Tweet
It is high time to address the issue of "feminism" and its relatively proper position in our times. "Feminism" what began in the 1830s vis a vis the rise of abolitionism, in which both groups exclaimed the self ownership of the individual has dileniated itself from "the individual" simply because like all isms, in order to succeed it relies on the collective identity or mass minded thinking of the "great group". Of course, ignoring details, that is pretty much the gist of the root of the feminists, although some may argue otherwise, the details at this point I am not interested in. One can see from this point of view, and indeed the argument can be made of the idea that feminism is consonant with individualism, yet I think somehow there has been a schism in the "movement" with 99 percent of feminists not understanding what their "movement" is about. Ignoring the recent "ifeminism"(which I still find contradictary ) I will focus on "feminism" or "radical feminism" as understood by 99 percent of the feminists, and the world.
The primary goal of all "movements" or "social movements" or "revolutions" is based on collectivity and the mob, or mass minded thinking. Of course when this is pointed out, it is not well received, whether one points out the mass mindedness in nationalism, marxism, or feminism, they all nonetheless, while in theory may claim to help the individual, but at the same time confine themselves because what they really claim to help is the individual within that group, and in so doing create "group consciousness" and a "collective identity". Indeed, if feminism is about the individual, why speak of women’s rights rather than individual rights? Indeed what is the point of "gay rights" or "womens rights" or "minority rights" or any other groups' rights, if your ism is about the individual? Then why not chant "individual rights" instead of "womens rights" or "minority rights"? That obvious point is what shows that these isms are rooted in collective mass minded thinking.
I am going to ignore the whole idea of how "womens history" is created, much like "nationalist history" was created in 19th century. Of course the women didn't become a gender conscious political group movement or revolution until relatively recent times, just like workers didnt become worker or labor conscious until recent times, and just like nations or groups speaking a same language didnt because nationally conscious until recent times, but somehow we project these phenomenon into the past, and somehow we are able to create for ourselves a unique history, and view all of history may it be through Marxism, or Feminism, or Nationalism through a narrow rigid myopic view. Whichever you choose makes no difference since you blur history into a single focal point or rallying point from which each ism, respectivelly, relies on for legitimacy.
The success of feminism, like all political group movements, whether it be "civil rights" or "any rights" in which a politically created and motivated collective group demands to achieve, is based on "equality" which has root in socialism, so in order for these movements to succeed they most work in tandem with government and lawmakers and create more laws and regulations in order to "create equality", meaning more government, and essentially this is the basis of "socialism" since all movements that rely on "equality" and legislation, and governements that promise that, are socialistic. The success of feminism is not due to the creed of feminism, but rather the government. The most well armed and well funded government in the history of the planet pushed feminism into the lawbooks, and government judges have supported it, perhaps out of genuine concern, but I am to guess that like all politicians they cared for "votes". Additionally, the movement was often insidious, an innocuous little new law here, another one there, and it never ends. This isn't just confined to feminism. The "gun control advocates" the "gays and lesbians" the "environmentalists" the "civil rights activists" all rely on this sort of mass mindedness to achieve their ends.
On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives. This material transcendence indeed has made society more denser and relative in recent times and not just for "feminists or women" but society as a whole, since in our socialistic society and school system, the only things we are measured up to is how much we earn, our positions, and essentially the materiality of all things, so when we say "equality" whether for blacks or women or gays, it is in essence nothing more than "material" equality. Just like the "civil rights" movement, the "womens liberation" movement is a raucus that was in the making and continues to flourish and all those that disagree with either the civil rights people or the womens liberation group, are racist and sexist, respectively. Of course this doesn't mean all feminists think that way, but this speaks for your average member with the preset group mentality, and hence how our critical thinking is lost in the haze of mass mindedness.
Of course in the dictionary "feminism" is defined as the doctrine for the equal rights of women, or the belief in the equality of men and women. While such spurious statements are made and accepted and regurgitated by the social masses, few question the underlying implications of the said definitions. And assuming if one defines feminism as the belief in equal rights for women, it is implied that men and women are somehow equal since that is the reason why they would want equal rights. If not that, then what else? This isn't to deny that women have been traditionally "second class" or "held back" but then again one can compare the present and the past but only for so much, for to look at all history and say "women have always been oppressed" and make the barometer of judgement for the past, the present state, that is anti historical, since each society or epoch or period in history was different in its own way, and if you compare fine, but to attempt to create any more "meaning" out of it is going too far, and going back to what I said, viewing all history through this lens. And perhaps its even more pertinent to ask why women have always been second class or held back? Perhaps it is not so much rooted in the "social causes" but rather the innnate inequality of men and women. Perhaps we should indeed examine this more than most feminists would claim. Men and women are different both biologically and psychologically. Men cannot have babies, obviously. Both genders are implanted with two different hormones and chromosomes. They differ in minds, characters, and capacities since their bodies and personalities are built on different things.
It is as absurd to claim men and women are of equal capabilities as it is to claim that a turtle can race with a horse. The radical feminists would find my above statement as "hateful" and "sexist" indeed, the Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug types would go berzerk at such a statement. Indeed there are women out there who deserve equal rights but they must earn it. There are women who can meet the same physical capabilities as a man to join the fire department or the army. There are women out there who are just fine as long as they earn their jobs competitively. No one disputes that each deserves to his/her share in what he/she gets. Your input equals your output. I do not believe in legislation to force "equality" or "level the playing field" simply because it is a woman, or a minority or anyone else. Women like men, should own property, whether its their own feminist club, a strip bar, or a house, or a business. No one disputes that. Everyone should have full rights to their body and property, not to expropriate those of others, as the feminists and civil rights advocates have achieved via the State, of making all else conform to their political group.
If feminists intend that everyone enjoy equal outcomes, history teaches that this is impossible. Why totalitarian socialism won’t ever work perhaps deserves another thread of its own. Indeed I will end with perhaps one of my favorite figures in our time, Ludwig von Mises, and he had this to say about feminism within the broader scope of socialism:
"So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature."
The primary goal of all "movements" or "social movements" or "revolutions" is based on collectivity and the mob, or mass minded thinking. Of course when this is pointed out, it is not well received, whether one points out the mass mindedness in nationalism, marxism, or feminism, they all nonetheless, while in theory may claim to help the individual, but at the same time confine themselves because what they really claim to help is the individual within that group, and in so doing create "group consciousness" and a "collective identity". Indeed, if feminism is about the individual, why speak of women’s rights rather than individual rights? Indeed what is the point of "gay rights" or "womens rights" or "minority rights" or any other groups' rights, if your ism is about the individual? Then why not chant "individual rights" instead of "womens rights" or "minority rights"? That obvious point is what shows that these isms are rooted in collective mass minded thinking.
I am going to ignore the whole idea of how "womens history" is created, much like "nationalist history" was created in 19th century. Of course the women didn't become a gender conscious political group movement or revolution until relatively recent times, just like workers didnt become worker or labor conscious until recent times, and just like nations or groups speaking a same language didnt because nationally conscious until recent times, but somehow we project these phenomenon into the past, and somehow we are able to create for ourselves a unique history, and view all of history may it be through Marxism, or Feminism, or Nationalism through a narrow rigid myopic view. Whichever you choose makes no difference since you blur history into a single focal point or rallying point from which each ism, respectivelly, relies on for legitimacy.
The success of feminism, like all political group movements, whether it be "civil rights" or "any rights" in which a politically created and motivated collective group demands to achieve, is based on "equality" which has root in socialism, so in order for these movements to succeed they most work in tandem with government and lawmakers and create more laws and regulations in order to "create equality", meaning more government, and essentially this is the basis of "socialism" since all movements that rely on "equality" and legislation, and governements that promise that, are socialistic. The success of feminism is not due to the creed of feminism, but rather the government. The most well armed and well funded government in the history of the planet pushed feminism into the lawbooks, and government judges have supported it, perhaps out of genuine concern, but I am to guess that like all politicians they cared for "votes". Additionally, the movement was often insidious, an innocuous little new law here, another one there, and it never ends. This isn't just confined to feminism. The "gun control advocates" the "gays and lesbians" the "environmentalists" the "civil rights activists" all rely on this sort of mass mindedness to achieve their ends.
On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives. This material transcendence indeed has made society more denser and relative in recent times and not just for "feminists or women" but society as a whole, since in our socialistic society and school system, the only things we are measured up to is how much we earn, our positions, and essentially the materiality of all things, so when we say "equality" whether for blacks or women or gays, it is in essence nothing more than "material" equality. Just like the "civil rights" movement, the "womens liberation" movement is a raucus that was in the making and continues to flourish and all those that disagree with either the civil rights people or the womens liberation group, are racist and sexist, respectively. Of course this doesn't mean all feminists think that way, but this speaks for your average member with the preset group mentality, and hence how our critical thinking is lost in the haze of mass mindedness.
Of course in the dictionary "feminism" is defined as the doctrine for the equal rights of women, or the belief in the equality of men and women. While such spurious statements are made and accepted and regurgitated by the social masses, few question the underlying implications of the said definitions. And assuming if one defines feminism as the belief in equal rights for women, it is implied that men and women are somehow equal since that is the reason why they would want equal rights. If not that, then what else? This isn't to deny that women have been traditionally "second class" or "held back" but then again one can compare the present and the past but only for so much, for to look at all history and say "women have always been oppressed" and make the barometer of judgement for the past, the present state, that is anti historical, since each society or epoch or period in history was different in its own way, and if you compare fine, but to attempt to create any more "meaning" out of it is going too far, and going back to what I said, viewing all history through this lens. And perhaps its even more pertinent to ask why women have always been second class or held back? Perhaps it is not so much rooted in the "social causes" but rather the innnate inequality of men and women. Perhaps we should indeed examine this more than most feminists would claim. Men and women are different both biologically and psychologically. Men cannot have babies, obviously. Both genders are implanted with two different hormones and chromosomes. They differ in minds, characters, and capacities since their bodies and personalities are built on different things.
It is as absurd to claim men and women are of equal capabilities as it is to claim that a turtle can race with a horse. The radical feminists would find my above statement as "hateful" and "sexist" indeed, the Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug types would go berzerk at such a statement. Indeed there are women out there who deserve equal rights but they must earn it. There are women who can meet the same physical capabilities as a man to join the fire department or the army. There are women out there who are just fine as long as they earn their jobs competitively. No one disputes that each deserves to his/her share in what he/she gets. Your input equals your output. I do not believe in legislation to force "equality" or "level the playing field" simply because it is a woman, or a minority or anyone else. Women like men, should own property, whether its their own feminist club, a strip bar, or a house, or a business. No one disputes that. Everyone should have full rights to their body and property, not to expropriate those of others, as the feminists and civil rights advocates have achieved via the State, of making all else conform to their political group.
If feminists intend that everyone enjoy equal outcomes, history teaches that this is impossible. Why totalitarian socialism won’t ever work perhaps deserves another thread of its own. Indeed I will end with perhaps one of my favorite figures in our time, Ludwig von Mises, and he had this to say about feminism within the broader scope of socialism:
"So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature."
Comment