The Chauvinist Corner
I received the following email in response to my article Feminism: The American Invasion. I decided to put it up along with my replies to show what we are up against in our society today.
As a teacher who cares about options and futures available to both males and females, I find your "rant" particularly disturbing.
Ah, the heart of liberalism speaks. It is hardly surprising that the "teacher" is coming down on the side of the egalitarian Leftists. See how pleasant it sounds to be Leftist. You always "care." You are always looking out for folks. You are ready to sacrifice anything and everything for the sake of caring, especially the rights and freedom of every other member of society. It's okay though because you "care."
And what is it that you are willing to sacrifice our freedom for? "Options and futures available to both males and females." That is a very amusing distortion of the facts. You care not for the options and futures available to men at all. And you only care about the options and futures available to Leftist women, women who want to desperately to become men. The average woman, who would like to be home with her children you couldn't care less about. If her dream is crushed you celebrate it because it is one less traditionalist getting in the way of your phoney "utopia."
Now that the Left has a lock on nearly all forms of mass communication they do indeed find any sort of dissent voiced in opposition to their position to their power "disturbing." The very idea that someone just might think for themselves, rather than march to the drum of the party line, why it is outrageous!
Once again we are treated to a male who appears to be unable to understand the nature of the Women's Liberation Movement (not "lib" movement.)
It is gratifying to realize that you find myself such a treat to encounter. Still, your perception is obviously distorted, for I do not in actuality, nor appearance, misunderstand the feminist movement at all, no matter what you choose to call it. I simply point out the fact that the "emperor has no clothes," which collapses the power of your fairy tale.
It is simply a political and social movement whose goal is the opening of an opportunity structure for women of all situations.
There is nothing simple about the feminist movement. As soon as anyone tries to claim that it is simply anything, you know they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It is interesting to see the various ways that oppression can be made to sound palatable. Here we find that it is an "opportunity structure for women of all situations." When a company is sued into submission it is merely creating an "opportunity structure." And what is that structure created out of? Why the debris produced by the dismantling of our freedom, and nothing else. And the dishonesty of saying it is for "women of all situations" is so absurd that one wonders how anyone can still have the gall to put that sort of nonsense forward with a straight face. The homemaker who wanted nothing but to be a good wife and mother, is forced out of the home and into the market place by this movement. Her husband has been warped by the political propaganda put forward by teachers such as this, and insists that she go out and work, like all the other women are doing. The government has found it easier to raise taxes because of this process and now all of the woman's pay is taken by Uncle Sam, and the family has lost its mother in order to feed the Leftist political machine. Very nice for those "caring" people. But it is a tragedy for the children who have been abandoned in the process.
There is nothing sadder than seeing a girl come to the realization that her chances of pursuing any future are limited because of her gender.
This is absurd. Class, here is a simple assignment that will show this statement to be false on the face of it: take a pencil and number on your paper from one to ten. Now list beside each number, one thing sadder than having a limited future in the workplace. I will do number one for you. A girl finds out that she has cancer and will be dead in six months. That should appear sadder, even to a feminist. I am sure that the rest of the list will be just as easy for you to compile.
Moving beyond that, it grows tiresome to hear feminists speak of people being limited by the facts of life, as if that were a bad thing. Men are limited in what they can do as well. (Not that you care a bit about that!) Men cannot go up to a prospective employer and say, "You must hire me because I am a man." They have never been able to do that. The very idea of it is absurd. Men have always had to prove themselves worthy of the job and even then they often did not get the position. Intellect, physical prowess, and yes, even gender are valid limiting factors in many occupations. It is time that we stopped being so sad over that fact and once again move into reality.
Lastly, the feminist never sheds any tears over the poor woman who wants to be a homemaker. NEVER! It is not sad to them if she has that dream ripped from her by a society that has no use for those who would create the next generation of civilized human beings.
Government had nothing to do with the emergence of this movement.
This is so far from the truth that it is outrageous! If the government had not become involved first, through the courts, and later though the legislative process, there would be no feminist movement as we know it. Oh sure the lesbians would run around and bellyache that they did not fit into normal society, but nobody would care. It has been the government enforcing feminism that has made it the destructive force that it is today. I remember the sixties. The vast majority of women made a point of saying openly that they were not "Women's Libbers". It was not a popular movement that merely caught on to the masses. It was forced upon us through the government and media propaganda.
I believe that the collective behavior of men towards women produced the conditions from which a heightened sensitivity to women's issues developed.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own belief system. However, what you fail to point out is that no societal system is perfect, and the Leftist has always used imperfection as a wedge for his oppressive view. He always cries out for the "revolution" as if it were going to be pure heaven after he takes over. All during the sixties we heard this refrain, on several fronts. The Leftist was going to make life so much better for woman and everyone. It was far more difficult to sell that lie in America than it was in Russia. In the early 1900s, Russia lived in a poorer society, which was more oppressive under the Czar. In America during the 1950s we had freedom, we had wealth, we had solid families, the BEST schools in the world, a low crime rate, with the accompanying safe neighborhoods, and of course a very bright future before us. The Leftist had to try and find a way to make the very best society that had ever existed on planet earth to appear lacking and in need of change. Without help they could never have pulled it off.
What imperfection did the Leftist find to use against us? Why "the collective behavior of men towards women." Most women of the 1950s were living in luxury that few woman had ever dreamed of in previous centuries. They had nice homes, happy families and many new devices to make the work of caring for the house much easier for them. They had many fellow mothers to associate with, and to help supervise the children during the day, and things had never been better, for such a large portion of women, who had ever lived in any society before. The collective behavior of men was, at that time, to go out and work for their families, paying the bills and staying around to help support and raise the children for life.
To show the Leftist hypocrisy for what it is, what has been the result of the feminist movement upon this superb 1950s society? Today, men and women are divorced almost routinely. Very few marriages last throughout even the childrearing years, let alone through life. Women are forced into the workplace, and through the accompanied side effect of divorce, they are left with having to work full time and in addition to that, try to do the full time job of homemaker, all by themselves. Children no longer have to worry as they "wait till their fathers gets home" if they act up, and so they just act up more. In the teen years they often become very troubling, and even criminal. The one option that the vast majority of women wanted to be able to choose, that of being a good and happy homemaker, has been taken from them, and the Leftist smiles and says, "See what we have done for you?"
That shows clearly that feminism is not about "women's issues." NOW does not speak for women. It speaks for Leftist women only. When a feminist speaks of "women's" issues, he is speaking of issues that only concern Leftist women. Feminists do not care about women. They only care about their agenda, and promoting the destructive ideals of feminism. If killing three quarters of our wonderful women would accomplish that agenda, they would not hesitate to do it. (This was demonstrated during the Carter administration when the feminists were pushing hard to create a female draft, to force unwilling women into dangerous military service.)
What government actually did, however, was to remove (through law) men's options of limiting the futures of women and it brought the status of women into more direct compliance with the constitution.
It never ceases to amaze me that Leftists even refer to the constitution as if it were a document that they valued at all. Every one of their actions is directed at destroying the constitution and then they hold it up and say, "See how much we love the constitution." If you cared a whit about the constitution you would look at what the writers of that constitution practiced, and the laws that they created under it. You will notice that feminism played no part whatsoever in that arena. Women did not have the vote, and there were no laws which tried to limit the freedom of businessmen to run THEIR OWN BUSINESSES as they saw fit. Freedom was the intent, and liberty was the result of our constitution.
So, is it fair, accurate or honest to claim that what has transpired over the last 40 years has brought us into "more direct compliance with the constitution?" It is clear that we have moved in direct defiance of the constitution and its spirit. If society wishes to open the door of its businesses to women, then that is society's choice to make, not the government's. Since the constitution writers did not intend for government to interfere in such matters, obviously your claim that such interference is in line with the constitution is absurd. The constitution was intended to tie the government's hand, and to limit the power it has, so that it could not do what it has been doing recently: oppressing the people.
It is easy to come up with nice sounding excuses for oppression. Just think how fair it would be if we took all the money in the United States and just handed it out equally to all the people. Everyone is equally valuable, and so why shouldn't everyone have exactly the same amount of money? Oh, yes, it is easy to make oppression sound wonderful as the feminists do, but the results of their actions speak louder than all their rhetoric.
Men could no longer treat women with impunity. What a radical idea that women should be extended the same rights as men!
You mean what an absurd idea that women should be extended the same rights as men. Since men and women are different, they have different needs. If the same rights were extended to both sexes, women would, by definition have to be drafted into the military just like men, otherwise men would not the same rights as women. In divorces men would have to have custody of the children as often as woman. The right to a gender specific restroom would be null and void, for what if a man were to continue a business conversation in the restroom, leaving a woman out of it? Women right now are treated differently than men in many ways, by our legal system, and our society. They are treated better in many ways, than men. That is as it should be. If your assertion were taken seriously all of the special consideration for women would instantly disappear, and any legal issue that was considered "women's" would of course be cast aside as ridiculous for there would be no legal differences between two genders that have equal rights.
In a democracy such as ours, you do not have the right to limit anyone for any reason whatsoever.
Really? So, you are saying that I should be able to walk into a company and insist that they give me the CEO position along with the associated paycheck today. If you say no, you are limiting me and according to you, you have no such right. How is it that Leftists can get away with saying such stupid things in public? It is amazing to me.
Of course I have the right to create any limits I choose within my company. If I wish to hire only left-handed redheads, that is my constitutional (as originally written and understood) right! Neither you nor anyone else (especially the US government) has the right to tell me who to hire or promote in a business that I create from my own invested capitol. If I choose to limit women in my business then in a free society I have that right. If I choose to hire only women, I have that right. It is none of the government's business either way. It is a sign of how eagerly you support oppression that you are willing to throw out everyone's freedom in order for the government to make someone else follow your political agenda. That is not American, it is anti-American.
I still do not understand how some men are unable to see the obvious patterns of discrimination existing "out there," weather it be gender, racial, age, religious or whatever.
Of course, there are patterns of discrimination "out there." Nobody fails to see that. What you fail to see is that patterns of discrimination are a good thing! If you look at the Physics department in any major university, you have blatant discrimination going on. You will find that every member of the staff knows a great deal about physics and if a prospective employee doesn't, he will be discriminated against. If he has a low IQ he will be left out. That is what I want in my university! You should too. Discrimination means that you have some standard and you follow it. It is as simple as that, and every business has a right to set their own standard of discrimination. That is what a free society is all about. If you can come up with a better standard of discrimination than your competitor, and thereby hire a more productive workforce then you win the business game. Again, that is what a free society is all about. If a group of people are capable and left out by one business then they can either find another business or start their own. That too is what a free society is all about. The one thing that a free society is not about, and in fact cannot survive in the presence of, is government control of your actions. Never forget that freedom means being able to make stupid and wrong choices, as well as intelligent and correct choices. If the government makes your choices for you, you are no longer free.
When people tell us that their lives are unsatisfactory, it is up to us to listen and do what we can to improve the situation.
If you are a charity that may be true, but not a society. A society can choose for itself what it will listen to and what it will attempt to fix. It is up to the individual to fix his own life if it is unsatisfactory. Only in a totalitarian society, are people forced into taking care of others whom they would otherwise choose not to. In America the vast majority of people have always held their own future in their hands. It is up to them to make that future bright or dark. It is not the government's role to take care of people like they are some sort of undeveloped children.
Creating an evil government notion is not the way.
The government, any government, is a necessary evil. Ours is growing larger, and therefore more evil, every day. The Founding Fathers clearly understood this basic principle, when they set up the constitution to limit the government, and to keep it from doing what it is doing today. They believed that a government was a necessary evil, but it was inherently oppressive. The only solution to that problem is to keep the government small, and to limit the scope of what it is involved with. It is not merely some notion, but rather it is a fact, that as our government has grown larger, it has become more intrusive. It is attempting to control more of our daily lives, in addition to taking more of our pay checks to feed its oppressive self.
The totalitarianism you see is actually a constitutionally enforced set of rules you (by virtue of your citizenship) have agreed to live by.
No, the totalitarianism that exists, and therefore I see, is a radical departure from the constitution, which is a set of limitations upon the government that you refuse to acknowledge, or see. The constitution is a set of rules for the government, not for me. Laws must conform to the limits of the constitution. Government institutions must conform to the constitution. That is my protection from people like you who gain political power and want to run my life as you see fit.
Those "rules" are simply telling you that you can not act in ways which oppress people.
The "rules" of the constitution state that the GOVERNMENT cannot oppress people. It is amazing how you Leftists have managed to turn the correct role of our constitution in our society, into something the exact opposite of what it really is. The constitution says nothing about how I must act at all. It only says how the government must act, and it specifically opposes the types of oppressive measures you are promoting!
Is there some honor in being oppressive (e.g., the name "caveman.")
You should ask yourself that question. There is however, a great honor in standing against oppressive thought control (hence the name "caveman"). As the Leftist's grip is tightened upon our lives, it becomes ever more important that men AND WOMEN who hate what you stand for, let themselves be heard in a way that shakes up the Politically Correct mantra that is being broadcast daily from a thousand sources.
Maybe if you joined with women in achieving their liberation, you also would benefit from their gains.
The scary thing is that you probably really believe that. The average woman has made no gains at all. She has lost what is most dear to her: her family. She now lives a lonely life, of being a divorced woman with children, struggling to make ends meet, without even a husband to share her life's walk with. Her children grow up, not nurtured at her knee, but as nearly strangers, on their own. I am completely disgusted by the feminist continually proclaiming this sad deterioration of women's lives as "progress" or "gains".
Wouldn't you like to see, for example, average life expectancy for males increase?
The average male lives a good long life, into his seventies. A couple of more years of existences would in no way justify the destruction of our society, by the abandonment, or abortion, of our children.
After all, if society is able to enjoy the benefits of the resources which women bring to the table, we will all be better off, don't you think?
The thing that feminists like you do not understand, or choose to ignore, is that society itself would not exist if it were not for the resources that women have brought to the table all along! You wish to squander those resources on the masculine world of the workplace and remove them from the feminine world of the home. In the home the mother wraps her love around her children like no other on person on earth could possibly do. She will care and nurture those children, as they need. That is why the female mind and personality is so different from the male's, because they have nurtured children for thousands and thousand of years. No day care, or babysitter can replace that. The female resource of motherhood is irreplaceable. If you submit to me that women are better than men at business I would have to call you a liar, because even you know that is not true. If all women left the work place to never return, life would go on in the business world. There would be a bump as they reorganized, but it would not take long before you would think that things were always all-male in the work place. But something else would happen in our society that would be absolutely priceless. Suddenly our children would be loved and cared for in a way that has not happened in 2 generations. You would see a renaissance in educational performance of those children. You would see a drop in crime and drugs. Children would once again learn to be respectful members of society. The world we live in would be radically changed for the better as we once again, as we did in the past, relish "the benefits of the resources which women bring to the table," and we would indeed all be better off for it.
Sorry for my "rant." Rock On.
No reason to apologize for ranting. I always
welcome the opportunity to point out the fallacies of those who wish to oppress