Feminism and Patriachy


I came across some recent videos that I just had to write about. They are by Karen Straughan, who just so logically and rationally discusses marriage and gender and sexuality and history, some of her points surprise me.

Similar to myself, she believes in Gender Equality. That is the belief that men and women can be equal in every way. How those roles play out in individual circumstances is another story. Yet she completely tears apart feminism as the entitled, historically false, manipulative, and power-hungry philosophy that it is.

Below, I post a few of the videos, but there are plenty more on Youtube. But I would encourage you to watch all of them. They're not that long and they say things much better than I ever could.


History of Feminism, society, and male sacrifice

Concerning Gender Violence and Authority


Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?

Essence of The Videos

The essence of her videos is largely that contrary to the feminist narrative, men have not gotten the 'better' deal by having power of women.

Men essentially have not gotten the 'better deal' with respect to family life. They had to work crazy jobs and provide for the family. This is somewhat missed by feminists today who of course only see the executive men working in comfortable offices, thinking that historically men prevented woman from doing such work for their own power. Yet, images like below were far more common of jobs in the older days





Would any women have traded her home life for any of these jobs? The answer is of course no. Historically men have provided for and protected women and this was the arrangement that gave way to the male headed society. In many societies, men were even held liable for the actions of their wives, similar to children. So of course if they were going to be held accountable, they had to have power of the household.

Now, we can argue till the cows come home over whether it was right to treat women like children, but one thing is clear, this system was not to the benefit of men.

The only way, you could see it as such would be by only examining the men and power. But those men were few and far between. They were not the average man and in the average household.

What changed was technology that made life more comfortable, such that it was no longer needed for the wife to do all the house work. Things like the oven, running water, electricity, microwave... made running a home a part time job. Similarly, new work fields opened up that appealed to women, like office jobs, healthcare...

Feminism as a movement has not been about gender equality, but about female entitlement. They don't want any of the responsibilities or duties of men. Be it being the sole provider of the household, going to war on the battle field, fighting off intruders, making the cold hard decisions... Yet, they wish all the power and entitlements that men have had. This entitlement attitude runs the gammot from the workplace to sexuality to house hold duties.

It is thus of no surprise why a lot of men no longer want to get married.
She summarizes the issue quite well in a rhetorical question.

If the feminist idea that the institution of marriage is for male benefit and the patriarchy, why is it that women today complain about not being able to find a man, and men are the ones not wanting to get married?

My Thoughts

I agree with most of what she says, yet I think there are parts of the feminist movement, even the entitled variety that need some closer observation.

One of the things she says is that men have always been oppressed. Be it working hard in the coal mines or in the factories to provide for the family. It was only when women entered the workforce that labor laws started to catch up as society didn't want to see women working in such harsh condition. The same thing can be said of slavery. Slave women were often given some protection via the law... in so much as the law cared about slaves. There were laws against sexual exploitation of female slaves, fewer female slaves were brought over... Yet there were no such laws for men.

One aspect that deserves a look here is that much of the oppression women feel by the men is not patriarchy, it is rather that people have oppressed other people. The female slave was oppressed not because she was a female, but because she was a slave. The male slave was treated worse. Life was simply harsher for everyone; men and women back then.

What I do think is valid is that the 'manly' behavior to get the job done was tamed by feminism somewhat. A bit of entitlement is good for society. We should not work so insanely hard that people are dying on the job or have no life outside of work. We should not be so uncaring as to the working plight of the poor. In areas where this has been done for both sexes, as in labor law work and safety, the results have generally been positive with our increasing technology. In a sense, the societal need for men to be old school men and get things done is lessened.

Of course, much of that can and has been done by other political philosophies besides feminism such as humanism, socialism...  So I don't think feminism is essential to it, but I think it played a part in it.

Where it has come to the detriment of society is when the entitlement has extended solely to women or it comes with no responsibilities. Things like a man should never hit a woman is taken today to mean that a woman can act however she wants (even hitting and yelling and acting like a male brute) and it is still 'wrong' for a man to hit a woman. Or to want equal pay and complain about women earning .70c on every dollar while women avoiding certain jobs or not working as many hours or slogging through it. The correct solution to such things is a far approach that for example, changes the job for both men and women so it is not so demanding and thus pay is equalized for equal work. The solution is not the female entitlement that demands equal pay for unequal work. Or for example in the United States, men were required for conscription for the army and it was considered a duty for citizenship. When women gained the right to vote, it did not come with a requirement to enlist.

This was even true of communism regimes like the Soviet Union which on paper thought men and women equal. Even though the Soviet Union allowed women to join the army and even fight on the front lines, it did not use conscription as it did with men for active front line roles.

Alternatively, demanding government funding for female dominated fields (education, healthcare...), while society not doing the same for male fields. Although this last one is much more political affiliation as well.

Are Men Obsolete?


To understand just how ridiculous feminism is, they actually speak of things like:
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2014/02/07/are_men_obsolete_by_maureen_dowd_caitlin_moran_hanna_rosin_camille_paglia_review.html

That's right, actual serious topic and book questioning if men as a people are obselete.
I don't know about you, but if such a topic was even raised about blacks, women, Jews... all hell would break loose and they would be put in trial with calls about Nazism and Hitler.

A feminist does it and it gets regular main stream discussion.

I suppose the day we can grow babies in test tubes, which is not that far off, she wouldn't mind a book asking "Are women obsolete?" That's rhetorical of course. I would never suggest such a thing. Roles might change. Duties might change. Work might change. But I would never suggest a person can be absolete.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What does it mean to live in a free society?

Post Scarcity Economy

The Niqab is cultural?