Feminism is about equality or feminism is about equal rights is a common motte used by feminists. I’ve already shown how that is not true and shown the ideological reasons feminists like to push this bit of drivel, so go read that if that’s what your looking for.
Instead, today I’m going to show that anybody using this phrase inherently recognizes that equality is meaningless conceptual nonsense, or possibly that they simply grossly ignorant of that of which they speak.
Feminism has gone through a number of evolutions. There have been three major evolutions of feminism: the first focusing on suffrage and prohibition, a second focusing on domesticity, patriarchy, and access to the workplace, and the third is more diffuse but tends to focus on empowerment and abolishing gender roles.
Just in these very broad outlines we can see the contradictions of various form of feminism. First wave feminism and prohibition were virtually indistinguishable, yet one of today’s large post-feminist empowerment crusades is the “right” of women to get as irresponsibly drunk as they want without having to take responsibility for any actions taken while drunk. The need to dress sexily for men was on of the shackles of patriarchy the second-wave tried to throw off, while self-proclaimed feminist sluts of the third-wave are arguing for their right to dress as whores without being judged for it.
When you add in all the various permutations of feminism the contradictions abound even more: Sex-positive feminists and anti-porn feminists, TERFs and queer theory feminists, liberal feminists and radical feminists, equity and gender feminists, choice feminists and actual feminists, etc.
Given the vast array of what feminists desire, we can now see why equality is meaningles nonsense. If feminism is about equality that means equality is simultaneously defined as banning alcohol, getting irresponsibly drunk, dressing like a slut, not dressing like a slut, having lots of heterosexual sex, making pronography, avoiding non-lesbian sex, people with penises are men, those same people with penises are women, being economically independent, not being economically independent, being given equal access to the workforce, and being given preferential access to the workforce.
To anybody with two brain cells to rub together, this mess of contradictions means equality is simply a nonsense phrase with no real meaning besides some vague Orwellian exo-semantic feelings of ‘good’.
Anybody saying feminism is about equality either believes assumes equality is a meaningless word, has not actually thought of what they’re saying, is ignorant of even the basics of feminist thought and history, or is dishonest.
Well I think the typical leftist response to oyur argument would be that they want women to do whatever they want (as long as theyr not harming others) without being judged for it. So if a women wants to be a slut she should be one, if she dosnt want that she shouldnt. If a women wants an abortion she shouldnt be judged for it….Basicly its all a development of the idea that everything that feels good and dosnt harm someone else should be embraced……How would you answer such an argument?
unknown128, women are free to do whatever they want, and it shows. You cannot argue with women that women are unequal, because any argument presupposes that the other person is capable of rational thought.
We shall let women have their utopia, and let them pay for it. When millions of bureaucrats and welfare moms are out on the street begging for bread and burning $100 bills to stay warm, select one of the more attractive specimens (or a daughter thereof), extend an open hand, and say in your best Terminator voice: “Come with me if you want to live.”
On the three movements of feminism, in actuality there are no movements. If these movements happened before the 17th century they would have been seen as what they are, distinct movements that had little to do with each other. But due to the nature of the modern world, not only can these different movements be linked, but they are done so ad-infinitum through the forms of modern media (medium is the message). The message has no power, but rather due to the mediums humanity becomes very confused over what these individual movements are. Evolution is not a term to be used for feminism, due to the fluidity of it. A movement with no form cannot change, instead people use the words and language for their own imaginary means. The only way to counter this is to confuse the mediums even further. Feminism can only exist in a world of utter confusion but this world is just as likely to turn on it, this is why the phenomenon never existed before, because the age of confusion never did.
One reply to feminists who claim the definition of feminism (there is none) is equality is to try to get them to explain the People’s Republic of Korea as actually a people’s republic. Feminists think that, if they say it enough, magic will happen and the movement will become what it actually desires of itself. Of course this is not what they really want.
http://anti-gnostic.tumblr.com/image/111819032577 – is this about feminism? :)
“Bump Ooh”
Feminism is a degenerating force since patriarchy is essential to civilisation.
The movement might be downward, toward instability and massive debt-load accompanying the overall inefficiency.