How Feminism Leads to the Oppression of Women

According to Heather MacDonald, the feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The university is about to name as its new president radical feminist Drew Gilpin Faust, following Lawrence Summers’s all-too-brief reign. Summers’s recklessly honest speculations about women in science strengthened the feminist hold on faculty hiring and promotions. The Task Force won a $50 million commitment to increase faculty “diversity efforts” at Harvard.

As University President, Lawrence Summers in 2005 gave a speech where he dared to suggest that innate differences between men and women could explain why men hold more seats as top scientists than women. This is a plausible thesis. According to Dr Paul Irwing at Manchester University, there are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, and 30 times as many with an IQ of 170-plus. There are other studies that indicate similar, disproportionate numbers of men among those with extremely high intelligence.

Besides, even though Summers may have been wrong, it is dangerous to embark on a road where important issues are not debated at all. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization has been our thirst for asking questions about everything. Political Correctness is thus anti-Western both in its form and in its intent. It should be noted that in this case, feminists formed the vanguard of PC, the same ideology that has blinded our universities to the Islamic threat.

It makes it even worse when we know that other feminists in academia assert that the veil, or even the burka, represents “an alternative feminism.” Dr. Wairimu Njambi is an Assistant Professor of “Women’s Studies” at the Florida Atlantic University. Much of her scholarship is dedicated to advancing the notion that the cruel practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is actually a triumph for Feminism and that it is hateful to suggest otherwise. According to Njambi “anti-FGM discourse perpetuates a colonialist assumption by universalizing a particular western image of a ‘normal’ body and sexuality.”

Harvard university recently received a $20 million donation from Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, to finance Islamic studies. This will no doubt be used to influence the curriculum to make it friendlier and less “Islamophobic.” Senior Western institutions for higher education such as Harvard are thus simultaneously serving as outlets for Saudi Islamic propaganda and for left-wing radical feminists. This may on the surface look like quite a paradox, but in different ways both groups discredit traditional Western culture by highlighting its “history of oppression and injustice,” and they both stifle ideological dissent and suppress criticism of their holy doctrines. Perhaps feminists failed to listen to fellow Harvard Professor Charles Fried, who has warned that “The greatest enemy of liberty has always been some vision of the good.”

Feminism has hurt us by encouraging public accept for intellectual hypocrisy, which later paved the way for Islamic infiltration. The official mantra is that men and women are not just equal but identical, but at the same time that women are also somehow superior. Both of these claims cannot, logically speaking, be true at the same time, yet both are being made simultaneously. This gross double standard closely mirrors that of Multiculturalism, where all cultures are equal but Western culture is inferior and evil.

This is a technique labelled Repressive Tolerance by the cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse in 1965. Briefly speaking, those who are deemed to belong to “dominant” groups of society should have their freedom of speech suppressed by progressives and radicals, and simply be denied access to discussion forums, in order to rectify the “institutional oppression” in society. Marcuse’s ideas had a huge impact in the 1960s and 70s. He also advocated free sex without any constraints as a method of freeing people from religious morality.

Prof. Bernard Lewis warned in The Jerusalem Post that Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe “Europeans are losing their own self-confidence,” he said. “They have no respect for their own culture” and have “surrendered” on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of “self-abasement and political correctness.” Although Mr. Lewis did not say so, this is to a significant extent the result of decades of demonization by left-wing academics, including radical feminists. The goal of radical feminism was never about equality between the sexes, it was about the destruction of the nuclear family and of the power structures of society in general.

As Ellen Willis, self-proclaimed democratic socialist and founder of Redstockings, a radical feminist group from 1969, stated to left-wing The Nation in 1981: “Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues, it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. [...] The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion [...] to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values.” Feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir stated that “no woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children […] because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by… Islam. And feminists still aren't satisfied.

Toy researcher Anders Nelson at Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology has warned that toys have become increasingly gender-segregated over the past fifteen years: “People often explain [their toy purchases] by saying that boys and girls want different things. But in order for children to be able to reflect on [the toys] they receive, adults have to open their eyes to [inherent gender] structures. To children, these [gender] roles are more unquestioned and instinctual.” Mr. Nelson encouraged parents to give more gender neutral Christmas presents. In other words, no Barbie dolls for girls and no cars for boys. This is the result of a culture destroyed by Political Correctness.

Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan. A male columnist in national newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.

When young politician Kjetil Vevle showed up for a meeting planning the demonstrations at that year’s protests at the International Women’s Day on 8 March in the city of Bergen, Norway, he was told that men didn’t have voting rights at the meeting even though they were passionate feminists. The leaders didn’t think there was any cause for complaints, as the men had generously been awarded the right to voice their opinion, just not the right to make decisions.

Although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender equality, I have heard visitors comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country to find it, which is now easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable. Scandinavians celebrate “gender equality” and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.

Norway and Sweden are countries with extremely high divorce rates. Boys grow up in an atmosphere where masculinity is demonized, attend a school system where they are viewed as deficient girls and are told by the media that men are obsolete and will soon be rendered extinct anyway.

