"The need for a better feminism"...Everything in this article is true but there ARE some positive signs recently of a better (dissident) kind of feminism emerging. As I have written about here: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance ....including these observations taken from a recent feminist article: ..... "it would also be good if we could talk more about what is wonderful about masculinity, and toxic about femininity, without caveats or excuses. ......Perhaps tellingly, though, there’s little suggestion in [Caitlin Moran's] book that women could learn from men about being more loyal or crying less...... perhaps I am female-atypical, but — inviting as it sounds — I couldn’t live in Moran’s smoke-filled, gin-soaked world of warm hugs, tear-stained confidences and frank conversations about bodily fluids for more than 10 minutes at a time. Sometimes, talking about your feelings makes them worse and sometimes responding empathically to other people’s feelings only makes them more histrionic and attention-seeking. It can be very good to talk, but it can also be very good to shut the hell up and stamp off to dig the garden."
Yuck. It's unfortunate that the most dissidents can muster to criticize feminism is enthusiastically adopting these splinter re-brands. It's like there's been an agreement where the dominant premises about male privilege or men's problems being described by an arrogant academic feminist understanding of men's internal syndromes, those get retained by that agreement and instead we indulge basically the same 40 something feminist intellects to make minor cosmetic caveats., and people are enthusiastic about that.
It's clearly the direction things have went across political sides, it's just a little surreal to see that continue to happen and then get branded as "dissident"
I bought into this idea that because I was a woman I would be happy getting married and being a stay at home mom.
It turns out that feminism didn't spring out of nowhere just for fun. Women were in fact living lives of quiet desperation, Betty Friedan was right, I was wrong, homemaking was deeply unsatisfying to me just like it was for women in the 50s, and having kids has ruined my mental health.
If you would never take a job as a nanny, teacher, psychologist, house cleaner, sex worker, or maid, don't become a stay at home mom because that will now be your job 18/7.
These are all jobs I'm particularly ill suited for despite being female; if none of those jobs sound appealing, you'll probably be unhappy too!
I agree with a lot in the post, but I also have close female friends that feel the same way as you do. Especially in this subject, there is the inevitable tension between making the broad and generally true statements - versus the diversity that exists within any group. That very fact may also be the root of much of the problem. My impression is that the traits you are describing are most common in women who have an above average intelligence. This is also what we see in especially the early history of feminism: it was in large part an upper class female movement of intelligent women. And even today, the women (and leading politicial activists in general) consist of people with high intelligence, personal traits and life goals that are unrepresentative for the general population. They may wish to shape the world in a way that conforms to their ideal life, which in turn may be non-ideal for the great majority of individuals who are quite different from them, and who they are sosially isolated from.
I'm saying it consists of /many/ roles, one of which is that, yes.
Sex is one of the traditional duties of a wife. I suppose there are some out there that don't do that, but it's pretty rare! Just as there are wives that don't clean and so forth. If you are planning to be a trad wife though you'll almost certainly be expected to have sex with your husband!
Well, if you think having sex with your husband is the same as being a prostitute, maybe it's not a surprise that you didn't end up being a very good mother.
It's not exactly the same, but it's also not exactly the same as being a psychologist or a teacher, either. What about it was so triggering in the way the others weren't?
As a feminist I agree to an extent. I agree the pursuit of 'equality' in this sense of this article goes against the biological differences between men and women. I think the equality that should be pursued is the societal value that is placed on gender roles. Traditional female roles such as caring and mothering are low pay and low status.
I also think sticking rigidly to gender roles is harmful, those women and men who find themselves drawn to roles traditionally associated with the opposite sex should not be denigrated for preferring them, or indeed have their 'gender' called into question.
I think one reason "mothering" ends up as low status is because any woman can do it for the most part (well, until very recently). High status generally accrues to accomplishment of exceptional feats or demonstrations of skill that can't be replicated by the average person.
Nonetheless, we can see that unearned status can absolutely be conferred upon classes of people by the state, if the state wants it hard enough. DEI and all the other social justice boondoggles are proof of this, granting special status to people who have done nothing more than simply be born of a certain race, or claim a particular sexual preference. Successful family formation (i.e. having kids and staying married) is also the exception rather than the norm among younger generations, and it will be thus probably be more associated with high status going forward.
