I recently read an article that was put in the Washington Post by Dr. Michelle Smith. If you are familiar with the article then this post will make complete sense. If you have no clue what I am talking about, you may visit the article here http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/18/women-who-hate-on-feminists-hurt-all-women/ and read it for yourself. As everything in the blog post will be relating to this one particular article.
As I read the article I was curious about how I was hurting "all women" by my beliefs. I genuinely wanted to see if Dr. Smith had anything to offer me to restore my faith in Modern Feminism and make me believe that not all feminists were for a sexist movement. Unfortunately, Dr. Smith did not complete this task.
Immediately when I read the title, "Women Who Hate On Feminism Hurt All Women" I was taken aback. "Hate On"....I usually hear this context used by young teenagers who are mad at their parents, or who are in general upset because something is not going their way. I didn't expect a woman who has a doctorate to use such slang when writing an article for a very well-established newspaper. Despite this context, I continued to read on because I really did want to hear what she had to say. Maybe she was just trying to use modern slang in order to connect with her readers, I attempted to try to give her the benefit of the doubt. As I read on into the article, though, I ended up with a pretty big disappointment.
The first common "misconception" that Smith states, is that the anti-feminists state "Men and Women Already have equal rights where I live". I have to say I agree with Smith to an extent but to a different degree. Yes, we both share the same typical rights, but I don't see how Dr. Smith can say "substantive equality remains elusive". She points out that abortion rights are the ones that are typically challenged by this, and yes she is right, they are challenged almost daily, but Smith implies that any of our female rights can be revoked any time. My response to that is, ANY rights of ANY gender can be revoked at any time. Just look at our right to bare arms? Yes we still do have this right to an extent, but not in the way our forefathers intended. Also, I would like to point out the freedom of speech. Modern feminists can state anything they please, but women who believe the same as I do just have to suck it up and remain quiet, when our ideologies aren't being represented? I don't think so. If that isn't hypocritical of what the women before us that tried to put to an end to in the mid 1900s, I don't know what is.
Dr. Smith continues on in her piece of work and states, that another common misconception that is made in our movement is that "I was raised to be an independent woman, Im not a victim of anything". I do completely agree with her following statement that she makes after this that without feminist activism, we wouldn't have the right to be strong and independent. This rings true with traditional feminism, but not so much with modern feminism. Our movement is NOT about denying and forgetting what our female ancestors accomplished for us. Its about standing up for equal rights for everyone(not just one specific gender) in today's society, because our rights do get trampled on daily.
This next "misconception" really hit home with me. Smith wrote, "I am an abomination to feminists(because I am a stay at home mom). I have to disagree with Dr. Smith yet again on this subject, simply because of personal experiences. I have been told that I am silly or uneducated because I want to be a stay at home mother and that I need to move into the 21st century by many modern feminists. I also have to disagree with her implication that our movement disagrees with men being able to stay at home and take care of children as well, is a silly assumption. We are fighting for equal rights for everyone, so men should as well be privy to being stay at home fathers, if they so choose.
This one is my favorite of all "Men have rights too". Yes, men do have rights. Dr. Smith paints this picture by saying that the anti-feminist movement is stating that men's social and political power is being trampled on. I wouldn't agree with the political power, but I do believe that men's legal and social rights are being very much violated in today's modern feminist culture. Men should have every right to have sole custody or joint custody of their children if they so wish(and are good upstanding fathers who want their children for the right reasons), but the court system sees the mother as the nurturer so, the children often remain with the mother, unless she actually gives these rights to the father, or gives (or loses) her rights as a mother. Smith goes on to say that children put a "BURDEN" on women and cause them to hinder women's capacity to earn and our work force rights. This is where I almost stopped reading her article. Smith states that most women do not "enjoy" being the sole caregivers of their children. She also states that the only thing that restricts men is that they have less access to them after divorce. This got my blood boiling. Children do require a lot of sacrifice, granted, I will agree with that, but we are in the land of opportunity! If a female feels as though her right to earn fair pay to men is being hindered, go find a job with higher pay or go back to school and get a degree so you can find a different line of work that pays better! The opportunity gap is a made up fallacy by feminism. Also, NEWS FLASH kids cost money, it isn't their fault that they need taken care of. They didn't ask to come into the world and be born. If you don't want to make sacrifices, don't have children. Simple as that.
I want to close with saying that the Women Against Feminism movement is a movement against modern feminism. Our point has been completely misconstrued. We do stand by the feminists who started this movement. We thank them for giving us our rights to believe how we wish and to voice what we want to. We are just sickened by what it has become today. Our beliefs are being trampled on, and our rights are being violated because we oppose. This is denying us our freedom of speech. This should be a humanist movement, not something that oriented to specific groups of people or only for people who agree with one another. All beliefs and opinions should be supported. The feminist movement states that it speaks for all women, well, it doesnt speak for the women who believe like I do. If there wasnt problems with the ideologies of the feminist movement, there wouldnt be a need for an anit-feminist movement to begin with. Just let that sink in.
© Danielle Hunnicutt 2014
"Children are a burden" - If you look up the Tender Years Doctrine, it was actually feminists who fought for women to get sole custody of children, in England. Heh.
ReplyDeleteAbortion rights are being questioned frequently, but I think it's worth to note that men have no option to abandon parenthood today.
I don't really agree that feminism was ever needed, as a whole. It focused only on liberating women from their traditional roles while men got left behind, and fought for rights for women but not the responsibilities. It's mostly technology that freed Western women, not feminism.
Men do have the right to give up their paternal rights but they are highly looked down upon in society if they choose to do so, where as if a woman aborts, society is suppose to let in like that is ok. I think both of those cases are very negative but if woken can abort a child and no one looks down upon her, then men should be able to give up their rights as a father and not have such a negative stigma that comes with it.
DeleteIt's not just a stigma, a man cannot give up paternal rights without fleeing to a non extradition country as they can be forced by the courts to pay child support or face jail time. Only women have the ability to chose to forgo all rights and responsibilities in western nations.
DeleteAccording to Permutation of Ninjas (a wonderful set of resources and arguments on anti-feminism and anti-SJW, and real social justice) a utilitarian mathematical calculation of an unwanted pregnancy vs unwanted child support, has the child support coming out as much more intrusive and risky: http://permutationofninjas.org/post/21545067785/the-cost-of-child-support
DeleteI'm absolutely pro-choice - not in feminist "empowering" terms, just that abortion will be necessary because no birth control is 100% perfect, and consent to sex is not automatically consent to parenthood. That being said I do want artificial wombs or womb transplants, because that would satisfy everyone (except maybe some fundies who will complain about it being "unnatural").
(BTW, you would think feminists would be supportive of artificial wombs to avoid women going through the 'burdens' of pregnancy, but they're mostly mixed with many opposing them.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome women went and got expensive educations. This was a century ago so women must be oppressed today. Sure. Right. That makes sense to... a feminist.
ReplyDeleteApparently she thinks it's "homophobic" to say that feminists hate women. I fail to see how that makes sense. I could see calling feminists 'lesbians' as a disparaging term could be seen as "homophobic" but the thing is, I don't see this is a core reason for anti-feminism. Not in the circles I hang out in anyway. There are lesbian anti-feminists. There are straight feminists. Big deal.
Ah, the 'long history, diverse adherents' defense of feminism.
1. Oh look. That's NOT a strawman. I'm impressed.
Thing is, it's a valid point. Almost. The bit basically goes like this: "If you're going to care about 3rd world and Muslim women, fine. Do it. But don't use that as a justification to bitch about first world pseudo problems while ignoring the first world inequalities that affect men.". I say 'almost' b/c, when you really get down to it, a lot of anti-feminists are saying that MEN have less rights. Looking at western male circumcision and selective service laws, they have a point.
Abortion rights are challenged but if women do NOT have abortion rights, this doesn't mean they don't have the rights men have unless 'right to do whatever you want with your own body' is a right but if that's the case, why can't men smoke pot? Obviously, we do NOT have the "right to do whatever we want with our own bodies".
Also, feminism does more than just 'stay on top' of the 'legal abortion scene'.
2. Again, long time ago.
3. There is no 'official feminism' or source for 'official feminism' so speaking for ALL feminism (which is what the author is doing in the 3rd bit) is a waste of time. Some feminists may very well go around saying that being a mom 'sets women back 50 years'. The author has no way of knowing that no feminist does this.
4. Just b/c something is 'bizarre' to the author does not mean it is not actually the truth. Young Earth Creationists find it 'bizarre' that people could really believe in the Big Bang or in evolution or that there is no god. Big whoop. Also, anti-feminists are not, near as I can tell, saying that men have NO social or legal power, only that htey have LESS.
Do women have to sign up for selective service? No. They have a RIGHT to vote without signing up for selective service.
Getting custody of the kids is not a female 'right' but a female PRIVILEGE. It's not carved in stone. It's just usually the case. Basically, the mom has to be a crack whore with a history of murdering children and her ex-husband has to be a multi-millionaire philanthropist before he's going to get custody. UNLESS she doesn't even try to get custody.
It's not the only drawback. Go talk to Paul Elam. Hell, male circumcision is another drawback and I'm not even an MRA and even I know that one.
5. "It is impossible to extricate yourself from collective rights relating to gender, race, or sexuality."
---well then. Game over. No point in playing. It's impossible, like you said. Why bother being a feminist?