A feminist culture will eventually end up being squashed, because the men have either become too demoralized and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become so fed-up with incessant ridicule that they just don't care anymore. If Western men are pigs and “just like the Taliban” no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures, which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women.

I wonder whether Virginia Wolf saw this coming. Maybe if she were alive today, she would hail the Islamic veil as an “alternative road to feminism” and write a book called A Burka of One’s Own. With some luck, it might even have earned her a Diversity Scholarship at Harvard.

 
 
More on this topic:

How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam, 4 September 2006

In Response to JFP

JFP: "If burqas and female circumcision count as part of an alternative feminism, then why shouldn't the life of the average American woman of the 1950s count as an alternative feminism? And if so, then what was all the fuss back in the 1960s about? If those horrible Islamic practices are ruled in, it is hard to know what is ruled out."

 

Agreed. However, mainstream feminists of the variant striving for formal rather than substantive equality, have expressed concern that multiculturalism and gender equality are incompatible goals, especially as the former allows for group rights that include preservation of existing gender inequalities within many of these groups e.g. the permission of headscarves and polygamy in France, etc. Save for a handful of radical feminists whose activism is uninformed and irrational, and a minority of women who marry into or join these 'new communities,' the vast majority of Western women, including feminists, are keenly aware of the aforementioned link between gender inequality and multiculturalism.

 

JFP: "...You suggest that the only business left is wage differentials. I would disagree strongly with that. In the early 1970s, feminists proclaimed that they wanted to eliminate all gender roles."

 

Formal equality would demand that there are no pre-determined gender roles save those imposed by nature e.g. childbearing. However, those radical feminists that want total equality between men and women realised for every 'role' in society would be advocating for substantive equality and therefore affirmative action programmes, etc.

 

JFP: "As a shy guy who hated having to ask women out to get a date, I cheered. (I always thought of this as nothing but begging.)"

 

It occurred to me that women wanted equality with men and therefore an end to patriarchy, yet also wanted to retain those chivalrous aspects of patriarchy such as a man holding open the door for a woman, paying on dates and purchasing her gifts, propose, protect her etc., when in fact the notion of "women and children first" came with the assumption that women and children were both weaker and lesser than men. In theory, one could see that beyond formal equality, the deconstruction of patriarchal socio-cultural traditions might lead to a situation of "every [gender non-specific] person for themselves."

 

However, it is clear that there are unchangeable tendencies with respect to gender roles that are derived from complimentary innate differences between men and women, which exceptions cannot deny. These differences need to be treated such that individual women are free to decide their future and the majority who will take up gendered roles are no less respected; and if the former do the same job as a man, they should receive the same pay as a man. Women enlisting in the army will not earn womanhood respect: women need to be respected whether they occupy women's, men's or gender neutral roles.

 

JFP: "Eventually, it became clear to me that feminists had no intention of eliminating such roles, but by that time, feminists had largely taken over our media and schools and had no intention of letting men like me speak out. There's a lot left to do to achieve gender equality, but feminists are against it all."

 

Arguably even in contemporary society, anyone who is supportive of formal equality for women is a "feminist," due to the persistance of wage differentials and of the 'glass ceiling' in much of the public and private sector. Radical feminism or female chauvinism may have a greater voice in the academic discourse, however, male chauvinism continues to abound in the popular one.

Florida equals Burqina faso??

I do not see the problem of feminists in academia who assert that the veil, or even the burka, represents an 'alternative feminism'.

What might be problematic, is such assertions being expressed in (and meanwhile aimed at) the western world.

Alternative feminism????

If burqas and female circumcision count as part of an alternative feminism, then why shouldn't the life of the average American woman of the 1950s count as an alternative feminism? And if so, then what was all the fuss back in the 1960s about? If those horrible Islamic practices are ruled in, it is hard to know what is ruled out.

To Kapitein Andre: You suggest that the only business left is wage differentials. I would disagree strongly with that. In the early 1970s, feminists proclaimed that they wanted to eliminate all gender roles. As a shy guy who hated having to ask women out to get a date, I cheered. (I always thought of this as nothing but begging.) Eventually, it became clear to me that feminists had no intention of eliminating such roles, but by that time, feminists had largely taken over our media and schools and had no intention of letting men like me speak out. There's a lot left to do to achieve gender equality, but feminists are against it all.

US is doomed

That's a classic post Fjordman and I really like your posts also Kapitein.  I do business in India and these little buggers are really chomping away at the west in more ways than you think.  They routinely photocopy american textbooks without regards to copyright and are very aggressive about catching up to western standards.  If Harvard and the others keep up this BS we will all be sending our kids to India for education in the future (or at least enrolling them in online courses from Bangalore).  By the time Harvard (and other overly elite schools) realizes they have lost it it will be too late.

Substantive vs. Formal Equality & Does Feminism Matter?

Firstly, I fully support the various movements throughout the twentieth century aimed at achieving formal equality for women, namely those for female suffrage and the sexual revolution of the 1960s. I am also aware that some posters here are opposed to certain aspects of formal equality, specifically the right to abortions.

 

Secondly, I am vehemently opposed to any and all forms of substantive equality, of which affirmative action programmes are the most visible variety. Why? Because this creates repressive tolerance, gross double standards and cultures of entitlement.

 

Thirdly, contemporary or radical feminism, aiming for substantive equality, is punctuated by misandry and female chauvinism primarily because of the movement's infiltration by lesbians. Certainly, as lesbians have no need of men, their sexual orientation influences their politics. They have a sense of discrimination against both of their identities, as women and as lesbians, and are out for blood.

 

However, the vast majority of women pay no attention to radical feminism and as they are heterosexual, want relationships with males based more or less on equality. The only business that is left unfinished is the wage differentials between men and women. As far as radical feminism is concerned, it should be marginalized, and if there are lesbians in its ranks, they should be publicly called out, for how can they speak or legislate on heterosexual issues without bias? If crypt-gays are not conspiring to destroy womanhood, why should lesbians be allowed to.

Stop the feminists !

K.A:"the vast majority of women pay no attention to radical feminism"

You are right, and yet radical feminists claim to speak for women, and hold much power in the institutions and media. This is not specific to feminism. Feminism is just a subdivision of leftism, and we know that left-wing radicals wield too much power and are always at odd with most of the population.

Today's so-called "feminists" are big frauds. They are hurting women by winking at muslim oppression of women, and by censoring the news about the number of rapes committed by Black, Mexican, or Arab gangs. Their "takeover" of Harvard will just lead to more brainwashing. It will further damage the intellectual life and the transmission of knowledge.

It works like this:
- bogus "feminists" hurt women (and men)
- "antiracist" organizations hurt minorities (and white society)
- "progressive" teachers hurt students
- fake environmentalists hurt the environment by supporting mass immigration
- and so on.

In each case, a legitimate movement has been taken over by left-wing lunatics who do not support the original philosophy of the movement. When feminists join forces with islam, we know they are frauds!

K.A: "As far as radical feminism is concerned, it should be marginalized"

All loony leftists should be marginalized. But instead, they are tightening their grip on western institutions.

--
Another thought: It is important to denounce the radical loony bogus feminists. But the feminization of the whole western society can not be attributed to the loony left, and even less to its subsection specialized in "feminism". I think western society was evolving that way. The phenomenon has been made worse by bureaucratization first, and by leftist ideology in the second place.

on the so called manly world

An other key issue, is that the influence of woman on society over many centuries (as far as i know) has obtained less overall and academic attention, compared to the influence of man, which might be an example of ‘the norm remains unspoken’. The influence of woman, for example via the raising of children and their supportive and advisory function towards their husbands, may be much more influential on society than the formal power of ‘important man’, which is often little more than a symbolic gesture.

Compared to the ‘manly’, the ‘womanly’ is the morally active being, meanwhile having more difficulty to integrate in social groups other than the own family, whilst the manly is by nature the tolerant, the forgiving. The observation that physical behaviour seems to prove different, does not change the matter on the level of mentality.

We could therefore argue that if the womanly in todays western world, has the urge to ‘free herself from social imprisonment by the manly’ this urge is caused by the imprisonment within social norms that are held high by ... the womanly. Today’s feminists are therefore self - destructive by nature.

Masculism: the vast ‘left a side’ of world peace

More precisely: feminists do not only despise their feminine being: their overly moralising also damages their masculine being, therefore destroying the mental health of the whole individual.

Subsequently, the very few ‘feminists’ that were successful, have succeeded to become manly – in – act, not only manly in theory. A repulsive idea to misinformed (superficial) feminine masses.

Collective tax for Swedish man

The website for the article is not available. The domain was deactivated today. If anybody wants to read the article referenced, then it can be read here:

 http://web.archive.org/web/20051201142744/www.spectator.se/stambord/index.php?p=240

Feminism & Death of the West

Feminists delude themselves that they are strong and important when in reality they have surrendered their most important job to nannies and day care centers. They have traded the future of the West for the drudgery of the workplace.

Real Clear Religion

muslims & feminists

"Senior Western institutions for higher education such as Harvard are thus simultaneously serving as outlets for Saudi Islamic propaganda and for left-wing radical feminists."

Feminism was useful in the first part of the 20th century, until it was taken over by left-wing extremism. Now, it is no longer about defending women's interests.
According to Wendy McElroy, a supposedly moderate feminist, "Feminists exploded the myth that rapists were seedy men who lurked in alleys. Research revealed that rapists could be apple-cheeked boys next door."
This is a favorite theme of the feminists: every white man can be a rapist! But the truth is that immigrants and some ethnic minorities commit more rapes than the whites. By withholding the truth, the feminists and the media become complicit in the rapes of young white teenagers who are too young and innocent and brainwashed to realize the danger.

According to an article I read about the recent Duke University Rape Hoax, campus feminists have joined forces with black anti-white activists so as to achieve power. It seems to me they are now doing the same with muslim organizations. But I think there is a deeper explanation than money and the quest for power. I think the leftists are just crazy. They enjoy causing mischief, whether they are feminists, gay activists, teachers, or immigration supporters.