We have explained here how women's advocates do a disservice to rape victims by telling them that justice was not served in the DSK case. Read our summary. I suspect any objective reader will agree.
Along the same lines, feminist Ludy Wadham writes for CNN:
". . . the Strauss-Kahn case has uncovered the divide, not between men and women so much as between old and new feminists. Old feminists, from Genevieve Clark to Erica Jong, believed that the goal was political and sexual freedom for women, not the political and sexual subordination of men.
"I cannot accept the idea that womanhood automatically implies victimhood, nor do I think that it is a desirable state of affairs when women see men as the enemy.
"The man-hating tirades of my female colleagues are nothing but puritanism in disguise and I suspect that our feminist forebears would be dismayed by the climate of inquisition that seems to dominate relations between men and women today." (Read the entire piece here)
Bravo! Ms. Wadham isn't the first feminist to discuss the DSK case in an intelligent way, but hers is the bluntest criticism I've seen directed at other feminists. It is criticism richly deserved. The "new" feminists she writes about have proven themselves too childish to have an adult discussion about a very complex, and very important, matter. They start and finish every discussion the same way: the male is guilty, period. If that sounds overly simplistic, then you haven't read our piece on DSK referenced above. That's exactly what they did. On this basis, they have proven themselves unfit to be part of the public discourse on rape. (Even though this blog gives voice to the wrongly accused, we were careful to try not to prejudge the case. When Susan Brownmiller said she believed Ms. Diallo, we expressed our dismay about "believing" anyone when the facts weren't available to us.)
Persons of goodwill need to step up and insist that serious matters be discussed seriously, without the shrill, politicized, gender-divisive, knee jerk, and conclusory rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
If I recall, it was "old guard feminists" who used to run around accusing men of whacking off to movies of women being literally killed on screen and who also embraced the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria which posited that there was a Satanic conspiracy of such immaculate perfection that a total lack of evidence was seen as proof that they were right. (For an excellent retelling see Richard Ofshe's "Making Monsters--Scribner's 1994.) Gloria Steinem thanked psychiatrist Bennett Bruan, who eventually lost his license to practice medicine due to his promotion of this nonsense, in her book "Revolution from Within" and was the keynote speaker at an event in his honor.
Feminists have always been man haters. Our society just refuses to see it.
I believe that Feminists have always been about "equality when it suits us, preferential treatment the rest of the time." They never asked for the draft when they demanded the vote. It's been rights without responsibilities the entire time. Sure, there are exceptions. But as they say, the proof is in the pudding.
It seems many folks are realizing that Gender , Gender-Raunch feminism is not yer mothers Equality feminism.
Gender feminism does not attack all males equally (In fact homosexual males are quite comfortable in gender-feminist classrooms), for its the hetero-sexuality that gender-feminism views as the root of all the problems of the world.
This would seem silly if it were not the truth.
"The man-hating tirades of my female colleagues are nothing but puritanism in disguise and I suspect that our feminist forebears would be dismayed by the climate of inquisition that seems to dominate relations between men and women today."
Yeah. Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas would be turning in their graves!
Time and time again, whenever the true nature of feminism is exposed, the same old excuses and evasions get trotted out. Why, feminism is really a noble movement. It has just been taken off course by the latest incarnation.
I suppose the 2% myth, or the 95% of all DV is perpetrated by men myth, or a thousand other textbook feminist fictions were simply invented recently by some Jane-come-lately, and have nothing to do with traditional feminism.
Honestly, I think I have heard enough weasel words from earnest feminists to last a lifetime.
"Old feminists, from Genevieve Clark to Erica Jong, believed that the goal was political and sexual freedom for women, not the political and sexual subordination of men."
This statement neatly encapsulates the general naivety of the dissident/equity feminist position. The problem is that, however much they may wish otherwise, certain biological realities are ingrained through eons of natural selection. Women are naturally more risk-averse, biologically constrained and economically dependent than men.
When women decide to reject their traditional protectors and providers, this inevitably leads to demands for the rest of society, and particularly the state, to pick up more of the slack. Feminism and faux female independence can only exist in conjunction with a large welfare state and a large police state.
That is the real dirty little secret. 'Women's liberation' is really about male enslavement and control. We can only indulge women's fantasies of independence by co-opting more male economic contributions and implementing more authoritarian control over men. Indeed, 'female independence' is largely a euphemism for female hypergamy and government-as-substitute-husband.
Post a Comment