Victory or Defeat

A number of bloggers have been covering the relatively recent phenomenon of “Women Against Feminism”, or “I Don’t Need Feminism Because….” Free Northerner has a post up today, Motte & Bailey Example, where he offers some thoughts on the subject. A snippet:

The WAF are rejecting modern feminism while fully accepting the equality nonsense of first-wave feminism and the women-in-the-workforce concepts as givens, then thinking these are not a part of feminism. Sadly (and to their own detriment), the women are only rejecting contemporary feminism while accepting all of feminism’s original values and goals. If modern feminists weren’t so utterly stupid and evil they’d rejoice and call it a day, they won so very hard that even anti-feminists uphold feminist goals and values.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

Vox at Alpha Game has a short post up as well, Nothing Angers A Slave-Owner More. Some brief thoughts by him:

Aging feminists are angry that women are wisely beginning to turn away from an insane and incoherent ideology that is societal and civilizational suicide. And that anger is a positive sign that the equalitarian wave is finally beginning to recede.

He is responding to a feminist attack against WAF, so it is worth reading the entirety of his post as well.

I’m still compiling my own thoughts on the subject, and a full post will have to wait until later. I might even do two, as I’ve been meaning to write a post on the different “strains” of Feminism for a while now. But I do have a few I can share right now. Here they are:

  • The “Women Against Feminism” are, despite thinking otherwise, still actually feminists. They just don’t realize it. They are rebelling against the more visible and extreme “strains” of feminism right now, but fail to realize that they are still believers in the older, less virulent strains.
  • The WAF are not taking their stand, for the most part, for altruistic reasons. One way or another they see this as beneficial to them, or to those close to them. Perhaps they have seen a father, brother, boyfriend/husband who has suffered because of the more virulent strains of feminism, and it has turned them against that strain.
  • The emergence of WAF represents an overreach by radical feminists. As I mentioned above, women are doing this because it is advantageous. This signifies that radical feminism is causing some kind of problem for these women. What is it? Something to be addressed in another post.
  • There are reasons to see what is going on as both a victory, and a defeat, for civilization. FN points out, correctly, that feminism is in the air we breath, and thus in some respects civilization has lost. On the other hand Vox points out the emergence of this movement is a defeat for the enemies of civilization, as it challenges some of their beliefs and actions.
  • WAF is probably a sign that the non-egalitarian elements of feminism (the outright hatred of men) are on the wane, but the egalitarian aspects are still going strong. That isn’t as much improvement as some might think.
  • I see what is happening as an opportunity. It might be possible to reach out to some of these young women and convince them that they need to go further in their rejection of feminism. Not all, of course, as they are benefiting (often greatly) from the fruits of earlier waves/strains of feminism. But if we don’t try we won’t win any of them over.

That is all for now. If anyone else has some thoughts on the subject, feel free to mention them in the comments.

Advertisements

29 Comments

Filed under Femininity, Feminism, Women

29 responses to “Victory or Defeat

  1. Ra's al Ghul

    Women are the primary beneficiaries of civilization (even though they don’t see it that way, but it is their nature to always be dissatisfied) and always have been, and their motives have always been what is in their best interests.

    I personally see this as the more virulent man hating has negatively impacted their life and so they are rejecting it, I doubt it is about a male sibling or father (there may be exceptions) but it is more about what they want.

    They want attention and orbiters and the current anti male environment is making the orbiter’s withdraw, especially on campus, in schools where the harassment laws are draconian.

    And then on the flip side are the other types of men, the ones they are attracted to aren’t playing nice either because there is no incentive to do so.

    They want the equality with a large helping of male deference and attention, and to get it they’re playing “I’m sugar and spice” but they are still feminists, still churchian.

    One may smile and smile and be a villain. I see them as more dangerous than the lunatic angry man hating feminists. If all women were like that, men would revolt, but from the sweet ones offering the same poison, they gladly drink from the cup.

  2. @ Ra’s al Ghul

    I see them as more dangerous than the lunatic angry man hating feminists.

    They quite possibly are. The “softer” strains of feminism are more dangerous, in my opinion. At least in the long-term.

  3. femininebutnotfeminist

    As for the last bullet point about this being an opportunity to win some of them over, I fully think we can do it. I for one will be attempting to do this with my own blog, with my first post coming within the week (written and ready to go), once I figure out how to get the thing set up properly. Others can do so too, as long as they do it from a place of love and purpose to help, not showing anger and bitterness when dealing with these women (which won’t help their efforts any).

  4. @ FBNF

    Good to hear that your blog is going up soon. And I agree we can win them over, especially if we avoid anger and bitterness.

  5. WAF rejects pop culture feminism, like the MRAs. Ladiesagainstfeminism also known as “LAF” are the real women against feminism.
    What WAF and MRAs do is reject “feminism” only to pick up egalitarianism.
    It is all futile really.

  6. @ Lovely

    What WAF and MRAs do is reject “feminism” only to pick up egalitarianism.

    Yup.

    It is all futile really.

    This I’m curious about.

  7. WAF, MRAs, and feminists are all the same. They shoot themselves in the foot. These days, MRAs are starting to become worse than feminists, which is saying a lot.

  8. Re the different strains of feminism….its all one big gobstopper
    http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/feminism-the-everlasting-gobstopper/

    Re WAF…. I’ve been sighing over this because ladiesagainstfeminism.com has existed for a long time now (in internet years), yet they go unnoticed. Goes to show if you aren’t on twitter/tumblr your cause is invisible as the masses don’t have time or the brain power to read anything deeper than a few tweets and signs.
    Now all of a sudden a bunch of women hold up some signs, poke out their chest, and claim to be anti-feminist and there is a mad rush to applaud them without looking a bit deeper, just like the RPW.

    Like I said here,
    http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/the-game-of-appearance/

    Women are going to be quick to adopt anti-feminist talking points and put on the appearance to get men and attention. Some truly are legit, but it takes discernment, not a hasty “OMG this is so great…look at all the anti-feminist women!!”

  9. @ Lovely

    I agree that they are close to the same thing. I’ll take your word on the MRAs becoming worse- I don’t really pay much attention to them.

  10. @ LGR

    I remember that first post you linked- an oldie but goodie. I’ll be sure to mention it in my next post.

    Missed your second linked post, however. Good point about deception being a key part of both the feminist agenda and lifestyle. Ignorance and self-delusion play a big role too. Once again, the key is to believe what women do, not what they say.

  11. theshadowedknight

    While the women against feminism are just as implicitly feminist as the more explicit, radical feminists, they are not safe yet. Most of the men commenting are men’s rights types. The women are having a fight, and the only men that show up are the masculinists to the feminists. Think about what that means.

    Men have either missed the news, or ignored the women against feminism. They do not care enough. Whether by tuning out or just looking away, they are staying out of it. The walkaways are not coming back, yet. A little spat online is nothing.

    Seriously, where are the men? Why are both sides being ignored by the men they want to reach? If a woman against feminism makes an offer and no man is around to hear, does it matter what exactly it is?

    The Shadowed Knight

  12. mdavid

    Christians should reflect that God is in control. His winnowing fork is active and the feminist chaff gets blown away in the breeze. Along with any civilization who drinks it. Feminism isn’t any ordinary sin. It’s a complete repudiation of God’s creation and natural law; a mortal sin if there ever was one.

    For the irreligious: any Darwinist can see how a monogamist K-strategy primate kicks the s**t out of single parent low-breeding feminists over time, both in quantity and quality of offspring. Feminism will ever be a big worldwide…it simply dies off too fast. It’s a first-order extinction trait, like being sterile. More sad than scary.

    I agree we can win them over, especially if we avoid anger and bitterness.

    I’m skeptical many feminists (male or female) will convert before they die off. It’s too disordered of a sin to be blithely dropped once accepted. Of course with God all things are possible, but I would be modest in expectations. A lonely, hopeless, unloved old age is the most likely end for feminists (and any civilization that tolerates it). Feminists won’t go out with a bang, but with a demographic whimper.

  13. Novaseeker

    I see this as more of a consolidation movement than anything really anti-feminist. Being anti-feminist in toto is a very radical position. That’s not what this is. This is consolidation of “good feminism” while rejecting “bad feminism”. In that, it mimics what we call “conservatism”, in that it consolidates “gains” made by progressives several decades ago under the guise of opposing further radicalism. Slow boat strategy, rather than no boat strategy.

  14. @ mdavid

    I’m skeptical many feminists (male or female) will convert before they die off.

    I agree. I should have included a qualifier in there. A majority will not see reason, or will be so motivated by perceived short-term self interest that they cannot be swayed.

    As you point out, this is a self-correcting problem.

    What has been is what will be,
    and what has been done is what will be done;
    and there is nothing new under the sun.

  15. @ Novaseeker

    I think you perhaps give it too much credit. Just don’t see a “strategy” here. This doesn’t seem to be some organized effort to consolidate gains. Rather, it seems to be either a reaction to a perceived blowback by men to feminism or a recognition that there is some value and gain to be made by speaking up against what is -now- considered to be feminism.

    Of course, as you point out this is an inherently conservative movement. Whether consolidation is the goal or not, it certainly shows how many gains have been made.

  16. Hmm…this seems rather cynical. Why the friendly fire? And to what end? I think the “They’re still feminists” line is making a lot of assumptions. It (seemingly) assumes that we can or even should attempt to create a radical sub-culture (like the Amish) in which we live out a patriarchal ideal (because that would be the only way to prove that one has really eschewed feminism). For clear reasons, that is neither feasible for most, nor even what Scripture or the Church demands of us.

    It also assumes that certain advances attributed to feminism, for instance, greater vocational choices, are necessarily bad and anti-patriarchal, which is not true on its face. More reasons would need to be given to show that. Moreover, the accusation doesn’t offer any concrete alternative. ISIS and Hamas advocate patriarchy. Is that what we’re talking about? And if not, then what? I say that because if you don’t lay out a clear vision of what the alternative is supposed to be, you can constantly pop up and say, “Uh oh, I still see a strand of feminism lurking there!” It’s a moving target.

    It also underestimates the real divergence of desires among women and the fact that there are plenty of women who haven’t bought into the messages they’ve been sent. One of the problems of focusing so much on bad behavior in a group is that one comes to only be able to see that group in a negative light.

  17. DJ

    Why should they go all the way? ,they wouldn’t gain anything. The current approach is probably the best of both worlds in terms of preserving their femininity as well as keeping their rights. Not to mention altruism is rarely without some ulterior motive or motivation. Humans are taught to be altruistic we don’t generally come with it preprogrammed.

  18. theshadowedknight

    ISIS and Hamas advocate patriarchy.

    Gentlemen, the Motte.

    You know, just once, I want an opponent who has a novel disagreement. Is that too much to ask? Instead, we get the same arguments, the same points. Over, and over, and over, again. Not only do they lack anything more, they are incapable of providing it if they did.

    Just as a reminder, Denise, if Islamic Patriarchy is such a terribly awful thing… why are women converting to Islam three to one?

    The Shadowed Knight

  19. @Donal— Thank you.

    @Denise—
    Feminism is a disease that can’t be cured. it is a virus that lives within that can go dormant for periods of time, but it is always there to be managed.
    http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/feminism-disease/

    I still have feminism in me just as much as any of the female commenters in these parts. To make the claim of being anti-feminist and “not like that” is to be in denial. I have said for a long time, over and over again, that while I abhor feminism and am technically anti-feminist, I am still “like that”.

    What is frustrating is those who use anti-feminism talking points, red pill, to snag a man. I feel some, not all, use them as a ploy, girl game, to get a man interested in them and this blindsides him to her true nature that will surely be revealed at some point. A man might come across the most anti-feminist, submissive, even godly, woman, but he may have caught her when the feminism disease inside of her was dormant and then when there is an outbreak he is at a loss of how to manage and handle her.

  20. Ras Al Ghul

    “Why the friendly fire?”

    Have you ever noticed that when someone uses judgment or discernment, it gets described as an act of violence. It is like misconstruing the “let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone” (which in the story was literal) to mean you can not judge or say someone’s behavior is wrong, like the words themselves are just the same as acting out violently.

    I would actually see this as a victory if the women were saying they were against feminism and gave reasons like “Because being a mom is the most important thing a woman can do” or “a woman’s place is with her man”

    All things most women recoil from and get shamed for (I remember Natalie Portman and at various times other women getting grief for making statements to the effect that her most important role was being a mom, and she’s no conservative antifeminist).

    “Moreover, the accusation doesn’t offer any concrete alternative.”

    Over at chateau heartiste, a woman linked over to her blog a few days ago about her role as her husband’s Daasi. It was consensual, and it appeared to make her very happy.

    Considering the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey this seems like the most rational alternative.

  21. DJ

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
    I can’t imagine many women would desire going back to this. I sure wouldn’t want so many limitations

  22. mdavid

    DJ, three of your points, 1) birth control pill, 2) elite education, 3) working woman…are all demographic death to any willing to eat the apple. Said women are simply are not competitive (i.e., lack of grandchildren). Who cares what women (or men) “desire”, anyway? Especially when those desires conflict with survival.

  23. mdavid

    Denise, Hmm…this seems rather cynical. Why the friendly fire?

    Because feminism-lite is merely halfway to feminist. One is never “partially” feminist; a fish is either swimming upstream or is washed down.

    We’ve all met lots of chicks (and guys) like this. Typically winners in the sexual marketplace who can “afford” to be magnanimous and want the best of all worlds. But in truth, one either loves the differences between the sexes…or they don’t. Those who don’t celebrate sexual differences (e.g., most of these women preaching gender “equality”) are often more tricky and dangerous to men than the honest version. Give me an honest feminazi any day.

  24. I’m going to write a post later today (might not post it until tomorrow) which will try and expand and clarify some of the things mentioned by a few commenters here. Its main point will be why you cannot have “feminism-lite”, as mdavid called it. Or Egalitarianism, which is really the same thing as Lovelyleblanc pointed out.

  25. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ DJ,

    Limitations are good for us… they help to keep us out of trouble. Besides, apart from the part about women making far less money for doing the exact same job, there’s nothing in that article you linked that a woman should even want to do. Just because we’re free to do more things today doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. As a general rule, women haven’t proven to be the best decision makers… far from it. We would be better off not having to worry about that stuff, but leaving it to our husbands, who are better at carrying such burdens. Then there’s the moral issues with some of what’s in that article.

    @ Igrobins,

    I would be careful with saying that to be “like that” is to be “feminist”, as the two (as far as I can tell) don’t seem to be identical. For example, I’m pretty sure that part of being “like that” is to be more emotion-brained than rational-brained (which 100% of women are), but that’s not necessarily a symptom of being a feminist. Though, there isn’t an official list of “like that” traits that I’m aware of, which I think is another reason to be careful not to confuse the two. There might be some overlapping traits on each list, and each woman will have some traits and not have others, we’re not all alike. What I’m trying to say is that we are all (in some ways, but not all) “like that” to some degree, but we aren’t all feminists.

  26. The “Women Against Feminism” are, despite thinking otherwise, still actually feminists. They just don’t realize it. They are rebelling against the more visible and extreme “strains” of feminism right now, but fail to realize that they are still believers in the older, less virulent strains.

    Yes, and I’m not entirely sure that they are unaware of it either.

    As I’ve said before on sister sites, and will repeat until I’m well beyond blue in the face and am in the throes of suffocation, ALL women, even those who not only do not consider themselves feminists, but who bristle at the term, have enjoyed spillover benefits from the first two waves of feminism that they are NOT about to give up without a nasty fight. These benefits have given them “independence” that they’ve never had before while still allowing them to throw themselves at men for protection and shelter when the results of the choices they’ve made as StrongIndependentWomen[TM] blow up in their faces. Being given a slab of tiramisu with the option of also eating it, no matter what the cost to men, children, society at large, and ultimately themselves is too overwhelming a temptation to pass up.

  27. Pingback: Unbalanced Equation | Donal Graeme

  28. Novaseeker

    I think you perhaps give it too much credit. Just don’t see a “strategy” here. This doesn’t seem to be some organized effort to consolidate gains. Rather, it seems to be either a reaction to a perceived blowback by men to feminism or a recognition that there is some value and gain to be made by speaking up against what is -now- considered to be feminism.

    Of course, as you point out this is an inherently conservative movement. Whether consolidation is the goal or not, it certainly shows how many gains have been made.

    I think I probably could have written the comment more clearly.

    My reference to strategy was to conservatism in general — it’s the slow boat strategy, in general, and this is the approach it has to feminism. Not that these women are pursuing a political or socio-political strategy per se — I agree that they are not, in general, doing that.

    What I do think they are doing, however, is looking around them, liking what they see, not wanting more “radical feminists” like Valenti/Marcotte/et al messing that up, and so not wanting to upset the applecart that they have. That applecart, of course, is thoroughly and 100% feminist — the air we breathe is feminist, as FN rightly notes. So to be antifeminist is not to be in favor of the status quo (i.e., things are fine, we just don’t need more radical changes and man-hating), but to be against the status quo and a kind of restorationist/reactionary. If you are in favor of the status quo, you are, in effect, seeking to consolidate the gains of feminism to date, whether you are doing that consciously (as in a strategy) or not.

  29. Pingback: The Different Strains Of Feminism | Donal Graeme

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