If you were to ask men off the record, most would express displeasure and disagreement with Feminism. Pressed, many would even confess open hatred of this ideology and a curse upon its originators. But don’t be surprised if many women feel the same way because of how it has confused gender roles and poisoned everyday discourse. This article is written to argue that feminism is unnatural, creates more harm than good, and has left generations of unhappy and lost persons in its wake, many still searching for their place in society and God’s universe.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of Feminism is how it engenders and encourages disrespect from women to men. While this can be regularly seen in popular culture, it has also been so widely dispersed that disrespect regularly courses through the everyday lives of many Americans. Shockingly, American women have been convinced through the strange, mindless alchemy of pop culture that by refusing to recognize or honor men for their unique merits, they have somehow bagged some great achievement. Unfortunately this unpleasant conviction has percolated down into the DNA of several generations of females, creating much of the rude culture dominating our society today. Such insipid rudeness will not easily be removed, but probably will need to be rooted out after a Christian revival which reminds us that all people deserve polite treatment and honor, as we are all made in the image of God the Father.
What is Feminism? Much debate has been levied at this question, leaving several possible answers. First, Webster’s offers this generic entry:
- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
- organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
But Suzanne Venker’s The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know—and Men Can’t Say, describes two kinds of feminist: Fringe and Elite feminists. The Fringe are simply a continuation of the old, histrionic and overly-dramatic feminists of yore who demand an unfettered right to abortion, and constant whining over sexism. The Elites, conversely, are found in the upper echelons of the political, media and academic worlds. Venker claims Elites are by far the more dangerous, since these pass off their ideology as if it were already established. Instead, the toxic and mostly invisibly poisonous ideology is disseminated like oxygen from plants, contaminating all who breathe its fumes.
According to Margaret Walters in Feminism, A Very Short Introduction, the earliest feminism is traced to Catholic writers. In fact, the Catholic Church became an increasingly anti-male place over time, according to Leon J. Podles in The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity.
The Reformation and Puritan Revolution also unleashed spiritual forces which then lent themselves to the feminization of Christianity. This is especially found in the non-conformist strains of such sects as the Quakers and Ranters, etc. In 1611, Aemilia Lanyer informed her readers that Christ was…
...begotten of a woman, born of a woman, nourished of a woman, obedient to a woman… he healed women, pardoned women, comforted women… after his resurrection, appeared first to a woman.
3. Subversion of the Divine Order
One could argue the advent of “biblical feminism” is a continuation of the religious evolution of mankind. Contra, easier to establish are the bad outcomes resulting from bastardizing the Bible. For example, the widespread preaching of women today goes against direct biblical mandate, such as 1Timothy 2:12-14 which states:
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Podles points out the real problem with allowing a feminized church—it drives men out of the body ecclesia:
The rapid feminization of the main line religious community in America has been going on for some time. Not only do women join churches more than men do, they are more active and loyal. Women are twice as likely to attend a church service during any given week. Women are also 50% more likely than men to say, they are ‘religious’ and to state that they are ‘absolutely committed’ to the Christian faith. Because Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose own masculinity is somewhat doubtful. Religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life, and therefore attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world of childhood dominated by women. These are men who have problems following the path of masculine development.
1. First Wave Feminism
Margaret Walters in Feminism, A Very Short Introduction, details the rise of secular feminism. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759—1797) is one of the most important of these writers, having composed A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Mary wed radical anarchist William Godwin. Just before dying she gave birth to Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (aka Mary Shelley, wife of the Romantic radical poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, who authored the novel Frankenstein).
Philosopher John Stuart Mill published The Subjugation of Women, an influential defense of women’s rights, in 1869, which helped lead into the battle for suffragism—the women’s vote. This was not achieved till the First World War which had indirectly led to millions of women leaving the home to work and help with the war effort.
2. Second Wave Feminism
The Second Wave emerged after WWII. The newly founded United Nations began to politic for women’s rights. American Betty Freidan’s Feminine Mystique was a scathing expose’ of the supposed mass of unhappy urban housewives across America. The radical Friedan went on to help found NOW—the National Organization of Women.
Gloria Steinem founded Ms Magazine for an increasingly radicalized feminist movement, which moved towards Marxist concepts. Germaine Greer wrote The Female Eunuch in 1970, which challenged the notion that women were inferior in any sense to men, whether physically or psychologically.
3. Lesbian Separatist Feminists
After encountering the radicalizing effects of Marxism, feminism began the complete demonization of anything masculine. Many feminists of this period argued the only principled position for a real feminist to take was complete separation into an isolated lesbian subculture. Such statements as Ms. Steinem’s, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” reveal an illogical and surreal movement. Betty Friedan was angered and alarmed at the lesbians, denouncing them as a Lavender Menace. In response, famous American journalist Jill Johnston authored Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution.
Feminism was increasingly commandeered by radicals like Socialist, Anarchic, Black, Lesbian, Marxist and other subcultures. Many protested the inherent evil of beauty pageants. Feminist writers, such as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon, even claimed that every heterosexual procreative act was a rape, given the disparity in power between men and women.
For many men, and an increasing number of women, feminism is only notable for the presumptuous misery it injects into the most modest interactions between the everyday lives of both sexes. Venker exposes an unseemly underbelly in the women’s movement. She writes,
For the past several decades, it has been widely accepted that women in America usually, if not always, get the short end of the stick. According to feminists, women, like blacks, have been oppressed for centuries. We’re told not enough progress has been made and that society still hasn’t leveled the playing field. This philosophy is so embedded in our culture that Americans don’t question it. We don’t even label it “feminist” to think this way; it’s just commonplace to believe women suffer discrimination. In the meantime, buried beneath the surface lies the truth: American women are the most fortunate human beings who have ever lived. No one has it better. No one.
The indoctrination of the young into the feminist worldview, which by parts is composed of victimhood training & demands for revenge, sexual libertinism and Marxist theory. Venker points out the Marxist structure of feminism:
Many people don’t realize that the entire women’s movement was predicated on a Marxist view of the world. Feminism is a branch of socialism, or collectivism, which draws on a sociopolitical movement that attempts to create a stateless society in which policy decisions are pursued in the (supposed) best interest of society. Feminism, like communism, depends on hypothesizing an oppressed class.
Canadian intellectual Henry Makow, a longtime critic of the feminist lobby has this description of the Women’s movement:
Feminism was promoted for the purpose of destabilizing society, and creating dysfunctional people. Stunted people can be brainwashed and manipulated. Feminism masquerades as a movement for women’s rights. This kind of deception is typical of subversive movements of Communist origin. In reality, feminism is ruthlessly opposed to femininity, masculinity, heterosexuality, the nuclear family and children. It deliberately promotes homosexuality which, according to experts, is a form of arrested development. Feminism neuters women, rendering them less fit to become wives and mothers. Men are emasculated, unable to create families, or make sacrifices for the sake for their children. If feminism were genuine, it would have disappeared when discrimination against women ended. It continues as a tool of the elite agenda: depopulation, destabilizing society, and dismantling Western Civilization.
An example of how feminism injects unpleasantness and trite disregard for manners into everyday life is as follows. Once upon a time, a conversation with the opposite sex represented potential for enlightened and even delightful interactions. Yet, today so many male-female dialogues bristle with dull cliches, and predictable posturing designed to drain away all possibility for creativity and fun—especially amongst educated women. It is impossible not to finger feminism and related Political Correctness as the demons murdering the opportunity for real communication.
One could not overstate the difference today in how the sexes interact compared to just 50 years ago. A great deal of the change—specifically women’s reaction to men in social settings, represents a lack of interest, warmth or sympathy and a refusal to defer in any meaningful sense to male perceptions. This posture presumes that, in mixed company, female-friendly topics ought to rule through some vapid animal instinct. But why do so many women, when presented with a chance to dialogue with a male, come off like male-bashing extras on a Married With Children sitcom episode?
Further, how can one deny there is a mindless, default attitude picked up from popular culture which assumes the views and interests of men are either irrelevant, stupid or plainly ridiculous. And the acceptable response is to either ignore them, or launch into ridicule if the male does not pick up on the social cues to keep his ideas and enthusiasms to himself.
The ancient art of dialogue between the sexes, navigating somewhere between wit, flirting, and attempting to impress each other with some creative or humorous remark—has been virtually abandoned by females, and surrendered by males. In its place is a kind of strange, juvenile, pseudo-sophisticated banter which, by some odd logic, attempts to distinguish itself by communicating an ironic attitude which cannot be impressed. Moreover, any attempts to elevate the conversation will be met with a withering response, an implacable opposition to any elevated topics, and a total embargoing of any subject out of the norm. Note—especially any sophisticated humor, be it puns, or enlightened wordplay, is treated like the appearance of a leper in Jerusalem—to be shunned, shamed, and avoided at all costs. Default mediocrity results.
The unavoidable conclusion one reaches after exposure to such folk is of their absolute conviction of their own inherent moral and intellectual superiority, despite all evidence to the contrary. Further, this sabotaging approach will occur even if coming at the cost of destroying anything resembling an interesting or intriguing conversation. This charmless, boorish and illiterate kind of interaction can be found transpiring all over America. But are the women who engage in such deadly and misbegotten dialogues incapable of sensing the deadly attitude they are spreading to persons they should want to impress? Can no one stand up to these antagonistic, dismissive, malignant harpies, and put them into their place before our society implodes for good?
The answer to the question—“If the Women’s Movement is Dense, Obnoxious & Contradictory, Why Does it Persist?”: is—Because we let it. America is in desperate need to revive its respect for men, fatherhood, polite society and masculine-based religion. This can only happen when men themselves stand up for their dignity and demand a return to roles as leaders in politics, religion, family and society. Until this happens, expect women to walk all over wimpy men until confronted by real men.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement