I found this site on the internet which has a reasonable well-written, scholarly refutation of the feminist movement. It is from Australia, and is a bit dry, but it makes many good points, a few of which I will quote, but I recommend you read the entire article. Feminism, in it's original context, was great. Feminism as it is now, is just a bunch of leftist agitation hiding behind supporting women. Is it no doubt that feminism is usually linked to socialism, which is the hallmark of the greedy, me-first mentality in America today?
Ok, this here is the link to the article, y'all.
A few select of my favorite quotes:
"One of the consequences of feminist antipathy to marriage has been the advent of the permissive society: alternative lifestyles and no-fault divorce laws. Far from enhancing the status of women, a major consequence of no-fault divorce has been the feminisation of poverty: economic analysis indicates that after divorce, the standard of living of fathers and husbands remains the same or improves, while wives and children slip below the poverty line."
"The abortion issue illustrates feminist Fraud No. 2. All the scientific evidence, especially since in vitro fertilisation techniques were developed, indicate that a new human life begins at fertilisation and not at birth. Yet feminists want to be able to dispose of this new life with no more regulation than covers the cutting of toenails. At the same time they claim that to avoid the trauma of abortion, contraceptives should be made freely available, especially to adolescents. But if abortion is of no more consequence than the cutting of toenails, if it is nothing more than the disposal of an unwanted piece of tissue, why is it so traumatic for so many women? After all, one cuts one’s toenails every week — is an abortion different and if so in what way?"
'Dr Moens claims that affirmative action programs which involve the setting of targets is a smokescreen behind which preferential hiring takes place, thus shifting the burden of discrimination to a new group:
"The practice ends up by creating new classes of victims by lifting the burden from past group discrimination (women and minorities) to a new group — white Anglo-Saxon males."'
9 comments:
I have a question for you.
Why do you spend so much time trying to refute feminism? Why do you seem to pick on feminists so much?
Give me a good reason.
Oh, did I mention that you're just wrong if you believe a lot of that crap?
I'm in class, but I promise I'll get back to you later.
I'm going to answer your questions...
why do people refute feminism? because it's a load of crap.
why do people pick on feminists so much? because it's just so damn easy!!!
I fervently disagree with the spirit of this piece, "Goose".
I think marriage should be a commitment and that no-fault divorce should not be an option; for anyone, regardless of sex or gender. If someone makes a vow to love honor and cherish another (egads, even of their same sex) I think they should be held accountable to those vows, unless something is seriously wrong in the relationship, and I will argue that spousal abuse in an almost one way street.
Abortion issue is a non argument. Who cares when human life begins? It is not sanct. Abortion is like cutting toenails in philosophical significance. It is vastly different in biological consequence.
I am against affirmative action and have declined positions offered to me because of it. I am a staunch supporter of meritocracy, and true feminism has sought to legitimize that the merit of women is equal to that of men.
I think you put this up here to rabble rouse, and while I may have had the same intent when i brought up the "Day of Silence", my jab was in good spirits; this is just trying to make people angry. I know you're capable of showing more class than this. Perhaps a rewrite that first doesn't make personal attacks: "Feminism as it is now, is just a bunch of hiding behind their woman-hood as shield from the fact that anythign may not be exactly how they want it."
and second, analyze this article you've discovered, and break it down into its parts, writing which ones you agree with and why, on a fundamental level, you agree. That is proper discourse that will get your point acknowledged and respected.
Remember what you said about radical feminists? You believe their extremist attitude drives the average person to resist the cause of feminists in general (and I am inclined to support you on this front). Your work on this post does the same thing regarding the middle, and making them resist your value system.
Dutch, that's pretty unkind. You've actually served to embolden me in stating that the typical conservative's lack of class in resisting feminism is us liberal's greatest asset.
Furthermore, let me transfer your words to another humanist issue that conservatives resisted:
why do people refute desegregation? because it's a load of crap.
why do people pick on negroes so much? because it's just so damn easy!!!
or even better why not turn your rhetoric against you?
why do liberals refute the sanctity of the fetus? Because it's a load of crap.
why do liberals pick on Christians so much? because it's just so damn easy!!!
How is abortion a nonargument?? Your entire paragraph about that makes no sense.
"Women must become as "impregnable" as men and should not be expected to care for any babies they may bring into the world."
This is ridculous. Feminists don't believe they should not have to care for their children; they contend that men should have to care equally in the physical and emotional rearing of a child, not just the monetary.
""Hard" affirmative action programs, on the other hand, which through the setting of targets or goals seek proportional representation of women and minority groups, conform to the ideal of equality of result."
How old is this article?! Quotas were disposed of a long time ago.
"Feminist Fraud No. 6, undoubtedly the biggest fraud of all, is to argue at one and the same time that there are no sex differences, but that the presence of more women in positions of power and decision-making will produce a more caring society."
This is NOT a feminist argument because it plays into the sterotype of women as nuturers, an sterotype which is rejected by feminists. Seriously, did the author of the piece even talk to any feminists?
There are so many inaccurcies in this article; I could only address a few. Later, I will write a full rejection. Oh, and this was published in 1986. Maybe find something a little more current, next time?
Oh, and I'm a feminist AND a socialist. Now what?
has anyone actually read the whole article???
What I said makes sense, I simply worded it poorly. To say it better, what the author of this particularly offensive piece argues is invalid. He addresses the feminist stance on abortion (to have it remain an option) by stating that they are wrong to destroy human life. The morality issue regarding abortion cannot be addressed in this manner as the point at which human life begins is irrelevant, and better moral philosophers than I (try Australian, Peter Singer) have explained this fact in great detail.
Human life in and of itself has no intristic value (other than that it propagates our species). Value is assigned to human lives by humans themselves (generally unequally too). Now before getting indignant and saying, "how dare you insinuate that human life is worthless," let me inquire this, "why do conservatives feel human life must have value in order to protect it, anyway?"
My final stance on this is that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the blastula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastula)
^ this is not a human, even if it is made of human cells ^
IMHO, I believe that the current state of abortion is disgusting. It is too often considered an option of convenience and as such the system is abused. However that does not mean I think the system should be shut down, as some women who genuinely cannot handle a pregnancy, for any reason, be it financial, medical, or psychological, would be hurt if the option were banned completely.
While some of my more liberal associates will argue in favor of partial birth abortion The strongest argument is that women who receive them are generally in dire need of one, or else they wouldn't get one. This is just laziness in all cases outside of unforeseen fetal developmental issues that may harm the mother (the only case in which I can support PBA). Otherwise I feel if a woman has committed to carry a fetus that long that she has made a commitment to carry it to term.
Think of it in opposite terms to firearm ownership rights. A couple thousand abuses (that unjustly end human life) does not call for the removal of the rights of millions.
Post a Comment