Sunday, March 30, 2014

Remembering feminist spiel from the sixties

As a teenager I read a couple of feminist books like the Women's Room, bought into the ideas for a few ...days maybe. But with the heart and mind of an individualist, the idea of treating all males as a class with the same unappealing characteristics quickly grated with me.

Here's a reminder of what the feminists of those times believed:

Liberal feminist icon Gloria Steinem turns 80 today. She once said that “A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”

Yet for all her talk about equality and rights, one right she worked diligently to deny millions of both sexes was the right to be born and celebrate birthdays of their own. Once again, in her view, a “woman’s right” trumped the rights of another—in this case, an unborn child.

The fact the Supreme Court is hearing a case today about employers being forced to include abortion-inducing drugs in their health plans—even if it violates an employer’s conscience—is in many respects a testament to the work of Steinem and others. It’s a good example of how the “equal rights” she championed result in stepping on the rights of others.

The liberal sisterhood railed against a society they said encouraged women to stay at home and raise children. They demanded the marketplace open up more opportunities for women and pay them the same as men. Fine. But what about women who choose differently?

Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women…

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”
Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”
So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves.


JC said...

There more than enough evidence out there now to show there's a price to pay for a woman being childless and single in terms of loneliness, suicide and depression.. same for homosexuals.

Against that of course, are those wonderful single and childless "aunties" who are fully invested in their extended families who occasionally tear off around the world and have a ball.

On balance, I think the extreme feminist movement has been a disaster for women and completely misses the working mother who really has the best of both worlds when you add in the extra income.


thor42 said...

Women can do *anything that they want to* nowadays.

It is time for the Women's Affairs ministry to be scrapped. I challenge anyone to show me *one* woman (outside that ministry) who has been helped as a result of that ministry existing.

Brendan McNeill said...

The feminist ideology is based around the notion of self declared 'identiy groups' and competing rights.

By it's very nature it is oppositional, divisive and destructive. Its number one public enemy is the natural family with mum, dad and the kids at its core.

The dissafected make great revolutionaries but very poor nation builders.