Given this, I try to keep this post as G rated as I can, but understand, even the academic writing that I’m referencing is graphic. I do keep those quotes to a minimum, but even the basic descriptions that I give may be a bit alarming and uncomfortable to digest and face.
My point here is to simply expose the threat that feminism truly is to America and Americans—-especially for those of you who may not be fully aware of its real intentions or beliefs. For those of you who think it’s simply a women’s power movement, or a movement to give women more equality in the work place, or a movement to make sure women are given all the same political rights as men, I hope to show you just how unfortunately naive that is. This post is a ripping off of the BandAid, per se. I will not be providing as much commentary as I will just be giving you, in their own words, the hard and cold reality of feminism.
The Different Types of Feminism
Wouldn’t it make sense for “feminism” to be all about women?
Yes.
That’s what I thought…at least until I had to suffer through a graduate level feminist theory class, only to realize that feminism has very little to do with women and everything to do with shoving a political and philosophical agenda down people’s throats.
Ok, so there are quite a few types of feminism which I will delve into below. So, let’s take this one step at a time.
-
Liberal Feminism
-
Radical Feminism: Libertarian and Cultural Perspectives
-
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
-
Psychoanalytic and Gender Feminism
-
Existentialist Feminism
-
Postmodern Feminism
-
Multicultural and Global Feminism
-
Ecofeminism
Feminism Coincides with Marxism
Now, not all feminist theory perfectly aligns with Marxism, but most do.
Specifically, Marxist feminists “insist women’s oppression originated in the introduction of private property, an institution that obliterated whatever equality of community humans had previously enjoyed.” (4)
Socialist feminists argue that the means of ending women’s oppression is to “kill the two-headed beast of capitalist patriarchy” (5).
Funny, because I seem to remember writing, in this blog, about how fundamental concepts like private property are to American liberty, to the reason for government’s existence, and to preserving the Constitution. Of course, making feminism a clear threat to many of the ideals and values we hold dear.
But I’m just getting started.
Feminist thought explored
So, I’m trying to pick through all that I could give you, but it’s difficult because of how base most of the information (even written in academic language) is. Bear with me and just work through these different lines of reasoning. Take it in. Work through it. Digest what they are saying and just how radical it is and consider how our society is being influenced by these philosophies. Further, consider how our society would change should these ideas succeed in taking hold.
So, let’s do this. I’m going to simply step through a litany of quotes to clue you in on some of the ways feminists want to alter gender and sexuality as we know it. I’m using a book called Feminist Thought as a reference.
“Radical-libertarian feminists claim biological motherhood drains women physically and psychologically. Women should be free, they say, to use the old reproduction-controlling technologies and the new reproduction-assisting technologies on their own terms—-to prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies or, alternatively, to enable them to have children when they want them (pre-menopausally or post-menopausal), how they want them (in their own womb or that of another), and with whom they want them (a man, a woman, or alone). [Some] look forward to the day when ectogenesis (extra-corporeal gestation in an artificial placenta) entirely replaces the natural process of pregnancy” (4).
Some feminists disagree however and see the child-bearing process as the “ultimate source of women’s power” because it is she who decides whether there is life or no life, whether the human species continues or does not.
And many radical feminists are highly against the male gender in general.
Radical-libertarian and radical cultural feminists agree that whether or not “men’s behavior toward women is the result of their nature or their culture, radical-cultural feminists will still condemn it as bad. ‘Masculinity’ is just as big a problem for women as ‘maleness’.”(48).
Radical-libertarian feminists believe that all expressions of “male” or “female” attributes are actually detrimental. Therefore, their only solution is “to permit each other and every person to be androgynous—-to exhibit a full range of masculine and feminine qualities. Men should be permitted to explore their feminine dimensions and women their masculine ones. No human being should be forbidden the sense of wholeness that comes from combining his or her masculine and feminine dimensions” (3).
There are some feminists who are anti-androgynous, however, and insist that “femininity is the problem because it has been constructed by men for patriarchal purposes. In order to be liberated, women must give new gynocentric meanings to femininity” (3)
Further, and without using the direct quotes, radical feminists claim that liberated women should have no boundaries surrounding with whom or how they sexually engage with someone. In other words, she should experiment with herself and others to avoid the dangers of heterosexuality. Radical-cultural feminists disagree and claim that women should completely shut themselves off from men altogether because “men have controlled women’s sexuality for male pleasure” (4). Thus, she must “escape the confines of heterosexuality” and only be with women.
One well-known radical feminist argues that “the material basis for the sexual/political ideology of female submission and male domination was rooted in the reproductive roles of men and women.” and that in order to break free from the prisons of “femininity and “masculinity”, the world would have to undergo a “major biological and social revolution to effect this kind of human liberation: artificial (ex utero) reproduction would have to replace natural (in utero) reproduction and so-called intentional families … would have to replace the traditional biological families.” She claimed that the end of the biological family would also end the Oedipal family situation and supposed “in-breeding”. This would allow humanity to revert to it’s natural “‘polymorphous perversity’ and once again [delight] in all types of sexual behavior” (52.) Trying to keep things clean, she also claimed that “as soon as men and women were truly free to engage in polymorphous, perverse sex, it would no longer be necessary for men to display only ‘masculine’ identities and behaviors and for women to only display ‘feminine’ ones” (52)
Another radical feminist, Marilyn French, claimed that feminine values should be esteemed more than masculine values and promoted androdgyny that “involved a substantial reinterpretation of male/masculine traits but not of female/feminine traits” (55).
Another claimed that God was the paradigm for all patriarchy and that “unless he is dethroned from both men’s and women’s consciousness, women will never be empowered as full persons” (56). She continued and said that “Men want to be androgynous so that they can subsume or even consume all that is female, draining women’s energies into their bodies and minds. Instead of submitting to the gynocidal process of androgyny, women must, said Daly, spin new, powerful self-understandings, remaining radically apart from men, reserving their energies for their own pursuits” (61).
And yet another, introduces a utopia of sorts, spring boarding off of Marxism. In her utopia, the family is “eliminated as a biological as well as an economic unit. Individuals possess neither private property nor private children. No one has his or her own genetic child. Children are not the possessions of their biological mothers and fathers…rather children are precious human resources for the entire community, to be treasured on account of their uniqueness…Child-rearing is a communal effort” (74).
Others argue that “biological motherhood is a cultural construction, a myth with an oppressive purpose” (82).
Again, I’m trying to broach these subjects gingerly. Please understand just how base feminism is simply by realizing that I have had to severely cut and reword everything I just stepped through above.
Multi-cultural and global feminists believe that “European and North American colonizers robbed the people of many developing nations not only of their land and resources but also of their self-identities.”
Eco-feminists believe that “we are all connected not only to each other but also to the nonhuman world: animal and vegetative…unfortunately…we deplete the world’s natural resources with our machines, pollute the environment with our toxic fumes, and stockpile weapons of total destruction.”
And as the author of the book I’m referencing states, “It seems we are on the verge of truly understanding the sources of women’s oppression, how sexism is and is not related to all the other isms that plague human beings (racism, class-ism, ageism, ethnocentrism, able-ism, hetero-sexism, and naturism)” (8).
Conclusion
My goal with this post was simple: enlighten you about what feminism actually is by allowing you to read their own words. I will offer commentary in future posts, but I think the gravity of the threat is evidenced by the simplicity of what you just read above. When I was first introduced to these ideas, my eyes were opened to the reality that all of the theories and philosophies that I thought dangerous to liberty and to America could be summed up in one word: feminism.
And guys, the book I referenced in this post was published in 1998.
Need I say more?
The Liberty Belle