Why feminism is hurting women

10 Mar

Violet is a blogger known for her exceptional calibre of serialized fiction writing. However, in this post she demonstrates that she is just as effective in the realm of succinct non-fiction. A killer good post by Violet.

Serendipity

Gender equality is just a slogan that politicians like to wave around. Whether in the West or the East, society is still dominated by men. Feminism hasn’t brought happiness to women obsessed with overachieving or comparing themselves to men, only misery from the inevitable disappointment from unrealistic expectations.

The false confidence of believing men and women are equal has created an abundance of overqualified single women struggling against their ticking biological clock because feminists convinced them that their priority is to spend their most crucial years ‘proving themselves’. We’re pushed to achieve excellence in education and fight the uphill battle for workplace equality when it’s simply not realistic for companies to hire women who are at child bearing age for fear of paying maternity leave. Alternatively, biologically driven desires like having a family are put on hold for our careers until it’s too late.

One need only examine the sorry state…

View original post 64 more words

Advertisements

22 Responses to “Why feminism is hurting women”

  1. M.K. Styllinski March 10, 2014 at 6:05 pm #

    Refreshing.

  2. bethbyrnes March 10, 2014 at 6:17 pm #

    We don’t need ‘feminism’ as a term or concept, but the idea that men and women should not be considered equal — if this is what this person is saying — is antediluvian. I cannot think of a single argument that justifies keeping anyone in a permanent second-tier category. Sorry, that is just bigotry based on some ancient notion of the superiority of one group over another. If Western family structure is breaking down, it is a far more complex syndrome than can merely be explained by the suggestion that women wanting to work or be paid equally or to have a life outside the home (and sometimes both) means they are competing with men or neglecting their true role. It is easy to make these statements and of course to believe you are finding justification in them somewhere in this wide world, but the direction the horse is travelling, is to give equality to all human beings, regardless of gender, age, race, physical characteristics, intelligence, ethnicity, sexual identification — on and on. For heaven sake, let’s not return to the stone age in this glib manner.

    • Violet March 10, 2014 at 6:34 pm #

      I’m not advocating that women should be treated like second class citizens. I’m simply pointing out that it’s difficult to maintain a healthy family life and a successful career, and in some cases, it’s impossible. When feminists demand ‘equal pay and work’ they are not in fact, asking for ‘equality’, but quite the opposite. They are asking companies to ignore the fact that they might have to pay maternity leave, and possibly lose an employee that they invested in, because she might choose to be a full time mother for a few years. The gender wage gap is mostly a myth anyway. Feminists love to mess with statistics.

      • navigator1965 March 10, 2014 at 7:38 pm #

        Violet, please forgive my poor manners. Thanks so much for your kind comment here, and again for your thought-provoking post. Civil and intelligent opinions are always welcome here.

    • navigator1965 March 10, 2014 at 6:39 pm #

      My perspective is that parenting, and in this case being a mother, should be considered every bit as important and prestigious as any other form of employment or career, if not more so.

      It is.

      • bethbyrnes March 10, 2014 at 7:09 pm #

        Nav, that is true. However, tell that to the many women who gave up working, the social security check, pension, promotions, and wage increases to stay at home, only to find themselves widowed or divorced and forced into poverty. I don’t know where all of you get your data, but in the United States, the poorest cohort consists of older women. This is not cooked up statistics. This is fact. We just cannot make things up to suit our theories.

        And, I will add, that if you look at history, families had all kinds of dysfunction when women were in the home all day, for life. This is just not historically or empirically accurate information. We cannot extract the data that fits our theory and then believe we have substantiated it. That is at best, inductive reasoning, and invalid.

        If we want to visit Brooklyn, we need an accurate map of Brooklyn and not Poughkeepsie.

        • navigator1965 March 10, 2014 at 7:34 pm #

          Beth, No arguments as to there being periods in history when women and children were economically vulnerable in divorce or death of the husband/father. I am not implying that women are meant to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen as part of a patriarchal natural order of things.

          Certainly, stay-at-home mothers are not a panacea in terms of preventing dysfunctional families. We know personality disorders affect both genders. My view is that committed engagement by the two emotionally healthy parents is an important ingredient towards developing emotionally healthy and happy children (and future adults). Plus, there’s the old saying that it takes a village to raise a child.

          I do think that, in many circumstances, reproductive biology will place a greater burden of early childhood care upon the mother (e.g., nursing). If her presence wasn’t especially important in the earliest periods of child development, that would rather imply that mothers are a bit irrelevant.

          It may well be that for some or even many women, it may make sense to have children earlier and defer education or employment/career pursuits until after the children reach a developmentally appropriate age. Or not, in that individual liberty should be respected.

          I do think Violet has a point in her assessment of things. I don’t believe it sexist to examine the reality of reproductive biology and deduce that the typical lifestream (for lack of a better term) of women may differ somewhat than that of men.

          Cardiac surgeons enjoy a fair bit of prestige. However, the human race existed for countless centuries before cardiac surgeons. We can exist without cardiac surgeons, but not without mothers. Mothers are therefore more important than cardiac surgeons.

  3. Susan Irene Fox March 10, 2014 at 8:54 pm #

    I agree with both Violet and Beth (can I do that?). I think the feminist movement hurt women egregiously by dividing women at the very onset of the movement, pitting women who worked outside the home against women who worked in the home and seriously devaluing the contribution those women made to family. I’m not certain we’ve ever recovered from that divide.

    On the other hand, I think the movement made strides toward equal pay for equal work, Title 9, and opened up career doors and upper level management and government positions (at least in western countries) that would not otherwise be available.

    The unfortunate part of all of this is that it left an entire generation of women with no support or resources for prioritizing all those choices, so we made the unfortunate choice that we had to do it all. That left us in the position of doing none of it at 100%. How could we? We were an exhausted generation trying to be wives, mothers and managers all at the same time. I don’t think men (unless put upon them by divorce or widowerhood) as a generation have ever attempted to dive into the insanity of that triple life. It has harmed us immensely.

    I hope the subsequent generation has learned from us and can looked upon us kindly.

    • navigator1965 March 10, 2014 at 10:07 pm #

      Susan, You’ve made some excellent points. I wonder if the new or a future generation won’t simply ignore feminism, it having achieved it’s stated aims and then some.

      • Susan Irene Fox March 11, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

        That may be very true. At the very least, I think many younger women are taking a hard look at their choices. Where they are financially able, women are being more realistic about their choices by choosing either a career outside of family, or family instead of career, realizing that both are of equal value yet incredibly difficult to obtain at the same time.

        • navigator1965 March 11, 2014 at 5:33 pm #

          I’ve come to the conclusion that pursuing a career is like, to some extent, following a false prophet. This isn’t to say that there can’t be employment or employment preferences, but the thought of dedicating oneself to advancement within a field merely for the sake of advancement strikes me as somewhat hollow.

          As one at the end of a nearly 31 year career–virtually my entire adult life–, my advancements and accomplishments strike me as rather meaningless. What mattered in terms of employment was honest work for honest pay, treating others with kindness and compassion, and, above all, providing for my family. Work is a means to an end more than an end in and of itself.

          While I had periods where I was quite busy with work, I never sacrificed family for career. I can’t help buy wonder if we as a broader society haven’t forgotten the importance of the whole “circle of life thing.”

          I think you are right about the inherent difficulty in reconciling family and career. Some families need two incomes to get buy, too, which mustn’t be forgotten. However, the path that our broader western society appears to be on is not one of long-term sustainability.

          Thanks again for your thoughts and insights, Susan. Wonderful people such as you are a privilege to host here.

  4. Tarnished March 11, 2014 at 6:55 am #

    I’m going to agree with Susan on this topic, as I take to the role of “neutral fence sitter” quite naturally. 😉

    First wave feminism was actually needed, or at least a movement like it so that women could have equal opportunity (very different than equal results!). But current feminism honestly seems to be more of the Female Superior variety than Female Equal…that’s what I cannot abide. If a woman knows that her calling is to be a stay at home mother, she should be able to pursue that. If a woman knows that going into the engineering or medical field is for her, then she should strive for that. To say that one goal is somehow “better” than the other is folly. Just as a note, I’m all for men deciding to be stay at home dads, too.

    I just wish that both men and women would actually grow up before they’re 30 and figure out what they want their lives to consist of, be it family/singlehood or career/homelife. I find it absurd that people everywhere are swallowing the lie that they can “have it all” with no sacrifices.

  5. navigator1965 March 11, 2014 at 10:34 am #

    TS, Thanks for contributing with your insightful thoughts. Along with Beth, Susan, Violet, there is some wonderful civil discussion happening.

    I agree with much of what you’ve said, but I must confess that my prism of bias (and we likely all have one) is influence by my need that there be some higher-level order to the scheme of things, and also by my learned military sense of duty.

    If a man and a woman are exceptionally talented in some regard–perhaps they are both natural theoretical physicists–, is there not a burden of duty for each to pass on their genetic heritage for the betterment of humanity? In a sense, repaying the debt of their own parents’ investment in them?

    If the more intelligent of women forsake children for careers, natural selection argues that the human race isn’t going to get any smarter.

    It’s not that women or men HAVE to have children. A woman isn’t bad for choosing to not have children. That would imply that Mother Theresa was bad, which is a preposterous assertion.

    We must also consider the replacement birth rate, at which a population remains stable. Many western countries have fallen well below the replacement rate, which I understand to be about 2.1 children per couple.

    I suspect that too dramatic a rate of decline can contribute to social decay or even future collapse. Men can’t bear these children, obviously.

    Your best point was the need for mature and rational discussion on both sides of the gender fence. How true.

    • Tarnished March 12, 2014 at 7:37 am #

      You bring up a valid point, namely;

      “If a man and a woman are exceptionally talented in some regard–perhaps they are both natural theoretical physicists–, is there not a burden of duty for each to pass on their genetic heritage for the betterment of humanity? In a sense, repaying the debt of their own parents’ investment in them?”

      I would say yes IF there was a guarantee that their offspring would also be more intelligent. Same for a hetero couple that was athletic and would be guaranteed to have strong children or a couple with an exceptional immune system guaranteed to have healthy children. Unfortunately, genetics always throws in a bit of uncertainty. Thus, we get average parents who birth an Einstein or retarded child…just as we have retarded couples who with average or even above average children.

      There’s also no way of telling that people with what appear to be above average genes would make good parents. What if the theoretical couple you mention in your example are horrible caretakers who don’t give anything more the most basic of necessities to their offspring? Genes, I believe, can only go so far…there must be a nurturing environment as well.

      I say all this as someone who attempted to donate eggs to a fertility clinic and was rejected. Despite having a tested 126 IQ, passing their psych evaluation, having blonde hair/fair skin/blue eyes (which I was told do not compromise enough donors to meet demand), being a college graduate, and never indulging in any recreational drug use…I was told that my genes were unacceptable due to my father having bi-polar disorder. That’s it, one tiny part of a biological history that I show no signs of myself, and I’m considered less than “worthy” of donating my eggs to a childless couple.

      Given all this information, I’m really not sure that I’d ever say that *anyone* has a duty to reproduce. There’s simply too many factors involved to make that sort of determination.

      • navigator1965 March 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm #

        Some excellent food for thought, TS. I suppose I tend to have a biased thinking that is skewed by 30 years in the military, in that I tend to think strategically and of duty before self, which is a burden which can only be morally assumed, but not imposed.

        I see the collapse of social structures with a rapidly declining population, which cannot bode well for civilization. Yet I could never endorse a forced program of reproduction, nor could I eugenics.

        In defence of my villainous blogging reputation, permit me to say that your eggs are of an exceptional nature, in my humble opinion. I suppose I daren’t ever try to sneak humour past you at 126!

        Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your kind presence here is always a privilege.

        • Tarnished March 12, 2014 at 4:07 pm #

          Strangely, I’ve gotten “called out” on M3’s blog before by MGTOWs who took great offense at my concept of duty to society. Mine was less of a “reproductive” stance and more of a “we all have a duty to help others” stance…but it did not go over well, and led to accusations that I was trying to shame MGTOWs into caring about individuals who scorn them. So, we seem to have more in common than our comments would hint at.

          This may sound like I’m a misanthrope, but maybe the way civilization is right now *should* be allowed to die. It’s a weighty question, one I don’t admit an answer to *or* take lightly, but perhaps our species isn’t meant to stay around. I don’t really know…

          Ugh, I only put my IQ (which really isn’t impressive) because the donation center I was applying to had me take a the test, and it said I was in the 125-130 range though some of my answers were “unconventional”. Whatever…I honestly think it’s good to be intelligent, but better to be a moral, loving person. Maybe if more people had a stable sense of empathy I’d have increased amounts of hope for our species and the Great Apes in general. Seriously, if bonobos took over it might be better for everyone involved.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go listen to “So long and thanks for all the fish”… 😉

        • navigator1965 March 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm #

          100% in agreement that being a moral, loving person is far more important than ringing some IQ test bell at the summer fair of life.

          If my narcissism thesis develops as I envision it will, you needn’t worry about civilization dying. It’s a given that it will, and hence the subtitle for book two:

          Harbinger of a Dark Age (as in, welcome to the 2nd Dark Age).

          Douglas Adams, wasn’t it? Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy, and all that?

  6. Holistic Wayfarer March 12, 2014 at 7:56 am #

    I’m almost tired of this debate (this, leveled at the feminists). Equality does not mean sameness. Men and women exhibit glaring differences, even in physiology – which also reflect distinctions of psychology and emotion. (Ask any MD. Our body is plumb more complicated.) There need not be a value judgmt against our distinctions.

    Having said this, I say I’m ALMOST tired of the ra ra because as an artist who also grew up in a highly academic milieu, I have come to sympathize increasingly with the many capable women who find themselves up against resistance that men are free from (their own clock, as the post brings up, the glass ceiling, discrimination, harrassment. Their own dreams). This sympathy emerged from the thrill I’ve taken in the writing the past year.

    A big part of the personal tension (as opposed to interpersonal) is at root a skewed perception of motherhood. Talk about something that OUGHT to be valued. The modern world has thumbed its nose at the drudgery of “just being” a mother.

    I can go on.

    • navigator1965 March 12, 2014 at 11:57 am #

      I couldn’t agree with you more, Madam Wayfarer.

      I will suggest that there are gender-specific negatives to the traditional male existence that one could point to, as well. Living a soulless existence in some corporate cubicleville to ensure that a family is provided for is not necessarily a fun way to spend one’s work days. There were more pleasant ways of supporting one’s family than being a coal miner. Few if any women dies impaled on bayonets in WWI trenches.

      In contrast, no man that I know of has ever died giving birth.

      I suppose if one is inclined to take a positive view of gender and the differences, one is less inclined to view any inherent social asymmetries as an inherently bad thing.

      • Holistic Wayfarer March 12, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

        PS You’re gracious to liKe the poem you’ve seen already. Thank you.

        • navigator1965 March 12, 2014 at 1:08 pm #

          Always my pleasure, Diana.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: