Disillusionment and Reality

Recently I discovered as I was looking up stuff on 2nd Wave Feminism this blogger called Maggie McNeill, (blog example here) http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/hark-hark-the-dogs-do-bark/who is apparently a retired prostitute. Very intelligent and interesting lady. She writes with intelligence, has a good understanding of history and literature, and frankly is one of the few writers online who has really pointed out some of the flaws in modern feminism. Interestingly she coined the term “neofeminist”, which basically refers to the kind of feminism we have been talking about here. As a number of us have said, the idea of political and economic equal rights for women isn’t really our concern, but the largest groups and loudest voices among modern feminists don’t stand for equality at all. It’s interesting that she is actively trying to reclaim the idea of feminsm. As I’ve said before, not holding my breath because feminism still appears to be profitable, but she wrote something that really struck me that I wanted to quote here.

 

 

IMHO it’s mostly the women who don’t want to please their spouses anymore, largely because the feminists keep telling them that they don’t “have” to. Judging by my clients, most men have the opposite problem; they very much want to make women happy, but just don’t know how because they’re given incomplete and contradictory information.

If I didn’t think men would listen to my advice, I wouldn’t have wasted my time writing and posting this column; in my experience they WANT to know how to please women and are frustrated when women won’t tell them how to go about it. Most modern women, on the other hand, either don’t care how to please men or else only use it as a means to an end. And more’s the pity. :-(

This is true. Some people writing here may feel uncomfortable about the source of this, but frankly I don’t care. What this woman is saying is absolutely true. When we think of the times we have tried to argue that sex is a two way street, we’ve been accused of exploiting women or hating women rather than trying to figure out how to encourage men and women to love one another in the context of marriage. Think of the outrage provoked when the rare brave pastor tells wives to make love to their husbands more often.

And while it may seem harsh,I find that it is rare that even the most man-loving non-feminist professing woman speaking from a Christian perspective speaks this frankly. I salute this woman for speaking the truth. Dalrock once wisely pointed out that seeking out a Christian woman is no guarantee of a good marriage, and he’s right.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Disillusionment and Reality

  1. “If you read this site for any length of time you will encounter the term “neofeminist”. This is my own coinage, because I refuse to apply the term “feminist” to a sort of twisted male chauvinist who believes that women are not good enough as we are and should therefore strive to think, act, work and look as much like men as possible. ”

    she shouldn’t call it neo-feminism.

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.in/2012/08/wl-george-when-male-feminist-gets-it.html

    http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.in/2010/03/feminists-as-mistakes-of-nature.html

  2. Pingback: Link Fest #3. | The Society of Phineas

  3. I’m not sure that she lacks knowledge of feminist history. What she’s trying to do is reclaim the term to mean pursuit of equality. I don’t have a problem with that. If you accept that early feminists’ pursuit of equality was a good thing then you could accept that that’s what she means, and that neofeminism is a term she is using to refer to 2nd Wave feminism and some 3rd Wave feminists.

    Anyway concern over that term is missing the point. I don’t care if Sommers is a feminist either, for example, what I care about is the content of what she writes and says. For example if Sommers says that feminism at large does treat men unfairly, who cares about her attempts at definitive language? What she’s trying to say is that it is okay for women to pursue careers, that it is alright for them to be able to vote and have their own money in the bank. This did not fall out of the sky. I believe both MRAs and feminists can frankly be stupid when it comes to this issue. Feminists generally give no credit whatsoever to the men who accepted that it was just to give them the vote, for example; they act like they seized it like a surrendered banner from a conquered army. On the other hand MRAs sometimes talk as though everything would have been fine if women generally had kept being (for the most part) nothing but housewives. Do they really believe this?

    So anyway: it’s missing the point. What she said about husbands and wives is true. THAT is the main point of my quoting this woman. It’s a rarity, to hear someone saying that YES, men are generally stepping up, and that women need to start stepping up as well if the state of marriage is to improve.

  4. “early feminists’ pursuit of equality was a good thing then you could accept that that’s what she means,”

    No I don’t accept that, and I have my good reasons. 2 of them were stated above. Here’s another:

    http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/5910-not-sure-if-rape-also-not-sure-if-wife-will-love-me/page__st__20#entry108843

    you could also look up Fraud of Feminism and Legal Subjection of Men regarding the so-called equality of 1st wavers. The less said about the suffragetes the better.

    “if the state of marriage is to improve”

    feminists set out to destroy it, and they did. What happens now is inconsequential. MRAs are stupid in the sense that many of them too believe in the 1st wavers goodness and justness when they were no less loony than the 1960s one. Then there are MRAs like Warren Farrell who would even accept the 2nd wavers while having only a few problems with their propaganda.
    That’s why it’s important to point out this distortion of terms, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or not.

  5. I agree.

    If you look at first wave feminism you had the same issues as the feminism of today. Women back then were encouraged to see family and love as either secondary aspects of life or as aspects of female oppression. Women back then were also encouraged to think of progress in terms of the abolition of sex distinctions between men and women, with the emphasis being on discarding the feminine qualities of womanhood. The same core mistakes of the feminism of today were in evidence a hundred years ago.

  6. What I believe in and what your question purports to ask is inconsequential.

    Consider women against suffrage:

    http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/anti-suffrage-ad-from-1915-is-sad/

    http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5236-women-against-female-suffrage/

    The feminists have simply used the guise of helping women in order to alienate them from men and vice-versa. It’s driven more by misandry than philogyny.

    “women who sleep with men are traitors to their gender”

    From Laura Grace Robbins site in the first post:

    “It is not surprising that it seems to be these very masculine women, these mistakes of nature, aided and abetted by their counterparts, the feminine men, who are largely responsible for the feminist movement. Nor is it surprising that ‘they recognize’ as W. L. George puts it, ‘no masculine or feminine “spheres,” and that they propose to identify absolutely the conditions of the sexes.'”

    “But what is surprising, or at least unfortunate, is that these ‘half women’ should achieve a certain leadership over many normal women, women who have all the instinctive, ineradicable feelings of wifehood and motherhood; that these ‘half-women’ should be guides in what, if it is carried to its logical termination, will be the greatest revolution the human race has yet seen.”

    Here’s a better view of feminism:
    “it’s a power grab by (man-hating and so family-hating) women called feminists who have the chutzpah to claim that they have done almost everything for women by simply positing themselves as a necessary intermediary for transfers of knowledge/resources/technology/opportunities from men to women, and then disparaging and working towards eradicating the source.”

  7. This direction of debate is fascinating. I safely split the difference. I think one can not be against “women having equal rights as citizens” and still nod to what these other guys are saying.

    Two scenarios

    IF women cannot chanse equal rights without all the other symptoms creeping in….then it should follow to make some conclusion about the pursuit of those rights

    IF women CAN…..why didnt they? why dont they?

    Im not being rhetorically suggestive on purpose, Im asking

  8. Well, that depends on what these so-called “equal rights” mean. There is this Title-IX that provides an “equal” right by compensating for a gender difference of degree, unlike the reproductive rights which have a gender difference of kind.

    The first and foremost problem is that of feminist rewriting of history. An Orwell quote comes to mind.
    For example, women did not win the right to vote, some women lost while trying not to “win” the vote while most women were too concerned with their lives to pay much thought to the whole debate.

    Then there is the refrain of “women were chattel”, “couldn’t own property” etc. The distinction between feme sole and feme covert was removed by the Married Women’s Property Act way back at the end of 19th century and was perhaps the first strike against marriage.
    So it’s probable that the ideologues at the top know/knew what they are doing, while the lower level foot-soldiers just regurgitate the dogma. For an example consider this:

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.in/2008/05/feminist-proof-that-men-owned-women.html

    The vote issue and the inequality therein is also much propaganda. Universal suffrage for men was just coming into the picture and iirc Steve Moxon made the case that usually it was a debate amongst women themselves(family vote?) that delayed it(suffragete antics were also not conducive and US states were not exactly similar in their views towards it).

    http://feministhate.tripod.com/id49.htm

  9. To wind up, why Christina Hoff Sommers was wrong about the 1st wavers:

    “Children will, of course, be the greatest gift possible to the State, and the woman who produces them will provided for, protected, and honoured. After all, this is a question of education.”

    http://wombatty.blogtownhall.com/2012/05/14/early_feminists_moderate_or_radical.thtml

    If you read the first chapter of the 2nd waver Shulamith Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex, you find a similar sentiment.

    “Though the sex class system may have originated in fundamental biological conditions, this does not guarantee once the biological basis of their oppression has been swept away that women and children will be freed.”

    “The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. ”

    Fedrz, who has seen much of men’s rights on internet, and has read of the real history of marriage(as in my earlier posts I linked to his site) and feminism, has been saying the same.

    http://no-maam.blogspot.in/2010/10/civil-unions-and-shared-parenting.html

    You can convince women to turn on men much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner, you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. It’s just the way the world works.

    Man Children

    That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as Marriage 2.0.

    And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman – namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them.

    Man <– (pushed away by) Woman <– (pushed away by) Children. . This will work in the same way that men and women have been separated. Mainly, men are avoiding women because women’s rights have made women into monstrous tyrants, while leaving men with little recourse to deal with the situation except to avoid women entirely. There simply is no way that a man can marry a woman and trust that she won’t screw him over, or that he can trust that the court has any inclination to preserve justice in the situation, and so, men are wisely opting out from a rigged game.

    And the same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriage will happen to parents and children if the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent.

  10. In the face of all this rhetoric I have noticed that the rather simple point I was trying to make, which is part of a series of studies I am making, has been ignored and not responded to. I am not interested in continuing this discussion. If my posts are taken in the context in which they are generally written–that is in the context of this blog, then my point is fairly easy to understand. If anyone is interested in discussing it I will be glad to. Just to remind people: it is that it is simply another example of how few feminists say anything just and fair with regard to men that requires women to take more responsibility for their conduct. That is really all I was pointing out. The neo-feminist thing is not my real concern.

  11. I haven’t said much myself besides the facts, the rhetoric you must be referring to either is feminists’ own or those who reply to them?
    One of my posts doesn’t show up, it had too many links and is perhaps consigned to spam folder? That might have had some ‘rhetoric’ but these replies don’t even come close.

    If that post can’t be salvaged, I have put it up on a blogsite.

    http://grokingfeminism.blogspot.in/2012/09/women-against-women.html

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