Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Do Thinking Women Really Want To Be Called Feminists?
Do Thinking Women Really Want To Be Called Feminists?
Oct 10, 2024 4:29 PM

The Federalist has published two articles recently that question whether thoughtful women still want to be labeled as “feminists.” It is not a case of, “let’s toss out our high heels and head back into the kitchen where we belong.” Rather, it’s a case of how “feminism” got high-jacked.

Leslie Loftis says we should not throw out feminism. Instead, we women need to reclaim it. She says today’s feminists are allowing themselves to be used as pawns in political games, and that “feminist” e to mean “victim” in the minds of far too many. Loftis then quotes Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who has spent much of her life speaking and writing about the treatment of women in Islam:

Let’s not throw away feminism. It’s like throwing away the Civil Rights movement and its history. It’s like throwing away the history of the Apartheid movement, or the anti-slavery movement. Feminism is not the monster. Some women are. We can reclaim it. We have to make it serious and you’re on the right path by standing up and giving them opposition.

I am a feminist. I am a grateful and vicious feminist. I’ll tell you what we need to fight against – the real war on women.

Heather Wilhelm also has problems with modern feminism, although she limits herself to seven of them in her piece, “Why I Left Feminism (Or, How Feminism Left Me).”

First, Wilhelm says, feminism has lied to women about sex. Modern feminism says casual sex is not only good, but empowering. Casual sex doesn’t have any consequences (and if it does, you can certainly take care of them, through the magic of modern science.) So go ahead: do whatever you’d like! (Never mind that casual or “hook-up” sex is devastating to both men and women.)

Why should a women learn to defend herself, a feminist may argue, when she should join in the campus march against muggers, would-be rapists and other marauders? Modern feminism says we women should be able to drink ourselves stupid and not have to worry about anything bad happening to us.

The goal is to encourage women to protect themselves, with reality being what it is. It almost leads one to wonder: Do feminists really care about women’s safety at all? Or do they care more about their dream world, where there’s an abortion clinic on every corner and a “Vagina Monologues” in every theater?

Either way, congrats, feminists: Thanks to you, thousands of college girls will spend this weekend drinking until they pass out or throw up all over the place. You go, ladies! You’re just as dumb as men!

Finally, what passes for feminism today does not allow for independent thinking: it’s their way or the highway.

Even though I’m a woman, I can think for myself. I can be pro-life if I want, and I am! I can vote Republican—and sometimes, gasp, Libertarian—because as of now, it’s still a free country!

Isn’t it great to think for yourself? In fact, it might be the most empowering thing in the world.

It’s small wonder that many young women today are passing up the label “feminist” and simply going about their business: learning, working, getting their degrees, starting families and doing all the things they know they can do and do well. Being a feminist isn’t nearly as important as being yourself.

Read, “Why I Left Feminism (Or, How Feminism Left Me)” at The Federalist.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Animal cruelty?
I’m not quite sure what to make of this local story: “Four people are charged for their alleged involvement in killing two bald eagles.” The details of the alleged crimes are as follows: “Prosecutors say two teenagers shot the eagles in the Muskegon State Game Area with a .22 caliber rifle in April 2004 and then chopped them up with a hatchet.” Since the bald eagle, one of the nation’s revered symbols, is an endangered animal, it is protected by...
Textual interpretation
A week ago Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times about the principles of constitutional interpretation, especially as represented by Justice Antonin Scalia. Fish takes issue especially with the notion that the text can have meaning “as it exists apart from anyone’s intention.” Fish essentially denies that texts are things that can have meanings in themselves, and it amounts to a philosophical denial of realism. Part of Fish’s problem is...
Labor (dis)union
The New York Times reports this morning that “leaders of four of the country’s largest labor unions announced on Sunday that they would boycott this week’s A.F.L.-C.I.O. convention, and officials from two of those unions, the service employees and the Teamsters, said the action was a prelude to their full withdrawal from the federation on Monday.” The withdrawal is the culmination of a period of dissatisfaction with the direction of big labor in the US. The leaders of the dissident...
The hermeneutical spiral
Mr. Phelps takes issue with my characterization of Stanley Fish’s position as amounting “to a philosophical denial of realism.” Let me first digress a bit and place ment within the larger context of my post. My identification of a position that “words and texts have no meaning in themselves” is really just an aside within the larger and more important question about what measure of authority authorial intent has in the interpretation of documents, specifically public documents like the Constitution....
Labor unions and free association
The Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have broken away from the plaining that the federation has focused too much on political activism in the face of declining union membership and influence. Dr. Charles Baird was a featured guest on yesterday’s edition of Kresta in the Afternoon on Ave Maria Radio, discussing Catholic perspectives on unionism and whether the modern American labor union movement patible with church teachings. Dr. Baird is Chair of the Department of...
We must kill religion to save it
There are so many things wrong with this news item from Canada, I hardly know where to begin. But I’ll make perhaps the most obvious point of contradiction. This guy is “worried that the separation between church and state is under threat,” so he wants to initiate state control over religion, especially “given the inertia of the Catholic Church.” I’m not at all familiar with Canadian law. Is there something in Canada similar to the American Establishment Clause? ...
Great debate
Foreign Policy hosts this exchange on environmental issues and economics. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, gets the first word and Bjørn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, gets the last word. ...
Seeing the trees, missing the forest
The United Nations has released a report on the ongoing upheavals in Zimbabwe, where tyrant Robert Mugabe has been punishing his political opponents under the guise of “cleaning up” the country’s cities. The effect of Operation Murambatsvina (meaning either “Operation Restore Order” or “Operation Drive Out Trash,” depending on who’s translation you believe) has been to leave some 700,000 people homeless, jobless, or both. A downloadable copy of the UN report is available here. While the report does illuminate the...
The school of fish
The recent blogpost by my colleague Jordan Ballor discusses an op-ed written by law professor Stanley Fish. I am more familiar with Stanley Fish from his days as a literary theorist, and perhaps a quick review of a younger Fish will contribute to the conversation. Fish is known for, among other things, an idea of literary interpretation he called munities’ that suggests meaning is not found in the author, nor in the reader, but in munity in which the text...
CAFTA/Culture of Life: enemies?
John Paul II gave us all a tremendous gift by endorsing the terms Culture of Life and Culture of Death. But as with all great gifts, we must guard these terms carefully so as not to wear them out with misuse, robbing them of their relevance. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening in the current debate over CAFTA. A group called Catholics for Faithful Citizenship (PDF) claims the following: “Clearly, supporting CAFTA is inconsistent with upholding a culture of...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2024 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved