Wednesday, October 19, 2011

F**K Feminism: We're better off without it (by anon)

{From the diary of an independent, liberated, college educated, woman of today}

Dear Diary,
       It's so nice being an independent woman. I'm in school, I can be considered for jobs, vote, run for political office, drive a car, own land, buy a house, apply for a credit card, and make my own wages to support it all. I can even talk about things only men used to talk about, like politics and philosophy, and I like feeling smart by being able to partake in intellectual conversations. It’s really nice not needing to depend on a man in my life…except when it comes to my sexual urges. Luckily, that's not a problem these days. Back when women were still dependent on men, if I wanted to have sex, I'd have to either get married first (in case I got pregnant, in which case I would need a husband for support), or I'd be severely ridiculed for having premarital sex. But now, as a woman, I can have sex without having to worry about any of that! For one, I can easily prevent having a kid in the first place by using birth control, condoms, spermicide, the morning after pill, and even abortions (and if I can't afford this stuff on my own, I could just get it for free at Planned Parenthood). And second, even if I did have a kid and became a single mom, I could still qualify for state aid and even get child support from the so-called "father". So it's win-win. I love being so independent. I'm so glad the feminists pushed so hard over the years, just so I could become this independent.

     Ah... but I still think sometimes that it would be nice to have a relationship and even have a family to come home to every day, but I'd need to find a guy who is willing to stay at home and do a good job housekeeping and raising the kids, plus I'd have to be attracted to him. More importantly, he would need to be smart enough to do these things the way I wanted them to be done. That would really make me happy. It'd be kind of like having a servant in a way, but I would still love him and treat him nicely and provide for him, as long as he did what I wanted him to, and didn't argue too much with me. However, if we couldn’t agree on things, and I couldn’t force him to do things my way, I'd probably have to replace him. This could be difficult because some guys might not like that I had kids already, and some guys have careers and plans for a family of their own, and some guys just don't like being bossed around, so my chances of finding the right guy might not be good. Plus, I'd have to find one I was really attracted to. And I don't want to be a single mom (even though I could get state aid and/or child support). Daycare is really expensive (not to mention I don't like the idea of strangers practically raising my kids), and I don't really know anyone personally who could take care of my kids regularly while I'm at work. And I certainly could not sacrifice my career - I'd need it to earn money to support my kids and myself (plus, how would I pay off college loans, and what would college have been for then?).

    Now that I'm thinking about all this... for some reason, I wish I was the one who was being pursued for the needs of someone else, instead of vice versa. What's more is... strangely, I kind of wish I didn't busy myself with things like politics, philosophy, earning money, getting a PhD, building a career, figuring out how to support a family, purchasing a house, or even writing about this. I guess in a way, I wish I could be the so-called “servant” I described above, and as long as I could choose my so-called “master”, and he would vow to love me and treat me nicely by marrying me, I wouldn't mind doing things the way he wanted me to. It'd probably be a simpler, more relaxed, and better life overall for me. I wouldn't have to worry about so much.

    But those damn feminists... why did I think being independent and having all of these rights was so great and that it was best for me to assert them? I'm so stressed out all of the time, and it's really hard to value both family and my independent lifestyle... I wish I never went to college. I've screwed up my life. But I never knew any better. Everyone told me to go to college. What else was I to do in a society that encouraged women to go to college and said, "If you're smart, you should go to college. That way, you'll earn good money by having a career, and will never have to depend on anyone" ? Because of the society I was brought up in, I believed it would have been a huge mistake not to invest in college, start my own career, and thus, pursue the independent lifestyle. I guess the truth is though, I shouldn't have believed that, because although independence for women used to be a good, progressive thing in my mind... I just don’t think that is truly the case anymore. Independence for women really seems to be regressive and actually has weakened human prosperity overall. I'm pissed about feminism. It hasn't helped me even though I'm a woman. In fact, it fucked up my life more than anything because it created this society that was made to conform to feminist ideas, by deeming any rejection of feminism as "oppressive" or "sexist". Well I think I LIKE sexism. I think patriarchal gender roles have generally worked well for the human race, and they have worked well for a reason, which is Nature. So fuck feminism. Our society doesn't need it. It was created by misguided, headstrong women who were full of pride, selfishness, and jealousy (and probably too much testosterone), and who did not understand what was in their own best interest, and that of future society. I'm convinced we'd be much better off without feminism.


  1. Niccoló' Machiavelli's The Prince was a piece of satire that was misunderstood by most as a serious work, and as a result its unique brand of self-serving behavior paved the way for Ayn Rand's morally and artistically disgusting novels (which paved the way for Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, which mocked the childish extremity of Ayn Rand's dystopias and...was similarly misinterpreted as a serious takedown of Communism).

    I haven't decided yet if this post is serious or satirical. You could save a lot of people a lot of trouble if you clarified it down here. It's disappointing, but sometimes things must be spelled out lest future freshmen are forced to read next generation's Atlas Shrugged, which you won't have written but I will surely hold you accountable for.

  2. this piece is terrible. you acknowledge that you have greater freedom due to feminism. you then ignore the fact that freedom does not entail obligation (you can be a stay-at-home mother if you want. nobody is stopping you; it's just no longer a tacit assumption). in other words, you basically claim, "because of this freedom, I made choices which, in hindsight, I don't believe I personally should have made. I hold feminism responsible (and not myself)." forgive me for saying that that isn't terribly convincing.

    then you somewhat change gears, claiming that "society does not need feminism." okay. how so? because you hold it responsible for your stressful life (non sequitur)? because of "nature" (naturalistic fallacy)? you haven't really established any sort of reason to get behind your message other than baseless complaints and insults.

    by the way, that testosterone bit? way out of line.

  3. 10:42
    I would say this post is half and half.
    It is exaggerated and a bit "out there".
    However, it shouldn't be difficult to believe that perhaps there are women out there who might feel some of the same things written in this post, particularly when it comes to starting families and holding onto desired relationships with men.
    You are right that this post does seem to place blame on feminism for the choices made by the poster. Feminism creates choice, not obligation. Maybe it's capitalism that led to the obligation - the need for each individual to work and earn an income and pay taxes. Yet if capitalism is the problem (and society's message that everyone must have something to "do" after high school, or they won't "make it"), there is now no reason everyone, males and females, can't be put to work so to fuel the country's economy. For as many women there are taking on the previous roles of men, are there as many men taking on the previous roles of women? I don't know. What I see is, the family is put on the back burner, while the household income is now the main priority (not to say that there are no cases in which it is actually impossible to raise a family unless both parents work - just to say that a lot of times, both parents don't NEED to work to raise a child, but they CHOOSE to both work so they can live more comfortably). Today, it seems it is more important for both parents to work than it is to raise a strong family, and I see that as a problem. Not to mention increased divorce rates don't help the situation - basically, there is no "glue" holding families together anymore. The "glue" that used to be there was the female dependence on males, and without that, it seems like strong families are going down the drain, and when strong families go down the drain, so does human prosperity. I wouldn't advocate that all females should do X and all males should do Y, just that at least one should take care of the family while the other takes care of the income. Before, families had that kind of direction, because there was no other option. It's like we've sacrificed family bond for the desire to live independently, with our actions centered around satisfying our own selfish desires (for money, sex, etc.) rather than looking out for future generations.

    I'm surprised no one commented on the first paragraph in which it was talked about how free a woman was to have sex these days without having to worry about becoming pregnant or being unable to support a child in the event she did get pregnant. Sex used to be something that was directly connected to having children. Now it seems it is mostly connected to pleasure. Why is that?

    Perhaps it is the family that seems most at risk, whether it is extreme feminist ideas that have led women to believe their place in the home was not as valuable as a man's place in the public sphere, or whether it is because capitalistic agendas that have led women to feel obligated to go out and make a living for themselves. Whatever it is, the family is deteriorating, and the value of having a family and raising it with one parent at home and the other at work, is decreasing.

  4. Anony1 here. So it is safe to say that you are Not Kidding...?

  5. Yeah, that's really smart. Let's hope that your husband will always love you and stay with you. Because if he leaves, you are so screwed! Go to college. Get an education so that you don't have to depend on someone else taking care of you.

    You sound like you want to turn your brain off. Tired of thinking?

  6. What do you mean you LIKE sexism? You're a hypocrite, if this post is really for real. You want us to take you seriously, as if your viewpoint counts. But if sexism is true, your viewpoint is not one we should value because you are a woman. You're an estrogen bag full of emotions only wanting kids and to shop. Why should anyone listen to you and you're trying to form something rational? THAT'S sexism. THAT'S what you like? If so, start devaluing yourself and silence yourself.

    But if you value your viewpoint and think that others should do the same, then you are not a fan of sexism like you think you are.

  7. Not worth reading! First, it's too long for a blog piece. I am surprised that it was even posted after all the crap about posting an argument. There should be some sort of limit on posts. Besides, who the heck wants to read some sort of elongated diary entry even if it's written tongue and cheek. So what is the frigging argument here? All I see from my quick scan is reverse male hostility.

  8. 12:06, if you are the author of the original post, you've backpedaled very hard. Which is fine, but I just want to remove any illusion that you are continuing to defend your initial position (that feminism is bad, or whatever).

    Anyway, your argument is much better now in that it has some coherence to it. You seem to be saying that:

    - Traditional families are crucial (for the advancement of society, for overall happiness, whatever).
    - Traditional families are deteriorating lately.
    - They're largely deteriorating because of feminism.
    - Therefore, feminism is bad.

    I would agree that sexism probably has the side-effect of strengthening the "traditional family." There are two ways of addressing this:

    1) we find another way to reinforce traditional families. Surely sexism is not the only way to achieve this!

    2) we re-evaluate the usefulness of traditional families in the first place. I personally think traditional families are pretty lame. I like to associate with people based on their awesomeness rather than genetic proximity, but that's just me. In any case, we need to acknowledge the possibility that traditional families aren't necessarily the optimal social structure.

    I choose 2. Since you really really seem to like families or whatever, you should probably pick 1. Either way, this leaves no room for "sexism is good," "feminism is bad," or other defeatist stuff. I'm left wondering why you even bothered to bring up feminism in the first place!

  9. I just fell in love with "girl."

  10. Great comment *girl*. I'd love to read a response from the original poster.

  11. Micah B said... God has established the roles for men and women. Adam took care of the family. Eve tricked him and got him to eat the apple, so she is punished by pain in child birth. She was created by God after Adam using one of his ribs. She serves her husband. This is all in the Bible so if you reject this you reject the essence of Jesus and Christianity.

  12. The Hulk

    Better off without feminism. You would not even be in college but barefoot and pregnant.

  13. Ok this post really struck a chord. It was bold, passionate, and somewhat crude, but not without meaning. It was exaggerated and off kilter, but was based on a belief that feminism, in itself, does not necessarily have to be taking society in a "good" direction, as the common consensus will tell you. That's all. It wasn't meant to say that we should reverse it or anything like that.

    My question is, if two persons arrive at a stop sign at the same time, doesn't one have to take the initiative in order for either party to go anywhere? Yes. So one does. And the other follows accordingly.
    I would guess that this is somewhat analogous to how things occurred between males and females thousands of years ago. Somehow, the males ended up taking the initiative. We question why? and how? Well, naturally of course, for some natural purpose.
    Now the one party is taking back the initiative, but at what cost? Of course there will be clashes and resistance. On an individual level, maybe it's doing a "good" thing. On a societal level... maybe it's not.
    Maybe it's another step towards a transcendent state of affairs and maybe we will eventually have a society in which no one has power over anyone and we are all divinely equal.
    Maybe it'll lead to simply another shift in power, or just ultimately, self-destruction.
    Who knows?
    In any case, I wouldn't take this blog too seriously. I'm glad it raised eyebrows. Had to throw it out there, but probably could have used a better approach considering how outlandish and ridiculous the thought is.

  14. 2:49
    What's wrong with being barefoot and pregnant?

  15. There's nothing wrong with being barefoot and pregnant IF THAT IS WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO under ceteris paribus conditions. If you are duped into thinking that that is what you SHOULD do because that is the proper place for women (whether by "nature" or some other form of reasoning), then you are part of the sexist problem of America.

    I think one thing should be made abundantly clear. There are more than one kind of feminism. There are FEMINISMS (plural). I, for one, believe/argue that there are quite plausible versions of feminism that everyone should hold to if they believe in equality for all. These are of the variety of liberal feminism. There are other kinds of feminisms that I believe go too far in that they are either overtly against men, or they esteem "women's ways of knowing" as special knowledge that only women can have (beyond the experience of pregnancy), or they want dissolve the gender categories of "man" and "woman" wholesale. As for the last position, I argue that one can certainly identify oneself as a man or a woman in responsible ways consistent with a liberal feminism such that the categories are acceptable, non-oppressive identities. As of right now, the categories can cause harm, but there is no reason to think that we cannot change that with a change in attitude, a desire for action, and a reformulation of some of our infra-structures that perpetuate harmful spins on those identity categories.

    I know that much of what I just said needs more explanation, but I didn't want to write a paper on it at the moment...

  16. Why is your version of liberal feminism the correct way to go? What happened to choice that you pushed in your first sentence. It would appear to hold regardless of the version of endorse any version of feminism. Let me make this clear, one has a right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, as long as they do not do harm to others.

  17. You can only be a racist, sexist, or homophobe AND not hurt someone IF you live by yourself and have no contact with ANYONE else.

  18. I live alone. My name is Robinson Cruso! Does this meets with your approval. I have a right to be racist, sexist, or anything else for that matter, even if I live with someone or am active in society. That is my right! I am sure you agree.

  19. 9:37 -
    I don't know if that's true. There are plenty of ways to avoid harming people physically/mentally while still being any one of those things... it's called adhering to societal standards of morality, while still being immoral in principle.
    I would say that feminism is capable of doing harm, when it is expressed in such a way that makes individuals feel as though something is "bad" when in fact, it can be seen as "good", and vice versa.
    I understand feminists have made it so people are free to choose their lifestyle without being ridiculed, hated, and/or physically/mentally harmed, regardless of what society has chosen for them based on their outward, physical characteristics. And this is a good thing.
    What I don't understand is when I think of feminism, I think of how bad women had it back before they had rights, and how bad male dominance was, and how bad of a situation women used to be in, and how bad it was that the word "man" was used as the default, and how bad it was when men always opened doors for women... but I wonder was it really that bad, as though most women did not embrace their place in society and in their relationships? I don't want to have to believe it was all bad, when maybe it wasn't.
    While feminism liberated those individuals who felt the need to escape their socially forced position in society, at the same time, it pushed those individuals' viewpoint as though all women should feel the same.
    Or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about... and maybe any woman who didn't feel the same as these feminists was just too stupid to realize she was being screwed over.

  20. 12:40 - Hello Robinson. You certainly have a "right" to believe those things, but that doesn't make them "right." Legally fine, but morally not fine. We've been talking morality the whole time. Why are you changing the focus?

    9:37 - Call me a bit of a behavioralist, but if you are a racist (for instance), that will come out in your actions/words to some extent given a long enough timeline. If you are immoral in principle, but keep in line with society's standards of morality to the dot of the iota, then I'd say that you are not really immoral in principle. Actions reveal beliefs.

    But I guess I don't get the problem here. Who would seriously argue that racism is an okay belief to have? Why would anyone argue that sexism is good? Either position says that one group of people is superior to another group of people based on an arbitrary physical characteristic. Skin color, sex parts, all arbitrary. Why not pick length of fingers or number of freckles? I would think we would all agree that it is better to presume all equal for that is how we would want others to view ourselves.

    And the only way we can strive for that kind of equality is for us to become aware of the current situation. There may be better and worse interpretations of our situation (hence the plural of "feminisms"), but it is all in the name of uncovering what's going on so that we can improve. If that's not the project, then the project is misguided in my eyes.

  21. 6:57

    Lets change the focus back then. I do not accept your moral code. I have my own moral code. I will obey the dominant culture moral code only because it is backed by force. I have a right both legally and morally (my own code) to be a racist or a sexist. You have the right to be against these isms both legally and morally.

    This statement is pure bullshit. People's beliefs and actions almost never match. People can do horrible things to others completely contrary to their beliefs. People have always been consistently inconsistent.

    I never said racism or sexism was okay, just that it is my right to believe anything that I desire regardless of what you or society thinks about it. Skin color may be arbitrary in humans but it has a profound impact on one's life chances. There are very few white people who would change places with a black person, even some blacks do not want to be black and cross over if they are light enough to do so.

    Sex parts, by this I think you mean female breasts and buttocks have real social impact in society. Women with good bodies understand the social power it gives them. Beauty translates into better jobs, and numerous social advantages.

    Robinson Cruso

  22. "I have my own moral code."

    Right. The argument, then, is that your moral code is flawed in some way. I'm not going to make that argument, though. I'm more interested in posing the following question: are you willing to do the predictable thing, and suggest that "your moral code is logically unassailable simply because it *is* your moral code"?

    Because, if so: congratulations. That's what we call a Religion.

  23. Ugh I hate the words "superiority" and "inferiority". These are translations of situations - for example: In a relationship between a man and a woman, we say that before feminism came about, women were "inferior" to men. That's a translation of circumstances. So it gives way for this argument:

    Premise 1 - It is wrong for a group to be considered superior to another based on arbitrary physical traits (I agree with this).
    Premise 2 - The relationship between men and women throughout human history is one in which men were considered superior to women.
    Conclusion - Relationships between men and women have been wrong throughout history.

    So this is how we've translated history. Ok? What if I don't translate it that way? I understand the motives for changing the relationship between men and women - because some women do not want to take the "man" role, and some men don't want to take the "woman" role, and they should be free to do what they want. But why not present feminism this way instead of presenting it in a way that just dubs the history of the relations between men and women as wrong? Why has feminism been presented to me as an argument for how awful it is that women didn't have the same rights as men, because they were (gasp!) expected to have babies and care for the family/household because they were females and had the physical means to do so? Back in the day, if someone was born without the "equipment" to bear a child, well they were expected to be a provider for someone who did have that "equipment". It all comes down to who could have babies, and who could not.
    Now that we see anyone can have babies, single moms, single dads, male partners, female partners, we don't need that structure of a family in which a male and female must be together to have a family. And that's not a problem at ALL. Unfortunately, some feminists don't seem to advocate JUST that idea. They advocate a whole crap load of ideas about how men and women should be equal - and how male dominance is so wrong and THAT'S why feminism is good.
    Well, feminists, I understand your motives for making it possible for women to be equals in the public sphere. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to back up your motives with spiels about men being "superior" to women and that when a man gets the check at dinner handed to him, it is assuming the woman is "inferior" and cannot support herself. Big fucking deal! That has nothing to do with what feminism really is trying to accomplish! So leave that shit out of your argument! Let's focus on the current situation, and not so much the terrible history you seem to like to project in order to fill our minds with useless nonsense about the historical relationship between men and women being wrong, as though we wouldn't just accept the fact that some women/men want to do things that differ from the social expectation.

  24. Also - it seems to be an argument that the patriarchal relationship between men and women necessarily made it so it was OK for men to mistreat women by beating them, raping them, and literally making them into slaves. Well, I think that some men are just going to try to do that regardless, and we see it is still happening today, even though we have made a lot of progress when it comes to the legal aspect of protecting women in these situations. So basically, I don't want to hear that patriarchy was wrong and was "made up" so men could have their way. Sure, patriarchy did little to protect women from the harmful behaviors of men, but don't blame patriarchy FOR those harmful behaviors. Blame the individual men themselves.

  25. Anon 12:51 here - The sentence should read "Some women do not want to take the "woman" role...some men do not want to take the "man" role". Not the other way around.

  26. Girl, I do not have a religion. One person cannot have a religion the same reason one person cannot have an exclusive language. Why in the heck would I say my moral code is flawed, perhaps your moral code is flawed, or perhaps all moral codes are flawed. They all change periodically, from eating flesh as done during the period of corpse medicine during the Renaissance to respecting human beings. Moral codes are nothing more than contingent social agreements.

  27. I thought this was interesting given the recent discussion about feminism (source:

    "Ironically enough, feminism has also been very good for marital health and stability. At least according to Stephanie Coontz, a scholar of history and family studies who has written extensively on marriage in the United States. In her book, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s, Coontz argues that the changes that Betty Friedan and other feminists of her time agitated for have actually been good for marriage. The divorce rate has fallen and actually tends "to be lowest in states where more than 70 percent of married women work outside the home," Coontz reports. What's more, "The specialization into separate gender roles that supposedly stabilized marriages in the 1950s and 1960s, actually raises the risk of divorce today." Working outside the home, says Coontz, is also good for a couple's sex life.

    A recent study from the Pew Research Center also aserts that working wives are beneficial to marriages. This study showed that shifts within marriages -- specifically, men taking on more housework and women earning more outside the home -- have contributed to lower divorce rates and happier unions. One couple found that just shifting their traditional gender roles each summer did a lot to strengthen their marriage."

  28. This post is possibly the most backwards view of feminism I have ever read...

    So the women who wanted freedom were wrong in pursuing such a thing solely because YOU want to live traditionally, as a servant of men? Well, no one's stopping you, but, should you ever realize you're more than a piece of meat, you always have the freedom to go make a life for yourself. Thank feminism.

  29. Wow, you really are small-minded.