by Connie Chastain*
I subscribe to Google Alerts for about five different subjects. One of them is feminism and I'm notifed weekly of the items found by Google's search programs relating to this subject.
As an ardent anti-feminist, I'm intrigued by the rumbling going on of late in the feminist quarter of western hegemony. Judging by the alerts in my in-box, there appears to be a multi-sided battle brewing. It's the aging second wavers vs. the smart-aleck third wavers, certainly. But it's also between liberal feminists on the left and conservative ones on the right.
As interesting as it is to watch the old gals and the young twits square off, for the next few weeks -- the run-up to the U.S. elections -- I'll have to give more attention to the political cat fight.
In the words of Howard Dietz, That's Entertainment! I won't say it's as entertaining as SEC football of a Saturday afternoon. It might run even with old MGM musicals, and it has spectator golf beat hands down. Hey, when you live in a dark and oppressive rape culture, you have to get your entertainment however you can so I have popped up some Jiffy-Pop, poured cola on ice, propped my feet up, and settled back to watch the Feminist Wars.
Conservative feminists? Who knew there could even be such an animal? Feminism has been the purview of the left for generations. Everybody knew conservative women, whose brains were damaged by housework, stayed home, raised kids and volunteered down at the church. Voting was the extent of their political involvement.
But we're seeing some strange things happening now. Women who don't spout the orthodox feminist line are emerging as political candidates, raising money (tons of it, jaw-dropping mountains of it) and making their voices heard with the electorate. And quite a few stand a good chance of getting elected to everything from the U.S. Senate to governors' offices to county commissions to local soil and water boards....
As I've stated before, I believe that the core of feminism is the hatred of men as a group, or hatred of masculinity itself. That is why abortion is the number one cause of feminism -- not equality for women, not opportunity for women, not giving women greater choice, but abortion: the removal from the uterus material put there by a male. Everything else on the feminist agenda, including the claims of rape culture, serves this cause.
But conservative women seeking office, and their numberless supporters, don't talk much about abortion, or rape culture, or the glass ceiling, or any of issues old-time feminists constantly moan about. They talk about reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, enacting sane health care legislation, putting power back into the hands of states, counties, municipalities -- in short, not only ignoring the orthodox feminist agenda, but supporting policies that would undermine feminist power by knocking government support (i.e., funding) out from under it.
Would these Mama Grizzlies make good elected officials? I dunno. I haven't paid close attention to politics since 1998, when I was a Congressional staffer and saw enough of federal politics to last me the rest of my life. And frankly, I prefer male leaders. But if I had to choose between a male liberal and a female conservative, I'd probably vote for the latter.
Fortunately, I don't have to delve that deeply into it. I've turned cynic enough to view the whole of western politics as a joke. I'm much more interested in the culture wars, and politics is important to me only to the extent it affects the culture.
I've seen speculation that the rise of conservative feminists means the old feminism is on the way out; that it has achieved what it set out to achieve, and is no longer needed -- that it has basically outlived its usefulness and will be elbowed aside by more relevant movements.
I don't know about that but I do know we have a lot of damage to undo, not the least of which is the damage done to men by feminist get-evenism supported by the power of government. Maybe electing conservative women to office is part of the solution, maybe not. But I'm for anything that undermines the power that institutional feminism has wrenched for itself over the decades.
If you've got some Jiffy-Pop and cola, and you'd like to join me in watching what's turning out to be a highly entertaining interlude, follow the links below (and you can Google to find lots more).
- Feminism's Mother-Daughter Divide -- Susan Faludi
- http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/susan-faludi-feminisms-mother-daughter-divide
- High heels and high hopes -- Suzanne Fields
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/20/high-heels-and-high-hopes/
- Feminist Groups Call Conservative Women ‘Nutty’ and ‘Whores,’ Media Ignores -- Alana Goodman
- http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2010/20101020120418.aspx
- Sarah Palin vs. Emily's List: a Twitter 'feminist' feud
- http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0818/Sarah-Palin-vs.-Emily-s-List-a-Twitter-feminist-feud
- Oxymoron of 2010: feminist conservative -- Beverly McPhail
- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7217962.html
- Real Mama Grizzlies -- Karoli (the video's a real hoot! Enjoy! ~Connie)
- http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/real-mama-grizzlies
*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com
Posts
27 comments:
Connie - "I don't know about that but I do know we have a lot of damage to undo, not the least of which is the damage done to men by feminist get-evenism supported by the power of government. Maybe electing conservative women to office is part of the solution, maybe not."
While I suspect that these so-call "conservative feminists" will not act out of any hatred of men (as a class), and will likely not be as bad as what we have seen for many years running; I have to wonder if they will be willing to give issue important and selectively relevant to men much consideration.
The Social Conservative men tend to have little concern for the plight of their brethren, and seem quite happy to throw any number of “other men” under the bus when they believe it will serve to ingratiate them with women. If those men cannot be counted on to address men’s issues, what are the realistic chance that the women, who actually have a gender-based reason to be gyoncentric, will be any better.
Even from within the ranks of feminists (on the left) we’re beginning to see signs that some are aware that gender-feminists have “over-reached”, and, fearing the possibility of a back-lash (the reversal of laws and policies which disadvantage men), appear to be trying to suggest/negotiate some sort of “truce” with men (MRA’s in particular) which will allow them to preserve the advantages that feminism has won for them, in exchange for a cessation in seeking even greater advantages. And, as a number of bloggers have noted, most all women enjoy the “benefits” feminism without having to be (traditional) feminists [The Elusive Wapiti did a nice piece on “Lifeboat Feminism”, for example].
What possible motivation could comfortably advantaged women have for giving up their advantages?
slwerner, I know I'm not looking at this the way most men would. Chalk it up partly to my contrarianism. It's similar to, "I'm for the Saints and whoever's playing the Falcons."
I'm for men ... and for whatever weakens feminism.
Interesting piece connie. I have only experienced the "Gender / Raunch feminism" of the last 10 years or so.
If one was to observe the typical classroom where "Gender / Raunch feminism" is "constructed", one would observe a few interesting characteristics.
1. upperwhite middle class students who feel the world has "sexually oppressed" them for hundreds of years.
2.The only males, and nearly the only minorities in the typical "Gender / raunch" classroom are homosexuals, crossdressers, or transvestites who are either pre-op, or post op.
This would seem kinda silly, if it were not the truth.
American Law enforcement continue to "Manufacture and feed" faulty and inflammatory statistics to gender feminist organizations because they still think feminism is still about "protecting women", when new "Gender / raunch feminism" barelly resembles anything at all with protecting women.
This is just high-school style spats over which group of cool girls are the coolest.
Until these supposed "conservative" women actively work against the female supremacist movement, they are still the enemy of men. For example, Sarah Palin has explicitly praised Leftist Feminism. Saying "We have some different beliefs, but we're all after the same thing."
I'm not going to raise a toast to women simply because they pat me on the head before they shake me down for cash.
I also have grave concerns about someone as ignorant as O'Donnell taking office. I feel the same way about unqualified male candidates.
Anonymous, I'm not raising a toast, either. I'm raising a cola and munching popcorn, watching a cat fight.
If conservative women can bring us a step or two back from where the radfems have taken us, that's fine with me. That means maybe we'll only have to take eight steps back to where we should be, rather than ten or twelve.
And where should we be? I know some men (not most, thank goodness) won't be happy until women are deprived of the right to vote, and all other rights; until they're prohibited from getting an education and working; until they're made wards of their fathers, husbands, or some other male.
No sign of the weakening of feminism is going to satisfy those guys. It's almost as if they've bought into the feminist fabrication of patriarchy and want to return to something that never existed.
There's got to be something -- some good and normal ground -- between that and female supremacy.
As far as O'Donnell goes, I don't know much about her. I do believe the politically ignorant can learn, but the politically corrupt almost never reform.
Slw, I can't help but belly laugh at yesterday's article on Rape Culture 101. As a man of integrity, you must have an honest opinion of what CNN ran this week. Amazing that it can be so obviously ignored. Hey, don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.
Anonymous - "Hey, don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about."
Unfortunately, I don't have to pretend, I'm not sure which thing on CNN you're asking about.
Based on your last sentence, it sounds as if your spoiling for a fight?
Happy to oblige. Just given me some hint what we're to fight about.
I guessed that it might be an item under their Justice news category, so I tried looking there first for something that would seem to fit in with some other issue that has come up on this forum, but I'm still not clear as to which it might be. Based on this that displays oat the bottom of the list I was just looking at:
showing 60 of 368
It seems I still have quite a few to consider. Could you give me some hint as to which item your trying to bait me with - perhaps a word or two from the headline?
I'd love to give my opinion, I'm just not interested in preparing remarks on 368 different stories in the hopes of getting to the one that seems to have you itchin' for a go at me.
Not itchin' for a go at you, not spoiling for a fight. You, my friend (from Glen Sacks days), have turned paranoid in your old age. Okay, here's a hint since you haven't the "slightest" clue: 4-letter proper noun beginning with 'Y'.
As if you needed a hint :)
Elly - ” Okay, here's a hint since you haven't the "slightest" clue: 4-letter proper noun beginning with 'Y'.”
“York”?, as in New York?
Are you asking my thoughts on Alan Newton’s lawsuit against New York City?
I did address that case on this thread. I’d be happy to discuss it more, if it is the story you where hinting at.
If it was not the story you had in mind, how about another hint?
I'd better drop it before the Gestapo catches me.
email me?
ellyhunt@yahoo.com
Report: Woman accused of false rape claims heads to court today
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-woman-accused-rape-lies-faces-judg20101022,0,5239162.story
Teacher arrested for allegedly raping student
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-raping-student-story,0,2696589.story
One of the big problems in all this is the general right-wing bias of much of the MRM. A lot of men's rights people tend to assume that conservatives care more about men than liberals do. To tell the truth, I used to think that way myself not that long ago. But I have gradually come to change my outlook on things, and realize that this is a flawed and simplistic way of looking at it.
Conservatives are more likely than liberals to oppose certain feminist policies (but not all) not so much because they care about men, but simply because they want men to continue to fulfill their traditional roles as protectors and providers and they believe residual patriachy will do more to protect women than feminism. This is not really much of a victory for men.
Liberals are more likely to support certain feminist policies like phony 'equal pay', affirmative action and the like, not because they care more about women than men, but simply because they have an ideological bias towards supporting any measure that is seen as promoting more equality in outcomes. But even on these issues, a lot of conservatives in politics (even most) support such silly policies as well. So again, conservatives don't really offer much to men.
Most of my close friends are fairly liberal, and they have become a lot more aware of how men are being screwed over in recent years. Thing is, it is often easier to talk about such things with them than with conservatives who are more likely to be wedded to notions that real men don't whine or admit weaknesses, but just do what a man's gotta do.
A lot of MRAs tend to assume that because the left appears to be more wedded to women's rights and feminism, the only option is to join the right. But that is somewhat flawed thinking. What this ignores is that modern identity politics is quite fickle and often rapidly changing, while conservative chivalry is likely to reamin more of a barrier for longer. So it may actually make more sense to build a stronger support base among liberals.
I certainly don't think that electing conservative women will do much at all to help men. If anything it will just entrench the status quo at men's expense.
Both conservatives and liberals have watched this country collapse under the weight of its own pork barrel appetite.
Both conservatives and liberals "broke the patriarchy", and while the patriarchy was broken the perverts running this countries mortgage industry de-regulated it until it collapsed.
These perverts who deregulated the mortgage industry until it collapsed are lucky the American patriarchy is broken and divided, cause if they weren't these folks might get called on the carpet.
Most of the "conservative women" I know are aged out liberals, disillusioned or now interested in carrying a gun.
Nick, thanks for an interesting insightful post. And then I had to read the insane 5:01
"A lot of MRAs tend to assume that because the left appears to be more wedded to women's rights and feminism, the only option is to join the right."
I really don't care if men vote for the GOP but if they vote Dem they're essentially voting for their own annihilation. the Democrat Party is the Feminist Party, period. And if you need proof look at the recent Dem rallies all over the US meant to get women to vote Dem.
The GOP deserves heaps of scorn to be sure, but the Dem leadership treats average men as beasts of burden deserving of no rights. Do not vote for that, please.
Now that the American patriarchy is broken and divided, women and Gender / Raunch sexual deviants now dominate American politics.
Gender / Raunch has concluded that sports for school children is "patriarchal", and now we have obese children being prescribed dangerous drugs, with diabetes spiraling out of control,( but at least the children of the Gender / Raunch are experimenting with their sexual preferences at 10 years old, right).
The GOP deserves heaps of scorn to be sure, but the Dem leadership treats average men as beasts of burden deserving of no rights. Do not vote for that, please
It's the "dems" that are "tough on crime"?
It's the "dems" that are behind the largest male prison population explosion the world now knows?
It's the "dems" that are ruling LE and the judicial system?
The "dems" that used Sex Offender hysteria to get themselves voted into office?
Good to know.
Anonymous - The "dems" that used Sex Offender hysteria to get themselves voted into office?"
As a fact of fact...
In Colorado the Democratic US Senatorial candidate has manged to over-come the lead that Republican candidate Ken Buck held precisely by playing into just that.
You see, Buck, the current DA of Weld County declined to handle an alleged rape case (with his explanation to the alleged victim having been surreptitiously recorded , and now that is being used against him in campaign adds - which have been very effective in painting him as a rape-apologist.
His decision to decline to prosecute was not only sound, but agreed to by not only members of his staff (including two staunch feminist female prosecutors), but also the DA of neighboring Boulder County.
So, yeah! Absolutely! Dem's are hardly about trading on Sex Offender hysteria.
Not that this should be taken as some ringing endorsement for Republicans (across the board), but only as a reminder that Democrats aren't going to be the ones to get serious about male-centric issues, like systematically addressing the issue of FRA's
[This is still the FRS, isn't it?]
The more that one follows politics closely, the more that one realizes that in the broader scheme of things ideology and partisanship actually doesn't matter as much in the long run in how things work out.
People who have a knee-jerk tendency to always blame one side or the other, really don't get that. The whole left/right divide is almost designed to confuse the simple-minded about what the real issues are.
It is true that on some issues Democrats tend to be worse than Republicans. But on other issues (like prisoner rights, law-and-order) Republicans are actually worse for men's rights than Dems.
But it should be considered. Given that men tend to lean more Republican, how much value are men getting from Republicans in return? Hell, Republicans still pander to women even though men are disproportionately their base! Now that's contempt!
Oh, and let's not forget that it is now Republicans who are the biggest defenders of programs like Medicare (even though such programs heavily take resources from men and give them to middle-class and affluent women).
But hey, conservatives are always looking out for men!
Nick S. - "Given that men tend to lean more Republican, how much value are men getting from Republicans in return? Hell, Republicans still pander to women even though men are disproportionately their base! Now that's contempt!"
Yes, this every very true - and very frustrating. It's is also largely why I am a former-Republican. The republicans have foolishly ignored the needs and concerns of their true base (men), trying to out-pander the Democrats in reaching out to the interests (not to mention the advancement and advantaging of) of women.
But, alas, not third party has emerged that A) considers men a a class, and B) actually has a chance of winning.
It's tough to no what to do, as it seems neither side can be trusted. One can know that Democrats will keep with their program of working against the interests of men, but it seems the Republican strategy is to beat the Dems at their own game by also favoring women over men.
Slwerner, I am a former Republican as well. Even though I don't live in the United States, I follow US politics closely and used to prefer Republicans to be in office. Not any more.
Rather than aligning ourselves with any one party, it is actually more important for MRAs to get our issues understood by the electorate (and particularly by critical constituencies like swing voters). That way, all parties and candidates will have some incentive to take these issues on board. Because politicians tend to be risk-averse, they will only take on board such issues once they have sufficient support.
So instead of throwing our lot in with one side, it is better to simply expand your constituency and then send a message to both sides of 'cross us at your peril'.
THE TRUTH!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013251077_apwapartyoverdoses.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39835152
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/25/drinks-not-drugs-sickened-cwu-students/drugs-sickened-cwu-students/
The Rape Culture was wrong!
Post a Comment