If you look at discourse among young men, having a successful marriage and family is definitely a status marker--while I didn't grow up among older generations, my guess would be that perhaps they took marriage and children for granted, because it was closer to the norm that everyone did automatically.
I don't think I've seen any evidence that roles like caring and mothering have ever been high-paying or high status - at least in the Western world of the last 1000 years. If there is any, I'd love to be pointed towards it.
I dont think it is the mandate of government to decide, nor nudge "status" in life roles. Its not the role of the governmnet to police attitudes, dress or comportment aligning with biological sex, nor the inverse. There is no need. Absent social engineering, it shakes out on its own.
I also think its a bit of a blue bubble to think motherhood is "low status". I moved to a red state and NO ONE, literally no one looks at it this way. Mothers here are seen as integral components of a family and household. Many work outside the home as well.
I'd also add that there is something motherly about caring, but it does not seem to be imputed by virtue of female biological status in itself. Look around these days. On the pill or being childless seems to lack the biological triggering to bring real caregiving to the fore.
Its simple. The mandate of the government is to prohibit gross discrimination on the basis of sex. "Equal rights under the law", Not engineering equal outcomes.
Thats it. Its amazing how the chips manage to fall naturally even after that one simple rule. We dont need to socially engineer anything else, just stop the massive, constant, unrealistic demand for "Equity".
What feminism achieves, when you boil it all down, is that it gives women power over men in the dating/relationship/marriage space. In any dispute in this area, the woman holds the upper hand by default, and it takes a large degree of serious misbehavior on the woman's part to lose that upper hand. This seems fairly obvious given the extreme deference to women shown in family courts and such. Feminism thus appeals to the risk-averse nature of women. If anything happens that they don't like, they want to hold all the cards. Given the enormous risk and uncertainty involved in romantic interactions, a larger share of which naturally accrues to women as you've explained, this really is quite understandable.
A lot of the negative effects of feminism that you outline are second-order effects. In order for women to hold all the power in a society's sexual interactions, it is necessary that they hold economic status similar to or even greater than that of men, that a large underclass of lower status men go without any sexual prospects, and etc. To have feminism and not have those outcomes simply isn't workable, in the same way that you can't have affirmative action without sacrificing merit, causing people to become suspicious of minorities in high-status jobs, etc.
Despite that, you are probably not going to convince women to abandon feminism through persuasion, because of going back to point #1. Even if we could prove with science and graphs that feminism ruins society, self interest will still trump societal interest, every time. Women simply will not willingly give up the power they have gained through feminism. Rather, if one were to try and get rid of feminism, you would need to somehow replace most of the ruling and opinion-making classes with anti-feminists who could then associate status with motherhood and marriage instead of associating it with having a "career" and being an obnoxious girlboss.
Unfortunately, there is no apparent way to do this, and I don't think it will ever happen. What history suggests is that the problem is intractable and, like most other negative trends in the present day, will just keep going until the train completely derails, and only then will something different be able to take hold.
"Significantly more women than men are currently going into higher education, many of whom will be forced to “date down”."
But as always, it is quality that counts...not quantity. What majors?
"Modern education emphasizes and rewards conscientiousness, conformity and calmness - traits that are more pronounced in the female than the male."
Nothing is discovered or invented through conformity.
"Women are encouraged to consider STEM, the military and physical labour – sometimes getting special advantages over men in the hiring process."
Many times, getting particular advantages over men in hiring and college acceptance.
Some believe (I am one of them) that many of these movements, such as feminism, are aimed at disrupting our society in an effort to remove cohesion. Thereby facilitating greater control.
There are legitimately some people who will see poison, recognize poison and admit it's poison and turn around and say we need better poison. Maybe that's what poison is supposed to be...idk POISONOUS? That's exactly what the author of this article did with feminism. It's poison and the writer knows it and still requests a better form. What a joke.
Maybe it's me, but it seems the only ones seeing clearly that feminism is highly destructive to women is men. I don't see any women figuring this out. I don't count the Trad Wives because I think it's a gimmick right now that women are using to get their baby daddys and the child support/alimony that comes with it.
I may be wrong, and I'm sure others here will gleefully point that out if I am. Just contributing my two cents that's all.
"Women are encouraged to consider STEM, the military and physical labour – sometimes getting special advantages over men in the hiring process. Boys, on the other hand, are invited into the softer fields of child-, health- and elderly care."
It's more skewed than that. When talking about male-dominated fields, the solution for getting more women is for men to adjust their behavior and attitudes, to make the workplace more feminine, and to give special care and consideration to female coworkers when they have complaints.
When talking about female-dominated fields, the solution for getting more men in is... for men to adjust their their behavior and attitudes. It's attributed to men not feeling comfortable in e.g. a care-giving or people-oriented role. Nobody ever suggests maybe those workplaces are too catty and crab-bucket like, or that women should defer to men.
Feminism claims to deconstruct gender roles, but their entire frame is predicated on the idea that women deserve more consideration and resources from men, than they give in return. You can see this e.g. in the trans debate, where nobody is particularly concerned about whether transmen are men... it's only about whether transwomen are women.
They don't disregard the inclinations you list, they only deny them, and then go endlessly in circles coming up with justifications. "Patriarchy" means the decisions women take collectively, and blame on men.
"The need for a better feminism"...Everything in this article is true but there ARE some positive signs recently of a better (dissident) kind of feminism emerging. As I have written about here: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance ....including these observations taken from a recent feminist article: ..... "it would also be good if we could talk more about what is wonderful about masculinity, and toxic about femininity, without caveats or excuses. ......Perhaps tellingly, though, there’s little suggestion in [Caitlin Moran's] book that women could learn from men about being more loyal or crying less...... perhaps I am female-atypical, but — inviting as it sounds — I couldn’t live in Moran’s smoke-filled, gin-soaked world of warm hugs, tear-stained confidences and frank conversations about bodily fluids for more than 10 minutes at a time. Sometimes, talking about your feelings makes them worse and sometimes responding empathically to other people’s feelings only makes them more histrionic and attention-seeking. It can be very good to talk, but it can also be very good to shut the hell up and stamp off to dig the garden."
Yuck. It's unfortunate that the most dissidents can muster to criticize feminism is enthusiastically adopting these splinter re-brands. It's like there's been an agreement where the dominant premises about male privilege or men's problems being described by an arrogant academic feminist understanding of men's internal syndromes, those get retained by that agreement and instead we indulge basically the same 40 something feminist intellects to make minor cosmetic caveats., and people are enthusiastic about that.
It's clearly the direction things have went across political sides, it's just a little surreal to see that continue to happen and then get branded as "dissident"
I bought into this idea that because I was a woman I would be happy getting married and being a stay at home mom.
It turns out that feminism didn't spring out of nowhere just for fun. Women were in fact living lives of quiet desperation, Betty Friedan was right, I was wrong, homemaking was deeply unsatisfying to me just like it was for women in the 50s, and having kids has ruined my mental health.
If you would never take a job as a nanny, teacher, psychologist, house cleaner, sex worker, or maid, don't become a stay at home mom because that will now be your job 18/7.
These are all jobs I'm particularly ill suited for despite being female; if none of those jobs sound appealing, you'll probably be unhappy too!
I agree with a lot in the post, but I also have close female friends that feel the same way as you do. Especially in this subject, there is the inevitable tension between making the broad and generally true statements - versus the diversity that exists within any group. That very fact may also be the root of much of the problem. My impression is that the traits you are describing are most common in women who have an above average intelligence. This is also what we see in especially the early history of feminism: it was in large part an upper class female movement of intelligent women. And even today, the women (and leading politicial activists in general) consist of people with high intelligence, personal traits and life goals that are unrepresentative for the general population. They may wish to shape the world in a way that conforms to their ideal life, which in turn may be non-ideal for the great majority of individuals who are quite different from them, and who they are sosially isolated from.
Comparing motherhood to being a "sex worker" is a rather troubling suggestion.
Has no one told you how babies are made? It's the only part of being a wife I'm good at!
You're implying that being a wife is similar to being a prostitute.
I'm saying it consists of /many/ roles, one of which is that, yes.
Sex is one of the traditional duties of a wife. I suppose there are some out there that don't do that, but it's pretty rare! Just as there are wives that don't clean and so forth. If you are planning to be a trad wife though you'll almost certainly be expected to have sex with your husband!
Well, if you think having sex with your husband is the same as being a prostitute, maybe it's not a surprise that you didn't end up being a very good mother.
It's not exactly the same, but it's also not exactly the same as being a psychologist or a teacher, either. What about it was so triggering in the way the others weren't?
> It's the only part of being a wife I'm good at!
Explains a lot.
Ah yes, the Madonna Whore dichotomy. That's not tired at all. :)
I am going to mark you down as NOT mommy material.
What type of work do you do/like?
As a feminist I agree to an extent. I agree the pursuit of 'equality' in this sense of this article goes against the biological differences between men and women. I think the equality that should be pursued is the societal value that is placed on gender roles. Traditional female roles such as caring and mothering are low pay and low status.
I also think sticking rigidly to gender roles is harmful, those women and men who find themselves drawn to roles traditionally associated with the opposite sex should not be denigrated for preferring them, or indeed have their 'gender' called into question.
I think one reason "mothering" ends up as low status is because any woman can do it for the most part (well, until very recently). High status generally accrues to accomplishment of exceptional feats or demonstrations of skill that can't be replicated by the average person.
Nonetheless, we can see that unearned status can absolutely be conferred upon classes of people by the state, if the state wants it hard enough. DEI and all the other social justice boondoggles are proof of this, granting special status to people who have done nothing more than simply be born of a certain race, or claim a particular sexual preference. Successful family formation (i.e. having kids and staying married) is also the exception rather than the norm among younger generations, and it will be thus probably be more associated with high status going forward.
If you look at discourse among young men, having a successful marriage and family is definitely a status marker--while I didn't grow up among older generations, my guess would be that perhaps they took marriage and children for granted, because it was closer to the norm that everyone did automatically.
I don't think I've seen any evidence that roles like caring and mothering have ever been high-paying or high status - at least in the Western world of the last 1000 years. If there is any, I'd love to be pointed towards it.
Exactly!
I dont think it is the mandate of government to decide, nor nudge "status" in life roles. Its not the role of the governmnet to police attitudes, dress or comportment aligning with biological sex, nor the inverse. There is no need. Absent social engineering, it shakes out on its own.
I also think its a bit of a blue bubble to think motherhood is "low status". I moved to a red state and NO ONE, literally no one looks at it this way. Mothers here are seen as integral components of a family and household. Many work outside the home as well.
I'd also add that there is something motherly about caring, but it does not seem to be imputed by virtue of female biological status in itself. Look around these days. On the pill or being childless seems to lack the biological triggering to bring real caregiving to the fore.
Its simple. The mandate of the government is to prohibit gross discrimination on the basis of sex. "Equal rights under the law", Not engineering equal outcomes.
Thats it. Its amazing how the chips manage to fall naturally even after that one simple rule. We dont need to socially engineer anything else, just stop the massive, constant, unrealistic demand for "Equity".
Excellent coverage of the biology, of which, the ignorance of women is astounding. To begin an education speak to a widow, a parent or a grandparent.
> The need for a better feminism
Why? Why not just chuck the whole thing?
Why use the PC term “gender” when you mean sex?
Yes, in English "gender" refers to masculine or feminine. Wokespeak should be shunned and ridiculed.
What feminism achieves, when you boil it all down, is that it gives women power over men in the dating/relationship/marriage space. In any dispute in this area, the woman holds the upper hand by default, and it takes a large degree of serious misbehavior on the woman's part to lose that upper hand. This seems fairly obvious given the extreme deference to women shown in family courts and such. Feminism thus appeals to the risk-averse nature of women. If anything happens that they don't like, they want to hold all the cards. Given the enormous risk and uncertainty involved in romantic interactions, a larger share of which naturally accrues to women as you've explained, this really is quite understandable.
A lot of the negative effects of feminism that you outline are second-order effects. In order for women to hold all the power in a society's sexual interactions, it is necessary that they hold economic status similar to or even greater than that of men, that a large underclass of lower status men go without any sexual prospects, and etc. To have feminism and not have those outcomes simply isn't workable, in the same way that you can't have affirmative action without sacrificing merit, causing people to become suspicious of minorities in high-status jobs, etc.
Despite that, you are probably not going to convince women to abandon feminism through persuasion, because of going back to point #1. Even if we could prove with science and graphs that feminism ruins society, self interest will still trump societal interest, every time. Women simply will not willingly give up the power they have gained through feminism. Rather, if one were to try and get rid of feminism, you would need to somehow replace most of the ruling and opinion-making classes with anti-feminists who could then associate status with motherhood and marriage instead of associating it with having a "career" and being an obnoxious girlboss.
Unfortunately, there is no apparent way to do this, and I don't think it will ever happen. What history suggests is that the problem is intractable and, like most other negative trends in the present day, will just keep going until the train completely derails, and only then will something different be able to take hold.
A feminism that incorporates reality, mens experiences, and a real sense of fairness, would not be in any way "feminism". So it is doomed.
"Significantly more women than men are currently going into higher education, many of whom will be forced to “date down”."
But as always, it is quality that counts...not quantity. What majors?
"Modern education emphasizes and rewards conscientiousness, conformity and calmness - traits that are more pronounced in the female than the male."
Nothing is discovered or invented through conformity.
"Women are encouraged to consider STEM, the military and physical labour – sometimes getting special advantages over men in the hiring process."
Many times, getting particular advantages over men in hiring and college acceptance.
Some believe (I am one of them) that many of these movements, such as feminism, are aimed at disrupting our society in an effort to remove cohesion. Thereby facilitating greater control.
Thanks for a fine, interesting article
Feminism is for whatever reason something you never see any truly strong oppositional criticism about.
There are legitimately some people who will see poison, recognize poison and admit it's poison and turn around and say we need better poison. Maybe that's what poison is supposed to be...idk POISONOUS? That's exactly what the author of this article did with feminism. It's poison and the writer knows it and still requests a better form. What a joke.
Maybe it's me, but it seems the only ones seeing clearly that feminism is highly destructive to women is men. I don't see any women figuring this out. I don't count the Trad Wives because I think it's a gimmick right now that women are using to get their baby daddys and the child support/alimony that comes with it.
I may be wrong, and I'm sure others here will gleefully point that out if I am. Just contributing my two cents that's all.
Google Karen Straughan. There are, in fact, many others, but she's the most rigorous and eloquent.
"Women are encouraged to consider STEM, the military and physical labour – sometimes getting special advantages over men in the hiring process. Boys, on the other hand, are invited into the softer fields of child-, health- and elderly care."
It's more skewed than that. When talking about male-dominated fields, the solution for getting more women is for men to adjust their behavior and attitudes, to make the workplace more feminine, and to give special care and consideration to female coworkers when they have complaints.
When talking about female-dominated fields, the solution for getting more men in is... for men to adjust their their behavior and attitudes. It's attributed to men not feeling comfortable in e.g. a care-giving or people-oriented role. Nobody ever suggests maybe those workplaces are too catty and crab-bucket like, or that women should defer to men.
Feminism claims to deconstruct gender roles, but their entire frame is predicated on the idea that women deserve more consideration and resources from men, than they give in return. You can see this e.g. in the trans debate, where nobody is particularly concerned about whether transmen are men... it's only about whether transwomen are women.
They don't disregard the inclinations you list, they only deny them, and then go endlessly in circles coming up with justifications. "Patriarchy" means the decisions women take collectively, and blame on men.
Patriarchy is Gods Will....this was our ancestor's way of making sense of this topic.
Did you ever notice that the seminal "wisdom parable", (the Adam and Eve story) addresses this exact topic?
Patriarchy is Gods Will....this was our ancestor's way of making sense of this topic.
Did you ever notice that the seminal "wisdom parable", (the Adam and Eve story) addresses this exact topic?
Patriarchy is Gods Will....this was our ancestor's way of making sense of this topic.
Did you ever notice that the seminal "wisdom parable", (the Adam and Eve story) addresses this exact topic?