Feminism Flounders


Dedicated to my muze: @EsthervanFenema

It’s a common misunderstanding that men and women are equal, a myth perpetuated by generations of idealists fed by the declaration of human rights. Lofty as that declaration is, it holds quite a few misconceptions. Next to the misconception that humanity is one big family of entities who strive all for the common good and thereby gain common rights, there is also the misconception about the equality of the male and female of the species.

Biologically, mentally and spiritually they are not equal, they are completely different. They have different bodies, brains, minds, capacities etc. These are biologically predefined. Ages of evolution caused the two genders to be good at some tasks, worse at others but not at the same. Whole neural networks are setup at birth to make that so, environmental feedback only serves to train them.

Along comes feminism. At first for good reason. Women didn’t have the same rights as men, and where treated as second rate humans. Which was a wholly one sided view perpetuated by religious doctrine and completely false. So that got corrected, women got the same rights as men.
Strangely enough nobody thought to attach also the duties which came with privileges leaving the balance somewhat in favor of women. Worse still, to make up for the millennia of female maltreatment even positive discrimination was introduced.

Which left women with a strong feeling of entitlement but overall without the capacity to take part in the acquired rights. Which created a new wave of feminism, the feminism of complaint. Every time women didn’t make the grade this was due to those awful men not giving them their just dues. Fervently the followers of the doctrine of female entitlement battled against the perceived injustice creating a whole new world where us versus them took over.

Men should come down a notch or two so women could more easily take their entitled places. Over the years this resulted in a society where the born with capacities were disconnected from daily life, men had to behave more like women and women started to behave more like men.

The direct result of this are generations of men and women who lost their footing due to the forced roles they had to assume and for which both were not exactly fit. Now none was feeling well in their roles as unisex beings.

Man/women kind should return to what they are good at, instead of desperately trying to deny that nature has reserved different roles for both. Denying your true self can only lead to insecurity, anxiety and various mental issues.

Stop floundering feminists. Start taking yourself seriously as a woman. Accept both genders are unequal, but not thereby more or less worth. Stop bitching about what the world does to you and take control of your own life. Stop trying to level the playing field by forcing men and women into some lowest common denominator, but go and prove yourself by just doing your thing.

21 thoughts on “Feminism Flounders

  1. Glad I found your blog Petrossa, through Neuroskeptic.

    Accept both genders are unequal, but not thereby more or less worth.
    Better …
    Accept that both genders are different but not thereby more or less worth

    • Tnx John. I did consider that more gentle phrase, but i found unequal the better fit, since it is just how it is. The genders aren’t merely different, they are just unequal to many tasks. The stereotypes abound and many of them are mostly true. Many things a female can do, a man totally fails. And the other way around. Sure both genders can learn to do tasks the other is good at, but with equal training the preferred task of each gender will still be executed better by the alloted gender under same circumstances.
      I also used unequal to combat the political correct thinking about equality. In that frame of mind equality is factual, not metaphysical. Evidently all humans are equal in the sense they are homo sapiens, but no one is going to tell me that some nutcase cannibalistic jihadist is equal to me.
      Also i find that assuming factual equality puts undue pressure on the genders leading to gender confusion. Reading how an educational center accepts as gender: undefined makes me toes curl.

      • I accept your idea re “unequal” . In a facebook discussion on some recent research I was trying to convince people that it is rather obvious that sex hormones make a huge difference “below the neck” so it is ridiculous to think it doesn’t have implications above the neck. They wouldn’t budge so I then had to point out the obvious … studies on mammalian species generally indicate gender related differences are the norm and even cited 3 studies pointing this out. Still they would not listen. It is amazing how ideology blinds people!

      • It is indeed amazing. In my mind it is a couple of generations of indoctrination at work. Kids since the 1980’s have been educated with this equality principle, but not in the metaphysical sense. More like it’s a real thing, that 1 on 1 equality is a fact. Which to any open mind clearly isn’t so. What also is weird that only males respond to my post, via other channels females did respond, but just blindly refused to continue the discussion when confronted with the inescapable facts. They just said (each in their own imitable way) “Talk to my hand”

      • It is category confusion, as if we must assume equipotential capacity in order to assert everyone must be accorded a fundamental right to live their life. One is about ability, the latter is a moral\metaphysical position. It reminds me of discussions concerning intelligence, where some people are offended by the idea that some are more intelligent than others. Their position is subtly fascistic because they presuppose equipotential capacity is a necessary requirement to perceive all people as being worthy of being treated equally under the law and in society. As far as I’m concerned even a homo habilis is entitled to the same respect as a person as I would anyone of any talents. Given some of the recent research into animal behavior I even wonder if that principle should extend beyond homindae and even primates.

      • You read my mind and wrote it better then i could. Anyone with pets and takes the time soon finds out they consciously plan ahead to attain a goal. Myriad of anecdotes around, pity this only reaches the ears of by anthropomorphism blocked scientific minds. I guess it’s the innate hubris of our species which is at work. As i said in one of my posts here:
        “Their philosophy of life we do not understand just as little as they understand ours. But by their standards they sure can feel superior over humans with good reason.”

      • Frans de Waal, The Age of Empathy. Wonderful read, can transform our understanding of animal behavior and morality. Some quite amazing accounts of animal altruism.

  2. I find your portrayal of feminism lacking needed nuance– I’m left wondering how much (if any) modern feminist literature you have read, to base your argument on the idea of a single, united version of feminism consisting of “complaint.” In my own experience — and in the readings of gender studies courses I’ve taken on feminism & its history — I have not found there to be in existence any sort of single, united feminism. Like any other group or movement, feminists are divided on issues and attitudes towards certain things, and there is no one end goal of feminism.

    “that got corrected, women got the same rights as men”
    “leaving the balance somewhat in favor of women”
    “even positive discrimination was introduced”

    Your words indicate a fundamental lack of information regarding the experience of being female in modern society; perhaps you should ask — and actually listen to — women to hear their thoughts on your claim of social equality. You call it a “feminism of complaint,” and I wonder if you’ve heard what the serious complaints of serious feminists actually are. Is every one of their complaints trivial, in your mind? Are there any arguments made that aren’t “complaints”?

    You also failed to clarify the population on which you make your argument. Are your statements universal, or (as I suspect) do you speak only of your own experiences in upper/middle-class America? There are, after all, definite differences in the legal and social treatment of women & men depending on where in the world you do your studies (race, location, religion, culture).

    Finally, your last statement grated on me, personally. “Stop floundering feminists. Start taking yourself seriously as a woman.” I am a feminist, and I am not a woman. Please, make your arguments sans the clear condescension and near-sightedness of your initial post. I’d like to actually read your responses to my points and have a civil debate, if possible.

    • Civil debate is always possible. As to your point about western women, obviously. Most non-western women have no rights at all. Many nations refuse to sign the declaration of human rights just because it holds a clause about equal rights for men and women. As soon as i see feminists protesting wearing full body clothing i’ll take them serious on that point. As it stands now, as far i’ve seen, feminists actually protest FOR ‘the right’ of women to wear such denigrating clothing making their viewpoints rather suspect since it shows a distinct lack of understanding what motivates women to be subordinated to the point they actually reclaim their prison.

      • …You didn’t address my main points, which were the important part of my critique of your post. In fact, you continued with the attitude I found most flawed: treating feminism as a single ideology with members who all believe the exact same thing, and argue the same points, and ignore the same issues. Which simply isn’t true.

        To address directly your points here (in your reply), these articles describe feminists doing exactly what you said they don’t; that is, “protesting wearing full body clothing” (i.e., the Muslim burqa and hijab, etc.):

        http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/amina-tyler-topless-photos-tunisia-activism.html

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/amina-tyler-femen_n_2949376.html

        http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/24/is-the-hijab-worth-fighting-over/in-hijab-debate-a-weak-vision-of-feminism

        http://www.citizenside.com/en/photos/demonstrations/2010-03-06/22699/demonstration-against-burqa-in-paris-france.html#f=0/125308

        According to The Stream, “Femen [a radical feminist activism group] is now focusing their attention on Muslim women wearing the veil. Using slogans such as better naked than the burqa’ and ‘Muslim women let’s get naked,’ the group is causing negative reactions from some Muslims[...]” (http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/future-feminism-0022381)

        Are you taking them seriously now?

        Again (and now in all caps, since it didn’t seem to register the first time), NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE THE SAME. The ones described above are clearly against the culturally-forced wearing of full-body veils. I, on the other hand, am for people wearing whatever makes them feel happy, comfortable, connected to their god, morally sound, whatever reason they may have. (I am “pro-choice” in this matter.) I am against cultural and religious subjugation of women, and I do believe the reasoning and moral laws behind the veils bears examining, but I’m not part of the culture itself — I’m not a Muslim woman, which is the important bit — and therefore I have no actual right to pass judgment or hold protests on their behalf.

        I am also a feminist — or am I not? Because I don’t subscribe to the exact same beliefs as the feminist involved in the anti-burqa protests? (This, by the way, is not an argument I actually want to get into right now. It’s not relevant to your blog post, and can be better articulated in other forums, with people more educated about the culture than me.)

        Now, I’d like to turn your attention back to my original points, paragraphs 1-3 of my comment (from “I find your portrayal” to “arent ‘complaints’?”). Please address these, if you have the energy, because I’m genuinely curious about your response.

      • Femen also protest against prostitution and wants it outlawed. No, i don’t take them seriously. They are an extremist activist group. In Europe mainstream feminists protest FOR the right to wear full body clothing. Please find me a feminist group representing the majority view. I am not going to argue various activist fringe opinions. Those vary from extreme to extremely extreme to pure hatred. Mainstream feminism has the issues i described. Lack of determination, feeling of entitlement.

  3. Forgive me; in my last comment I made an assumption that you were American — this was just proved false upon reading your “About.” For clarity, please replace in your mind my words “upper/middle-class America” with “the Western World” or some similar variation.

  4. I wasn’t expecting to argue “various activist fringe opinions.” My point, for the third or fourth time now, is that not all feminists are the same. There are majority opinions sometimes, or there appear to be. Yeah, okay. But to classify it all as the exact same feminism and make generalizations like your paragraphs

    “Which created a new wave of feminism, the feminism of complaint. Every time women didn’t make the grade this was due to those awful men not giving them their just dues. Fervently the followers of the doctrine of female entitlement battled against the perceived injustice creating a whole new world where us versus them took over.”

    and

    “Stop floundering feminists. Start taking yourself seriously as a woman. Accept both genders are unequal, but not thereby more or less worth. Stop bitching about what the world does to you and take control of your own life. Stop trying to level the playing field by forcing men and women into some lowest common denominator, but go and prove yourself by just doing your thing.”

    is degrading and limiting to the actual issues modern feminists address.

    Where is this feeling of entitlement you claim? Again — and here is a statement from my original comment, which I’d hoped you’d address:

    “Your words indicate a fundamental lack of information regarding the experience of being female in modern society; perhaps you should ask — and actually listen to — women to hear their thoughts on your claim of social equality. You call it a ‘feminism of complaint,’ and I wonder if you’ve heard what the serious complaints of serious feminists actually are. Is every one of their complaints trivial, in your mind?”

    Maybe the issues between us stem from a cultural difference; perhaps the feminism you see in France is different from the versions I see in America and on the world-wide web. Maybe the social issues I see taking place (laws regarding abortion and fetal homicide, disregard of bodily autonomy, representation in media, rape culture, cat-calling, body-policing) are absent or different in your country (I somewhat doubt that yours is the American feminist’s ideal, though).

    The matter stands that you are equating all feminists but the most extreme as seemingly-identical in viewpoint, and honestly I find your attitude lacking respect. Have you read much feminist literature, or are you basing your assumptions on just what you experience in your heterosexual, cisgender, presumably upper-middle class male life?

    • I thought we would have a civil discussion? Here you go of on a rage already and we only have exchanged words for a couple of times. I’m sorry if you find my pov lacking in respect, but that’s your problem not mine. Generally is accepted that there is a movement which for easy classification is called ‘mainstream feminism’ and represent all persons with moderate viewpoint on the gender relations. If you now want to inform me that such a movement doesn’t exist and i fact no unity at all can be found among feminism one wonders what relevance the word actually has.

      I’m not French, and i find the French society extremely retarded on many positions. I’m for freedom of choice, i am for pre- and post-natal abortion, i’m for everybody’s right to earn money with their own body anyway they see fit (male and female) etc. I’m also for people taking their own lives in their own hands and not sit and wait for someone else to hand it to them or blame someone else for their own incapacity to take part in those fields they feel excluded.

      Women and men have equal rights. So take them or leave them.

      • Did I come off as being “on a rage”? Damn. And I thought my attitude was more logical than that.
        Joking aside, I really don’t think I was being textually angry, there; I certainly didn’t use any inappropriate capitalization or exclamation points (the usual cues for online emotion). Is calling someone out on a lack of respect inherently non-civil now? If it is, I apologize, for offending you if not for the sentiment itself. It wasn’t my intention to come across as breaking the idea of a civil discussion and going off on a rage.

        Fine. You have convinced me that your view of one feminism isn’t inherently flawed. I still believe that an image of a multifaceted feminism is more accurate (even if the facets are of one unified feminism itself), but I can see how your unified view would be worth using in discussion as a concept.

        HOWEVER I take issue with your absolute statement of men and women having equal rights. I think many feminists would disagree with you, esp. re: disregard of bodily autonomy.
        For a simpler relevant example, I’d like to point out that in multiple states in the U.S., a newlywed woman changing her surname to her husband’s pays much less for the name-change than a newlywed man changing his surname to his wife’s. Why? Outdated concepts of gender roles and expectations of marriage. These are issues feminism hopes to address, among others.

        ALSO, feminism is relevant regardless of legal equality. Equal rights =/= social equality. Re: representation in media, rape culture, cat-calling, body-policing. These are cultural problems I see feminists fighting and trying to overcome.

        (the words I uppercased are the beginnings of my main two points, by the way)

        Also, what did you mean by “take them or leave them”?

      • Also I take issue with your use of the word “retarded” as a slur. You know. As long as we’re trying to be civil, let’s not be ableist, yes?

  5. I don’t mind multi-faceted feminism, but then you have to accept the fact that those not of that particular ideology have a hard time coming to grips with it. As you present it it’s more like a moving goalpost then a carefully outlined proposition.

    Social equality one obtains by being socially equal. As it stands now labor participation in W-Europe is low for women expressed in manhours (more women work parttime then man) despite having more then adequate education/skills. It’s a lack of interest determined by the biological role women have, something nobody can be blamed for unfortunately.

    Evidently employers aren’t very willing to take on high level personnel which at any time can take off to follow her instinct. It’s very expensive compared to an equally skilled man, even in jobs where it would make more sense to hire women due to their innate qualities.

    So in the end only a determined few arrive at the end, or the elderly after childbearing age.
    As for my ‘retarded’ word, in my language its perfectly in its place/civil and since i am writing this it’s your job to acknowledge our different cultures and not hold me to your cultures narrow political correct phrasing.

    • NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE THE SAME.

      That’s the problem Ryn, if they are not all the same they should not all be calling themselves feminists. In many disciplines sub-groups distinguish themselves. Eg. Molecular biologist, evolutionary biologist, marine biologist etc. I think Petrossa’s point is that the public face of feminism is represented in a certain way, though that may vary across nations when the appellation “feminist” occurs people typically derive an understanding through that public image presented, not through all the various nuances of that movement.

      Wittgenstein wrote: Words are posts on which we hang meanings. It is not possible nor desirable that we should thoroughly acquaint ourselves with the minutiae of every political movement. The very greater majority of people will attach meanings to words as determined by the general public expression of those words. In my country Australia feminism is very quiet even though Germaine Greer is an Aussie. She has, along with some other feminists, attacked men as basically being bastards. Doesn’t help, highly hypocritical to demand respect from those you are condemning as a group.

      I have noted overseas reports suggesting the demise of our ex Prime Minister Julia Gillard was because Aussies are misogynist. Nonsense, she was thrown out because she did some very stupid things. Activists need to be very careful of what I call “activist over-reach”. Feminism has done a great job in helping women address the discrimination they have experienced since the dawn of time but their too often expressed contempt for men, their too often invoked the misogynist card, has in the last decade made them increasingly irrelevant to young women.

      • Quote: “The underlying thread of all Feminism is self hatred of the natural biology of being a woman, and destruction of the feminine is their goal.” writer i don’t know

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s