Feminism, on its face, seems like a fair and rational thing: granting women the same opportunities (and risks) allowed men in society. Of course, like all initiatives of the left, this is only the innocuous-looking sheep’s clothing disguising the deadly wolf within.
For feminism proper, especially after its [complete] radicalization in the 1960s, is not really about “fairness” and “equal opportunity”. It’s about the denial of the biological realities of human sexual dimorphism; the eradication of the societal gender roles that stem from those sexual dimorphisms; and ultimately it is about the vilification and total annihilation of any and all masculine virtues (and some feminine virtues).
One example of a gender role that stems from biological sexual differences is that of women rearing children (i.e., the “motherly instincts”). I am constantly amazed how many women are constantly amazed to see their two-year-old daughters wanting to play with dolls, play “house”, and take care of the newest baby in town while their sons’ only concern is smashing things. It is a sign of how effective feminist brainwashing is when so many women don’t even recognize that their own fantastic mothering and home-making skills are the work not of some [“evil”] “patriarchal society”, but of their double X chromosomes.
It is perhaps why this most obvious of the innate sexual differences is one of the chief “feminine virtues” targeted by feminists. For what is the demand placed upon women to pursue professional careers at the expense of getting married and raising a family if nothing but an assault on the ability of women to do what they do best in the prime years of their lives? (And don’t get me started on abortion.)
And what of the “masculine virtues” in the crosshairs of the feminist? Well, here are a few:
Leadership. From what I remember, leadership was about barking out orders and having your troops follow. Leaders were laconic—the strong, silent types—with that ineffable “charisma” that made fellow men want to go to war for them. Now, leadership seems to be all about “inclusiveness” and “buy-in”; it’s all touchy-feely nonsense like “team-building” and “dialogue.” You know what a “team” is? A “team” is a bunch of heterosexual men singularly focused on a difficult goal as articulated by a bold leader in no uncertain terms. (Notice what’s missing here? That would be all the distractions caused by sexual tension.) You want “inclusiveness” and “dialogue” and all that happy horsesh*t? That’s called a sewing circle.
Logic. Ah, logic—remember thee? Now before anyone gets her panties in a twist, let me be clear that I’m not saying women aren’t logical. What I’m saying is that one of the traditional “masculine virtues” is the preeminence of logic above all else. For women, I’d argue that feelings tend to be preeminent—and for good reason (as I believe this is an essential part of the “motherly instincts”). So this is not to denigrate the importance of being guided by one’s emotions, but to reiterate the notion that the male/female dichotomy yields critical counterparts, and one such counterpart is that men are generally more coldly logical while women are generally more warmly emotional. And these counterparts serve to balance each other out. But feminists can’t countenance logic ever reigning supreme over emotion, heavens no. So they seek to ensure that everything is guided by feelings, never by logic. Witness political correctness. Witness college “education”. Witness all this “gun control” hysteria. Witness pretty much anything going on in our society over the past 50 years.
Feats of strength. In the past, when brawn was more important, this was to be taken literally. In our more automated society, this more often than not means mental strength and career/financial aggressiveness. I.e., the striving of man was not to make everyone feel good about themselves (spirit awards!); it was to dominate. To be alpha male. To achieve; to conquer; to reign supreme. Yes, this leads to all sorts of little counter-productive things like world wars and genocide, but it is also responsible for pretty much everything—technologies, economies, nations, etc.—that we take for granted today. So, naturally, we can’t have any of it.
A few years back, Maureen Dowd wrote a book, “Are Men Necessary?” (to which she happily noted that her “research” came to the “conclusion” that, yes, we’re still needed…how kind and generous of her). The title of the book, despite its ultimate “conclusion”, hearkens back to feminist Valerie Solanas (of “I Shot Andy Warhol” fame) who famously wrote in her “SCUM Manifesto” (emphasis mine):
“Life” in this “society” being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of “society” being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.
– Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifest
When I was growing up, you got a big trophy for coming in first, a little trophy for coming in second or third, and you got squat for coming in anywhere after that. Second-stringers sat on the bench unless there was a comfortable-enough lead to let them play; they didn’t get to play just because the coach wanted to make them feel “included.” And coach was a bastard who didn’t give us “candy asses” a moment’s peace until we had achieved maximum potential; who accepted no excuses; and who pushed us to our limits without trying to get “buy-in” or having a “dialogue”.
Now, we have confused beta males whacked out on prescription psychotropics who kill little children by the dozen.