Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Eight ways that feminists are ruining America’s women

A list of feminist faults by the famous blogger Cassy Chesser (Fiano).

Here are the eight ways:

  1. Encouraging Promiscuity
  2. Sanctioning Victimhood
  3. Dabbling In Misandry
  4. Destroying Chivalry
  5. Attacking Motherhood
  6. Requiring A Feminist Litmus Test (for high-achieving women)
  7. Promoting Lies and Manipulation
  8. Glorifying Abortion

Number 4 is my favorite:

One of the easiest ways a man can show respect towards a woman is through chivalrous actions. Opening a door, pulling out a chair, giving up a seat for a lady… actions like these all show deference and respect for a woman. Being willing to protect a woman and put yourself at risk for her shows her value and worth. But for some reason, chivalry has come under attack. Men don’t practice chivalry anymore, to the disappointment of women everywhere.

Why not? Well, according to a poll taken of college men, it’s because of radical feminism. Chivalry has been dubbed sexist. There’s an attitude from women that they don’t need a man. Women act as if chivalrous actions are somehow disrespectful. So why should men continue to be chivalrous? Many, many women are completely unappreciative when men treat them like a lady. And, according to the femisogynists, things like holding doors open for women are totally sexist. Fascist feminists see chivalry as dated, sexist, and demeaning. It doesn’t matter that most women yearn for it deep down. They miss romance, they miss dating, and they miss being treated with respect and honor. How many times do women cry on the phone to their friends that they can’t find a man who treats them well? Killing chivalry has a lot to do with that. Women have been manipulated and conditioned to see chivalry as something antiquated and disrespectful, so they spurn it when they see it. They still crave it though. They’re wanting something better.

Chivalry gives a woman power, the very thing that femisogynists claim to be after. If a man is going out of his way to be chivalrous towards a women, it’s because he respects her, it’s because he sees value in her, and it’s because he wants to show that he is worthy of her. Chivalry is actually empowering to women, it elevates them, but it’s missing in our relationships today because fascist feminists destroyed it. It says a lot more about the worldview of the radical feminists than it does about the merits of chivalry.

WARNING! This post takes a very angry tone towards feminism. (Third-wave feminism)

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

52 Responses

  1. bography says:

    More than ten years ago, at the university where I worked in the English Department, I opened a door for one of my female colleagues. She glared at me and ticked me off. She always wore green.

    • Claudia says:

      Bography,

      I understand where your colleague was headed with the glare. I want to stress the importance of education about issues of feminism, AKA getting to the root of the problem and not simply addressing the symptoms, so that opinionated articles built on stereotypes of third-wave feminism (not everything one reads on Wikipedia is one-hundred percent accurate!) like this one do not spring up as often.

      While I don’t agree that a glare is going to solve anything or educate you on why holding the door may have been seen as a misogynist act, by reading you comment, I can see your colleague has a point.

      The idea behind the rejection of chivalry is the fact that it indicates and visibly implies that women are the weaker and more submissive sex. Holding the door or pulling up a chair before a woman is able to reach for it has derogatory implications, since the offender is obviously acting solely on the premise of the woman’s gender. If you had said, “Ladies first” while opening that door, then your colleague would have an overtly justifiable point in giving you a glare. By indicating that it’s “ladies first,” you are imposing upon centuries of sexism and female oppression, which past and current feminist movements have been trying to break away from for a very long time. If you are extremely insistent that chivalry should be maintained, then I hope that you are opening doors for both men and women — not just the latter.

      The idea is not that everyone should leave doors slamming in people’s faces, rather, we should be holding doors open for people because we are extending a common courtesy, and not because the person walking in looks to be a woman.

      • Mary says:

        Good grief, Claudia!

        There are women in this world who have real problems – like being the victims of human trafficking, or forced marriage, or female genital mutilation, or husbands who abuse them. And you’re criticizing men for… opening a door for women?? Women in such oppressive situations *wish* for men who treat them with such special respect.

        Do you even know what “submission” means? In the case of having the door opened for her, the woman is being *elevated*, she’s not submitting.

        At my work, the men frequently open the door for women and let us through first. Guess what? I smile and thank them! (Horrific, I know. Aiding and abetting the “oppression of women”!)

        Most women don’t want your version of “empowerment” which consists of men treating women like men with different plumbing. I like men who appreciate me for who God made me to be, including my being a woman, with all my feminine differences. You’re actually denigrating women by ignoring the differences between men and women. Don’t you see it? You’re advocating a world of androgyny, which is neither realistic nor respectful of either sex.

        Perhaps feminists should all wear labels, so that men know which ones have a chip on their shoulder. Must be quite the conundrum for the average bloke.

        As for me… Chivalry? Yes please!

      • Jared says:

        Yeah, I can see the oppressive, men-are-better, you’re beneath me, I want to control you attitude when a man opens a door for a lady. I feel so sorry for all of the women that are horribly mistreated and basically punched in the face and dragged by their hair through the door when a man opens a door for a lady. Those poor, abused women. We need a revolution that stops men from treating women so badly! Treating a woman as exceptional is just out of the question. :)

  2. Mary says:

    This post is superawesome! Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I would recommend that people read the whole thing. It’s good that she’s angry about this. She should be. I was going to write something similar, but she’s done a really thorough job of it, so now I don’t have to. :)

    On chivalry… it’s a wonderful thing. We still do get chivalrous behaviour from most men in SA – probably because feminism isn’t as widespread or as extreme here. Or maybe it’s because men know they can be chivalrous with me and I won’t bite their heads off for it. The guys at work open doors for me and I love it! I’m always appreciative. I smile and thank them. I think men can also see which women they know they can practice chivalry with and which they can’t. The aggressive ones usually don’t appreciate it, but the rest of us, who are friendly to them when they are friendly to us, do appreciate it. Older men are also generally better than younger men in this respect. I have yet to meet an older man who is not chivalrous to me. I think that both men and women need to oppose anti-chivalry and restore chivalry as the norm. Women should reward chivalrous men by being appreciative and nice to them. They should refuse to date unchivalrous men. All unchivalrous men are instantly eliminated as dating possibilities in my case.
    Consistent chivalry earns a man points in my estimation.

    • “They should refuse to date unchivalrous men. All unchivalrous men are instantly eliminated as dating possibilities in my case.”

      This is my favorite part of your excellent comment.

    • McSpinster says:

      Hi Mary:

      I understand that South Africa has one of the highest incidences of rape in the world. This is pertinent to your comments on chivalry and Wintery’s post on “feminists ruining the women of America,” so please bear with me.

      First, some statistics:

      According to Professor Rachel Jewkes of the South African Medical Research Council (MRC) [2] “we have a higher prevalence of rape in South Africa than there is in other countries” [2]. According to Mbuyiselo Botha of the South African Men’s Forum “we continue in South Africa to be one of the highest capitals of rape in the world” [2].

      In 2006 an Interpol study determined that in South Africa a woman was raped “every 17 seconds” [15].

      If you want to check out the references, there are all over the internet but these specific ones are in a blog called “Rape in South Africa” by a self described “Christian Theologian dealing with rape victims, a Husband who’s wife has been raped, and the Father of a 2-year old baby girl, with a life to live in this country.”

      Here’s the link:

      http://hil001.blogspot.com/2010/11/rape-in-south-africa.html

      I raise this because of the propensity for conservatives to put down what feminists have achieved for women, focusing on only the most egregious forms of acting out. Blaming feminists for “ruining women” (and Wintery, you don’t offer any statistics, only opinions here) means little coming from someone who lives in a country where feminism has yet to take root. Your country (and many around the world) are dangerous places for women, despite the chivalry you may individually enjoy.

      I lived through the era in this country when women were blamed for being raped (based on what they wore), when women tried to self-abort, when they could legally be harrassed, denied equal pay and equal access to education, jobs and protection in the home from dmoestic abuse. Feminists took up theses causes and the laws changed. Just one small example of how feminists “liberated” women. WIntery is fond of focusing on only the things he doesn’t like about feminism, but it’s like first amendment freedoms. We don’t all like the expressions of others, but respecting their first amendment freedoms is the price one pays to live in a democracy such as what we have here in the US.

      Would you care to speak about how you see rape being stopped in countries like South Africa where women’s rights (and feminism) are not far along or are nonexistent? After all, all the chivalry in the world is meaningless in a culture where rape is endemic.

      I apologize in advance for the provocative tone here, but as I am a frequent visitor here, I note how frequently you comment on feminism in the US negatively, something I find slightly disingenuous coming from someone who lives in a country with such a terrible human rights record.

      • wgbutler777 says:

        McSpinster,

        I’ve read your most recent post and would like to comment on it.

        You seem to be drawing a false dichotomy between feminism and rape prevention. It is as though women were being raped left and right here in the United States until feminism came along and finally put a stop to it.

        The truth of the matter is that, if anything, feminism has dramatically increased the number of rapes rather than diminished them.

        The reason I say this is because feminism increases the number of fatherless homes, since women are, by and large, free to abandon the father of her children at any time and for any reason, while maintaining most or all of the decision power regarding the rearing of the children and being able to use the state to extract financial support from the father, as well as society in general.

        Studies have shown fatherless children to be 14 times more likely to commit rape than children raised with fathers.

        Here is one of a nearly infinite number of websites which reports on these types of facts:

        http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000610-9.htm

        * 5 times more likely to commit suicide;
        * 32 times more likely to run away;
        * 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders;
        * 14 times more likely to commit rape;
        * 9 times more likely to drop out of high school;
        * 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances;
        * 9 times more likely to end up in a mental institution;
        * 20 times more likely to end up in prison(1).

        Another link paints just as dark a picture: (From Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem by David Blankenhorn)

        http://books.google.com/books?id=geGxk4_YSf0C&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=fatherless+crime+rape&source=bl&ots=PoE9lm8wvD&sig=I4Zzy0SuQ4LFDdEAqYJEkEt0B2Y&hl=en&ei=ZLDxTP3EFIO8lQeRs8S1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=fatherless%20crime%20rape&f=false

        “For Inner City Youth, A Hard Life May Lead to a Hard Sentence:
        …From 1965 to 1991 the juvenile arrest rate for violent crime more than tripled…the juvenile arrest rate for murder increased 93 percent…for forcible rape, 24 percent…”

        http://www.fathermag.com/news/2756-suicide.shtml

        “…Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation’s alarming increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more available, and expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next decade. “Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime,” San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95). “Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom,” San Francisco Chronicle (2/15/95).

        Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing evidence that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family. “New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What Went Wrong at Home,” San Francisco Chronicle (12/9/94).

        3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY

        “Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency.” Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993). Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn. 71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

        4) CHILD ABUSE

        The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents’ to monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them….”

        ———————–

        Regarding South Africa, I am guessing that the epidemic of rapes that go on over there have more to do with African cultural values than anything else. Here is an interesting article that discusses the situation:

        http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_5525.html

        While I agree that feminism would probably be better for the natives there than the primitive tribal values they use to murder and rape one another, the best medicine by far would be a strong dose of traditional Judeo-Christian values which promotes sexual purity, values women and encourages men to responsibly commit to one woman in a lifetime relationship.

      • Retha says:

        McSpinster

        You say women’s rights are non-existent in SA, but AFAIK there is no legal discrimination against women in SA. (I am South African.) SA individuals-too many of them- break rights that the SA laws say women have.

        Would feminism decrease the amount of rapes in SA? I can”t see how. Rapists rape because they want to. It is already illegal and they already know the woman can go to the police- and often does. Why would rapists change when laws change?
        —–
        More info on the ways that feminist ideas influence SA society: (I cannot say all these come from people who will call their cause feminism, but several SA laws show a woman-centredness in society since 1994)

        ->Affirmative action laws say what % of female employees/ executives a company should have, at least.

        ->Many moms live off welfare child grants, and start getting kids at 13 or 15 to get their own grants. Wintery already pointed out how this causes an irresponsible society that casts aside good men.

        ->It is harder than ever to get a licence to own a firearm. My instinct say women are more prone to pushing for gun control, but I cannot prove this.

        ->Abortion is legal, advertised on every lamp post in my vicinity, and widely practiced.

        (Promiscuity- #8 on the Cassy Fiano list – is very high in SA, seen in the number of Aids cases for example, but feminism is probably not to blame for that. Welfare grants- girls getting paid to have kids with men who cannot look after them- is probably among the reasons. #7- victimhood is also high in this country, but it is usually apartheid in the past or Affirmative action in the present that is blamed, not being female.)

  3. Michael says:

    Hey Wintery, next term (after christmas) in politics we’re going to be studying ‘theorising the democratic state’, ie political theory, what a state’s role should be etc. My tutor for that module is actually self-described a radical feminist but I have read nothing on radical feminism. Can you recommend stuff for me to read over the holidays? In particular different articles and audio with arguments against the radical feministic worldview?
    She is also married despite being so feministic, which I find very intriguing.
    Thanks for your help!

  4. McSpinster says:

    Hey, WG. My comment was directed to Mary as a South African. Perhaps you will do us both the courtesy of allowing her to respond before adding your two cents.

    • Anon says:

      Why so annoyed McS? WG’s reply doesn’t stop Mary from replying at all.

    • Mary says:

      @McS: Spoken like a true modern feminist… ;-) See now, feminism sees men being courteous and helpful (opening doors, helping one answer challengers on a blog) and sees some sort of affront. Because I don’t have feminist hang-ups, I can see such things for what they are and say “thank you, wgbutler”. :) I frequently chip in when someone makes a challenge to someone on this blog which I can easily dismantle. Often, I’m helping a man out. Nobody has ever told me to keep quiet until he answers. But when a man helps a woman it’s different, of course. Ah feminism, thy name is paranoia. ;-)

      I’m not sure what happened to WG’s comments, but there was a lot of good stuff in them. Now I shall have to begin afresh.

      For one thing, you’re failing to acknowledge that we differentiate between the first wave feminism that sees women get voting rights, and equal job opportunities and the third wave, most virulent strain of feminism which we see today which tells us to hate men, sleep around, and get abortions. Wintery, the blogger he quotes, and myself advocate the first and denounce the second. You’re not reading us properly.

      I can assure you that I am well-aware of the high rape statistics in SA. This is part of a bigger picture of a high incidence of violent crime in general.

      Also, feminism HAS come to SA. We get the same feminist Hollywood movies, our universities study the same feminist literature, and our law-makers follow the same, rotten, feminist patterns. A lot of us in SA who know what feminism really is don’t want it. This may change as indoctrination of young girls in schools increases and becomes more extreme. But while the average, poor woman doesn’t know what “feminism” is and won’t identify as “feminist”, she is increasingly being told that she has the “right” to an abortion for any or no reason and that men are superfluous to having a family. Feminism in movies glorifies no-strings-attached sex as “liberating” and sleazy American R&B videos portray strong, affluent women as both sexual conquerors and satisfied sexual conquests. People living in poverty seek escapism and find it in idolizing Beyonce and P Diddy.

      We have widespread polygamy, which today’s feminists don’t criticize, because it’s considered culturally insensitive and “discriminatory” to do so, but rather they say we should legitimize polygamous marriages. That’s what we get from the feminist academics at the universities… Add into this mix the feminist notion conveyed through movies, etc that a woman doesn’t have to get married to have kids, that casual sex is empowering, and that illegitimacy is fine and you end up with widespread fatherlessness. This creates an environment in which men have many women and treat them like symbols of power, but without any respect because they now no longer marry them. Polygamy combined with feminism has been lethal for women in this country.

      Feminism encourages fatherlessness and, as wgbutler rightly pointed out, this is a major factor in violent crime, including rape. We also have a very high rate of HIV infection, resulting in a large number of AIDS orphans who are both motherless and fatherless. Moreover, certain policies of the apartheid government separated fathers (particularly migrant workers in mines) from their families. When we combine this with feminist policies that our government has copied from the States and other countries, fatherlessness is exacerbated and with it violent crime.

      The illegitimacy of the previous apartheid government brought about a disdain for the law and a normalization of violence. We have lots of complicated racial tensions. There are gangs which give listless young men a sense of belonging and include such initiation practices as rape. Some traditional healers (witchdoctors) tout sex with a virgin as a cure for HIV. I could go on. There are plenty of fatherless, uneducated, unemployed, angry young men out there. Hence the high incidence of rape.

      And you think more feminism will help. How exactly?

    • Mary says:

      I’d also like to add that while rape is a big problem in SA, most SA men are not rapists. Most SA men are decent, and chivalrous. While feminism has had negative effects on women in SA in a roundabout way, there are few who will consume their energies by going on about male hegemonies and hardly any who will take it the wrong way when a man opens a door for them.

      Today’s feminism is useless in combating violence against women. It serves only to make things worse. Instead of opposing pornography for men, it tells us to have porn for women. Instead of making it unacceptable for men to sleep around it encourages women to do the same. Instead of opposing polygamy, it tells us to legitimize it. Instead of expecting men to stick with their families, it tells them to take a hike because “we don’t need them”. Instead of expecting men to protect women, it tells them we don’t need their protection.

      In my opinion, you can have your feminism back.

  5. McSpinster says:

    Well I don’t think it’s worthwhile arguing with people who represent their beliefs as scientifically proven hypothesis. I do think that if things are as you say that you should be able to support them. Same with WG. And you don’t. The Canadian source he quotes above isn’t a scientific study, nor does it make the connection between fatherless and feminism that he asserts in his comments. So he appears to have made that one up on his own. (In the same vein, the original poll that Wintery refers to in his original post is an informal “poll” by a blogger who asked a bunch of college boys their opinions. But research isn’t useful if it’s not conducted professionally because it’s too open to bias. So her hypothesis — and Wintery’s constant rants about “feminism ruining American women”–while perhaps provocative aren’t supported by any objective proof. Alas.)

    Your opinion (about feminism being useless in combating violence against women) is also not proven. I’m not sure if you’re unaware of the laws that have changed how rape is prosecuted in the US, for example, or you just don’t think they have had any practical effect. Nevertheless, you don’t live here, so I guess it’s reasonable to expect you to be somewhat uninformed.

    As to who to credit specifically for the change in the law (which did, in fact, result in more men being prosecuted successfully for rape and sexual assault because it removed a woman’s moral conduct as evidence to be used in her rapist’s defense) your guess is as good as mine. Let me take a stab: victim’s rights advocates. Were they feminists? Is that what you want to know? They were working on behalf of women, to give them a protected right they hadn’t had before. That pretty much satisfies one of the definitions of feminism (the pursuit of equal rights for women). But I’m sure you’ll disagree.

    • Anon says:

      Prosecution is only a small part of the solution.

      Here in NZ, any force for the purpose of correcting a child’s behavior have been outlawed, yet child abuse still going just as strong, if not worse.

      Same with violence towards women (domestic violence). In NZ we’ve had women leading the country, and I believe NZ was the first country in the world to allow women to vote in the election, yet domestic violence is still rampage.

      I would suggest that some problems just can not be solved via punishment/deterrent, they need to be prevented at the root cause, e.g.: most of those problems start at home … and broken marriages and fatherless homes contribute greatly to those problems.

    • wgbutler777 says:

      Mara,

      The connection between violent crime and fatherlessness is so well established that even the most die hard liberals don’t even bother fighting that battle any more.

      They usually try to explain it away by appealing to poverty (ergo, we need more child support laws and welfare to REALLY solve the problem) despite the fact that decades of the welfare state the problem has only gotten seriously worse as this has only made fathers even more economically unnecessary but has been completely unable to replace the essential ingredient they bring to a family unit.

      Here are a few more studies for you:

      ——————————

      http://www.poppawon.com/?p=60

      …80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)…
      14 times more likely to commit rape…

      ——————————

      http://www.afmus.org/nav_fatherlessfamilies.html

      …an overwhelming body of social-science research has confirmed Moynihan’s prediction (first made in the early 1960s) that many of the social problems commonly thought to be rooted in race would eventually move from the inner cities to the suburbs since these problems are ultimately attributable to family breakdown.

      For example, research now shows that the percentage of fatherless families in a community more reliably predicts that community’s rate of violent crime than any other factor, including race. The same can be said for rates of child poverty. In fact, interestingly, white children in fatherless families are significantly more likely to live in poverty than African-American children who have a father in the home. …

      ——————————

      http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2010/02/the-perils-of-fatherlessness

      …The social science research on the importance of fathers is now extremely well-established, and quite convincing. Thousands of international studies have told us the same thing: children do better by every social indicator when a father is present…..most gang members in America come from female-headed households. And a study of British communities found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every major type of crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary.

      Indeed, the very absence of intact families makes gang membership appealing. Many gang members view the gang as a kind of surrogate family. Often they have admitted, ‘It is like having a family’. Indeed, a recent New Zealand study found that 64.6 per cent of juvenile offenders had no birth father present.

      A study reported in Psychology Today found that “90 per cent of repeat adolescent firestarters live in a mother-only constellation”. A Michigan State University study of 72 adolescent murderers discovered that 75 per cent of them had divorced or never-married parents. And a 1987 study by Raymond Knight and Robert Prentky of 108 violent rapists, all repeat offenders, found that 60 per cent came from single-parent homes.

      One study tracked every child born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1955 for 30 years. It found that five out of six delinquents with an adult criminal record came from families where a parent – almost always the father – was absent. ….

      ——————————

      To sum it all up, man has been completely unable to come up with any better design than the one given to us by God. All of his attempts have ended in abject failure.

      Modern (third wave?) feminism is another rebellion against God’s design and has disastrous results. Millions of females have been slaughtered in abortions. Indeed, in countries like China, an unborn female is far more likely to be aborted than an unborn male. Women are brutally victimized by children raised in fatherless homes. Hence, the two great achievements of modern feminism (unfettered abortion and the ability to have offspring without a father) have caused misery for the gender it purportedly claimed to champion.

    • Mary says:

      McS:

      Yet again you have ignored that we are discussing today’s feminism, which is modern (third wave) feminism. If you wish to ignore that, that is of course your prerogative. But it does make your ranting rather pointless. I think that a lot of good things were achieved by the first and second wave feminists. But the third wave feminists have directly contradicted many of the views of the first and third wave feminists.

      This is what wikipedia says of third-wave feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism):

      Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave’s “essentialist” definitions of femininity, which often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized the experiences of upper-middle-class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality is central to third wave ideology. Emphasizing discursive power and the ambiguity of gender, third-wave theory usually incorporates elements of queer theory; anti-racism and women-of-color consciousness; womanism; post-colonial theory; critical theory; postmodernism; transnationalism; ecofeminism; libertarian feminism; new feminist theory, transgender politics and a rejection of the gender binary. Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered opposition to pornography and to sex work of the second wave and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and in sex work cannot be empowered.

      On the rape issue, this tells us that many of them (and I’ve heard them rant on the radio myself) think we should say pornography and sex work is good. Still like them? Still think that modern feminism can reduce the incidence of rape when it encourages two industries that are PROVEN in study after study to contribute to violence against women?

      Let’s also look at the issue of abortion:

      Early feminist, Susan B. Anthony, saw abortion as a great evil and as one of the ways in which unscrupulous men could treat women badly and get away with it by manipulating them into having an abortion: “Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

      There is still a group of women who self identify as feminists but oppose abortion (Feminists for Life, for example), but you will note that they hearken back to the roots of feminism. They’re not third wavers. And they are by far not the majority of feminists today.

      The overwhelming majority of modern feminists see abortion “rights” as a good thing.

      If you click on the “About” link on the website (http://www.now.org/) for the National Organization for Women (NOW), you get the following:

      The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Since its founding in 1966, NOW’s goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.”

      That’s right. The biggest feminist activist organization in the US openly states that abortion rights are something they’re gunning for.

      Here’s the full spectrum of what they believe on the abortion issue:

      http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/

      Reading this stuff makes me sick.

      Chillingly, read this article (from the horse’s foaming mouth) where they urge against recognition of fetal personhood:

      http://www.now.org/nnt/winter-2007/viewpoint.html

      Note how they label anyone who opposes unfettered abortion as “anti-woman”.

      Browse their website for their ideology on other issues too.

      Despite living in “darkest Africa”, I’m not as uninformed as you may imagine. Nor do I own a pet lion.

      If you like you can ignore all of this and pretend that modern feminism is great. But then it’s just a fantasy.

      I prefer to face reality. And much of the reality that these feminists project of themselves (and they’re trying to look like nice people on their site) sickens me. It’s evil and it’s bad for women. I want nothing to do with it. But I’m sure you’ll disagree.

      • “Nor do I own a pet lion.”

        LOL!

      • McSpinster says:

        Mary,

        When you and Wintery and company discuss “feminism” you lump all manner of evils together under its banner, including gains made by feminists and women in general that predate the third wave feminist movement and have nothing to do with advocating pornography and sex work (such as no-fault divorce, welfare, abortion, and the ever popular charge of “women disliking men, dsiposing of men and perhaps the worst of all, women acting like men and wanting to have the same rights”). So you may think you’re being clear and only discussing “third wave” when you aren’t. Go back and look.

        As to feminists advocating pornography and sex work, this is a minority. WIntery’s post here, I’ll note, isn’t “Eight Reasons THird Wave Feminism is Ruining Some Women” it’s “Eight Reasons Feminism is Ruining American Women.” As if we are all the same. You have jumped on the bandwagon repeatedly with him here, so if you’re not looking to tar all American women as being ruined, you may want to be more careful in how you frame your arguments–particularly since you are not an American and are therefore appearing to diss many lovely and chivalry loving women you have never met.

        Finally, I have never suggested you owned a pet lion. A black mamba, I think, suits you better…in a pink bonnett.

        PS: why don’t you ever decry men for making and consuming pornogrpahy and advocating sex work? Do you think that women are worse offenders? It would seem so.

        • Mary says:

          @McS:

          “When you and Wintery and company discuss “feminism” you lump all manner of evils together under its banner, including gains made by feminists and women in general that predate the third wave feminist movement and have nothing to do with advocating pornography and sex work (such as no-fault divorce, welfare, abortion, and the ever popular charge of “women disliking men, dsiposing of men and perhaps the worst of all, women acting like men and wanting to have the same rights”). So you may think you’re being clear and only discussing “third wave” when you aren’t. Go back and look.

          WK’s post is called “Eight Reasons Feminism is Ruining American Women.” IS, not has. Present tense, not past tense. He is addressing what feminism is currently doing. I don’t know how to put it any more clearly… Go back and look.

          “As to feminists advocating pornography and sex work, this is a minority.”

          Not accoring to wikipedia which states that “many” of them advocate it. This is their source: Johnson, Merri Lisa, Ed. Jane Sexes It Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002.

          I notice that you don’t challenge my statements on abortion…

          “WIntery’s post here, I’ll note, isn’t “Eight Reasons THird Wave Feminism is Ruining Some Women” it’s “Eight Reasons Feminism is Ruining American Women.” As if we are all the same.”

          IS IS IS IS IS IS
          Not HAS HAS HAS HAS HAS HAS
          I’m labouring the point in the (possibly naive) hope that it’ll get through.

          “You have jumped on the bandwagon repeatedly with him here,…”

          Ah, so that’s the issue. So I’m not allowed to agree with Wintery? Is that what has your knickers in a knot? I’m not allowed to question feminism? I’m betraying the “sisterhood”? I’m supposed to de facto agree with what other women say on feminism?

          “… so if you’re not looking to tar all American women as being ruined, you may want to be more careful in how you frame your arguments–particularly since you are not an American and are therefore appearing to diss many lovely and chivalry loving women you have never met.

          So I’m not allowed to criticize the currently toxic brand of feminism that comes largely from America and Europe and is having an impact on my own country? I’m not allowed to… because I’m not an American. This is the usual liberal rubbish about one not being allowed to say anything against anyone remotely different to oneself. So a South African may not criticize anyone who is American (but you seem to have no problem bringing my country into it), a man may not criticize a woman (but women can criticize men all they want), a white person may not critize a black person like Barack Obama (even when the criticism has NOTHING to do with race) without the cry of racist being thrown at them, but if Obama’s old pastor says some distinctly racist stuff against white people, we’re just being mean if we bring it up?

          But liberals are of course the fair-minded ones. Sure…

          “Finally, I have never suggested you owned a pet lion.”

          Yes, I’m surprised by your omission… :D

          “A black mamba, I think, suits you better…in a pink bonnett.”

          Oooh, I like that. You’re encouraging me, you know. ;-)

          “PS: why don’t you ever decry men for making and consuming pornogrpahy and advocating sex work? Do you think that women are worse offenders? It would seem so.”

          No, men and women are equally sinful. I’ve said that before here on a number of occasions. I always give WK what for when he says “women…” and starts railing against women in general as being bad without addressing men’s failings. He’s learning.

          However, women and feminism are NOT the same thing. There are women who are not feminists. And this is exactly the sort of helplful article which can help them see that it’s a bad idea FOR WOMEN. And there are plenty of men who are feminists. I’m not anti-women. I’m anti what passes for feminism these days. Guess what? Back in the day, I got a pretty feminist education at an all-girls’ high school. At 17, I was all “we’re oppressed, we’re better than men, we’ll show the men”. Thankfully, I was cured of it.

          And as for decrying men’s making and consuming porn and sex work. Ha! I do! I just recently sent in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority of SA to complain about the advertisements they have for a certain event of such a nature happening in this country. I told them that it was degrading and dehumanizing to women. I sent an email out to a number of Christian male friends to do their bit as well. Most of them responded well. One, however, claimed that we only need to evangelize, we sholdn’t try to fix the “symptoms”. I respectfully disagreed with him and challenged him to do something about it to protect women and children.

  6. Mara says:

    Your are right, McS, it is not worthwhile to argue with people so deeply indoctrinated to fear the evil feminist that they can’t see straight.

    Here, for you McS, is a look at the rationales for the “Danver’s Statement” and one Christian woman’s cutting through the flowery, adjective ridden document to point out what is really being said.
    The blog that this is on is that of a woman who used to call herself a comp. She doesn’t now because of the crazies over at CBMW, even though she knows she’s not, nor will ever be egal.

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-does-danvers-statement-really-mean.html

    It is a war against the equality of all women.
    The fact that there are stupid feminists who promote a few of these things that Wintery lists causes them to blame all feminists and egalitarianism for the break down of the family.

    It really isn’t fair. It’s like saying all Christians are bad because some of them promote some really bad stuff and call it Christian.
    Those bad things that these Christian groups promote does not represent the heart of the gospel any more than the bad things these feminist promote represents true feminism.

    • wgbutler777 says:

      Mara,

      I don’t have time to read through your entire link, but I do have to agree with at least one thing that the Biblical people were saying. Feminism does lead to homosexuality.

      We see that in churches that ordain women, as many of these churches also openly tolerate homosexuality and even perform homosexual marriage ceremonies.

      We also see that in society as homosexuality is now the new tolerance, which of course is right on the heels of the feminists triumph of unfettered abortion, welfare, and no fault divorce laws.

      Christians who try to toe the line and accept some error, but not all (such as yourself) will find themselves increasingly pressured to embrace homosexuality, divorce, and denounce traditional Christianity as a hate filled religion inspired by the patriarchy.

      • McSpinster says:

        Will check the link, Mara, but haven’t had time yet. WG: does the claim about feminism causing homosexuality have any scientific backing, or is it unsupported?

        • You may also want to check out a couple of books by a couple of medical doctors:

          “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”
          “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality”

          Basically, gender identity disorder is caused primarily by problems in the relationship with the same-sex parent. Other factors like physiology, child abuse, sexual abuse and schoolyard exclusion play a part.

          • Mara says:

            Sure.
            No argument there with you last paragraph. But that has nothing to do with feminism.

            Sometimes gender roles are so rigid and the creative male or left-brained female cannot fit into them. So they rebel, not realizing they can remain in their sex yet express traditionally/culturally opposited gender tendencies. (confusing, I know. Try to make sense of it.)

            I am one of those with my left-brianed tendancies having a hard time fitting in with culturally accepted male/female roles.
            I have no desire to be male. But I am sick of being female and being expected to exhibit only what is female accepted traits.

            Why do you think so many artists, hair dressers, and musicians are gay? Because our culture makes it hard for them to do what they do and remain straight. They are not given room to express their creativity.

            Feminism is not doing this to them. Rigid gender roles and cultural expectations are.
            If a guy in highschool doesn’t exhibit manly enough qualities, he’s pigeon holed as gay before he ever has a chance to figure it out for himself. And since the gay community is far more accepting of his lack of overt masculine qualities, it’s an easy move to gay acceptance. That’s your slippery slope. Not feminism.

        • Good job asking for evidence MCS.

  7. wgbutler777 says:

    McSpinster,

    I was arguing more from a cultural and observational perspective. But it does appear that there is indeed a scientific link between feminism and homosexuality! See this link for details:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp41ph4567066071/

    There was also a study that came out recently that showed that children raised by homosexual couples were more likely to self-identify as homosexual:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/researcher-children-of-same-sex-couples-more-likely-to-be-homosexual/

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2612411/posts?page=70

  8. Mara says:

    Feminism does not lead to homosexuality.
    That is blatantly false and fear mongering at it’s worse.

    Homosexuality ran rampant in Ancient Greece where and is also prevalent in Muslim cultures were women are looked down upon as companions. Since men are superior, why should men look upon women as companions?

    Feminism is not the slippery slope to homosexuality that the Danver’s claims.
    Homosexuality runs rampant in misogynic cultures without any help from feminism. It also exists in our culture, but is in no wise caused by feminism.

    • wgbutler777 says:

      Mara,

      I agree that feminism does not lead to homosexuality in the same sense that eating lots of high calorie foods leads to weight gain. (Although it is a bit interesting how children raised in lesbian homes appear to have a strong anti-male bias.)

      However, feminism and homosexuality are cousins and allies in the same sense that secular humanism and radical Islam are cousins and allies. They have the same enemies. They despise what they perceive to be white, Christian, male dominated western civilization and will work tirelessly to attack and undermine it.

      Give them ANY role except the traditional, God ordained role with the man as the leader, protector and provider of the family and the woman as the nurturer and primary caregiver of the children.

      Divorce, single parenthood, lesbianism, open marriages, living together, polygamy, you name it. Just endorse and celebrate any standard except for the one that God has set up and you’ll be alright and free from criticism. Nothing enrages the modern feminist like the image of the “Leave it to Beaver” family. Anything is preferable to that. Anything.

      [WK - snip! I am sorry about removing this, but I am concerned about that Obama law]

    • wgbutler777 says:

      Thanks to Mara I have just ordered a copy of
      “Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism” by Wayne Gruden.

      It discusses egalitarianism as a doorway to liberalize the Christian church and open the door towards acceptance of homosexuality.

      Here is a link that discusses the book:

      http://ltpalculict.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/i-just-finished-wayne-grudems-book-evangelical-feminism-a-new-path-to-liberalism/

      [WK - I had to snip the long excerpt, but people can click through to read his summary]

      • Mara says:

        Great.

        Grudem.

        The man who twists scripture and scripture interpretation outright concerning gender and promotes the ESV which also blatantly twists scriptures concerning gender in order to promote their twisted view on roles and hierarchy.

        My hope for modern evangelicals and for objectivity among the religious right has just dropped a few notches.

        You go, WG.
        Continue your self-indoctrination unchallenged by any real argument to the contrary.

        Only strawmen and misrepresentation of the egalitarian point of view is what you want to see. You feed into their propoganda and fearmongering like there’s no tomorrow. You don’t want to see whether there might actually be any scholarly arguments contrary to what your prejudices and what the traditions of men have pounded into your head.

        You want women and women ordination to be the cause of theological liberalism, whether it be true or not. If it might be a corralation rather than a causation, you don’t care. Your mind is made up. Don’t confuse you with the facts.

        Guess pastor Catherine Booth who co-founded the Salvation Army is part of this drive toward theological liberalism.

        Well, if that is so, then there is a clear connection between freedom of religion and translating the Bible into the languages of the people and the explosion in the number of cults and cult members (led by men btw) in our nation. Does that mean we shouldn’t have freedom of religion and the Bible translated into our language. The connection is clear and solid, completely undisputable. With the rise of people getting the Bible in their own hands, there is this rise in cults. They are everywhere. Some out there for all the world to see, some under the radar hurting and destroying people and producing an army of new-atheists.
        Old Catholisism might determine that this is good enough reason to oppose freedom of religion and readable Bibles.
        But we know this isn’t right or fair.
        (They can have my Bible when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers :/ )
        Neither is deciding to not ordain women because of a corralation between it and the rise in liberalism.

        • “Don’t confuse you with the facts.”

          LOL!

          • Mara says:

            Laugh if you want to.
            Grudem twists the facts in dealing with the original languages and meanings in the Bible.
            So does the ESV. It is the masculinist translation of choice.

            If you want an honest Bible, one that translates consistently rather than gender biasedly, go with a NIV or NAS.
            Shoot. King James is more honest than the ESV.
            King James did have an agenda back in the day, but he had more scholars keeping him honest than those who worked on ESV.

          • I was laughing supportively and appreciately! Just not agreementingly and endorsingly. Quit being so mean.

            I can’t possible be mean to you since you’re reading “On Guard”. And I think if WG knew that, he’d be nicer to you to you, too. And he should.

            Here’s something to make you feel better, meany:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKTsWjbjQ8E

        • Mara says:

          You know, one of the reason there might be a correlation between ordaining women and the rise of liberalism is that the conservatives won’t ordain their women. Therefore, there are no ordained conservative women out there contradicting the liberal ones.

          The fault may be in conservatism itself.

        • wgbutler777 says:

          Mara,

          I have to ask. What’s your problem with the ESV? It is my favorite version of the Bible. Can you give me any specific examples of egregious mistranslations?

          Regarding the Grudem book, so far I am very impressed with what I have read. He lays out his case very well, documenting some really wild anti-intellectual behavior from egalitarian college campuses in the process. Liberals are the same every where you go, I guess.

          He also lays out the recurring pattern where feminist churches eventually end up endorsing homosexuality. IT goes like this. the churches:

          1) abandon biblical inerrancy
          2) endorse the ordination of women
          3) abandon Biblical teaching on male headship in marriage
          4) exclude clergy who are opposed to women’s ordination
          5) approve homosexual conduct as morally valid in certain cases
          6) approve homosexual ordination
          7) ordain homosexuals to high leadership positions in the denomination

          Almost without exception, church after church follows this pattern. It begins with an abandonment of scripture and culminates with full blown acceptance of homosexuality, with feminism snuggled neatly in between. This pattern is amazing to contemplate, and very eye opening.

          The funny thing about talking over this issue with you is the whole egalitarian false doctrine isn’t even on my radar of major issues to think about. My two main causes are proving atheism wrong and defending the unborn. Both of those issues I suspect we are in complete agreement on.

          I can just tell the egalitarian thing is one of your hot button issues and I get quite the kick out of playing angel’s advocate with you.

          • You guys actually have a lot in common. Mara is not liberal on politics nor on morality, as far as I know.

            She’s actually very conservative, a very good wife and mother, and not only does she read apologetics but she has to fight with the cowardly anti-apologetics men in the church. That’s why I try to be nice to her. To me that is like the key that makes it impossible for me to be angry with someone. If they try to get apologetics stuff into their church and run into resistance, then I can’t not like them.

            WG, you have to agree that a lot of men aren’t like us and they abuse the complementarian doctrine to boss women DOWNWARD instead of leading them UPWARD. I know, I know – you can’t imagine that. Neither can I. For an apologist, that is craziness because your wife has to raise children so she has to be as good at apologetics as you are, or better. The thing is, these men are not really into leading on intellectual things, they are just really bossy and even abusive. I think she’s worried about how the Bible can be abused to apparently lend support to that.

            Also, a lot of these men don’t understand submission the way I understand it, namely, I think submission means submitting to leadership that moves the woman towards God. During friendship and on into courtship, I try to give women things to do so that they can fight better, so that if things lead to marriage, then she will be capable with co-workers, neighbors, students and children. The ones who “submit” to my leading process that info and then put it to use in discussions.

            I think if we are going to disagree with Mara, we should try to be as nice to her as possible. These things may be serious, but she is not a bad person.

  9. McSpinster says:

    OK. You don’t live here. You’ve never lived here. And you get your views on American women and culture from blogs like this, from the movies, the TV set and Wikipedia.

    Hmm. Guess Americans aren’t the only ones to hold backwards views of people in parts of the world they’ve never actually visited.

    • Mary says:

      It may surprise you to know that I know many Americans who aren’t part of this blog. Many of them are lovely people. I have nothing against Americans. I especially like Conservative Americans. I wish we had more people who would be like that here. Here, for complicated reasons, people are afraid to be conservative.

      I read things on plenty of other sites and plenty of books. I get both sides. America dominates the media because it is a powerful nation. So no, I am not ignorant. And if you think I only get conservative stuff, you are much mistaken. We got Al Gore’s film. We get Michael Moore’s stuff. These were very popular here. In fact, we get plenty of liberal propaganda from CNN. It may also surprise you to know that most South Africans I have dealings with on the subject of America are pro-liberal, pro-democrat, pro-Obama, pro-choice, anti-guns(without realizing the implications of all of these) and they think Republicans are one notch better than the KKK. I’m hardly typical. So it has NOTHING to do with my country.

      And I’m not criticizing American women. I’m criticizing feminism. How many times must I say that these are not synonyms? Like it or not, American policies affect the rest of us. I have a right to discuss this and a right to not like what we get fed by European and American liberalism. Roe v Wade was a precedent to legalized abortion in SA. This is a fact.

      And I’m still waiting for your reaction to the NOW material. You’re not dealing with it of course. Instead, you’re carrying on your ad hominum attack on me.

      • About 40% of our readership is international.

      • McSpinster says:

        Sorry, what NOW material? I don’t see any.

        • Mary says:

          It’s higher up on this page. Search for “National Organization for Women (NOW)” and you’ll find it.

          • McSpinster says:

            Right. I found it.

            What do you want to know? And please try and narrow it down. I can’t write epistles on this stuff–nor do I want to.

          • Mary says:

            Right. Here goes. :)

            NOW is the official representative of feminism in America today. They speak for feminism in America. NOW makes it very clear that they put a lot of effort into promoting unfettered abortion “rights”. Abortion kills a child and does great damage to its mother. Therefore, much of NOW’s activity is bad and harmful to women. This supports Wintery’s claim that feminism is harming women.

  10. Guys, I have some concerns about some of the content that is appearing in the comments. I may have to close this thread and even filter some of the contents of the comments. I don’t feel safe talking about some of these things related to homosexuality given the hate speech law that Obama passed. I’m sorry!

    Please try to be careful with what you say in the comments on that topic.

  11. [...] Eight ways that feminists are ruining America’s women [...]

  12. McSpinster says:

    A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Therefore, A leads to D.

    There are so many false assumptions in what you set forth as “support” I don’t even know where to begin dissecting your logic. So I’m taking a pass.

    I will give you credit, however, for your unwavering support of WIntery. He is lucky to have such an advocate.

  13. Kyle says:

    I am a man in his early twenties and perhaps I can shed some light on how I view chivalry: I find that many of the women I meet feel as though I OWE it to them to open their doors, buy them their drinks, etc. But I outright refuse to unless I feel that you would do the same for me. It is extremely rare for a women to open a door for me, and its not as though I care, but if you wouldnt do that for me then Ill let the door just slam in your face. With that being said when I meet a women and over a period of time where I get to know her and she earns my respect I will go to the ends of the earth for her. But to the earlier female poster that said all unchivalrous men should be taken out of the dating pool, I think you need to ask yourself what YOU have done to deserve doors being opened for you. Why are YOU so great that you should be treated like such. I have no problem treating people with respect, but I will ABSOLUTELY not treat you like a princess because God gave you the hole. As far as how I feel about feminism, I am christian and I feel that although it was good to get women the right to vote and equal pay, modern feminism is evil and ungodly. The world is at a turning point, and feminism is just one of the things separating God’s people from those who oppose Him.

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

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,426,970 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,104 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,104 other followers

%d bloggers like this: