The Feminist Furor Has Finally Passed

[Peter]

... or so the optimists think...
Even if it were true there is a huge amount of wreckage to clear.

-----------------------------------------



by Nathan Tabor
The Feminist Furor Has Finally Passed
April 23, 2006 10:13 PM EST



After years of holding America a virtual hostage, old-fashioned radical feminism appears to be just about dead.

But don't take my word for it. No less a feminist authority than Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist who has never met a Bush--or Bush policy--that she's actually liked, has all but written feminism's obituary in her book, Are Men Necessary? Dowd notes that feminism "lasted for a nanosecond, but the backlash has lasted forty years."

I would take issue with that statement. Feminism has been thwarting America's growth and vitality for years--but, finally, a number of women are rejecting it for the silliness it is. Dowd writes, "It's the season of prim, stay-in-the-background First Lady Laura Bush, not assertive two-for-the-price-of-one First Lady Hillary. Where would you even lodge a feminist protest these days?"

The signs of the decay of feminism can be seen far beyond Pennsylvania Avenue. In cities across the U.S., women are chucking the corporate world and embracing Barney's world instead. They have found fulfillment where their grandmothers did--in the home, raising their children, offering love and support to their husbands. Many do not consider domestic work a drudgery--rather, they see it as a comforting alternative to the 24/7 career life.

But what has brought about this seismic shift in American life? Feminism may, in fact, be responsible. Young women have seen the fallout from feminism and, as a result, they want no part of it. Public opinion polls generally show that younger women flinch at the thought of being called "feminists." They may have been raised in the broken homes spawned by the nation's divorce culture, and they don't want their own children to suffer the fate that they did. In essence, they suffered parental loss early in their lives because their mothers were rarely home long enough to be a nurturing force. Instead of tugging on their mothers' apron strings, they were left to tug on the telephone cord that connected them to their working mothers' offices. They felt a distance from their mothers that no amount of therapy could adequately address.

In one noteworthy case, a poll commissioned by Faye Wattleton, former head of the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood, showed the generation gap which feminism caused. Wattleton asked women whether keeping abortion legal was a major concern, and they said "no." Years of Planned Parenthood's preaching about the alleged necessity of abortion-on-demand have failed to convince the younger generation, who realize that sisters, brothers, cousins, friends, and potential mates are missing because they were aborted by their misguided mothers. Younger women tend not to see abortion as a right--but rather as a profound wrong.

South Dakota's recent decision to ban virtually all abortions demonstrates that radical feminism's clarion call to kill the unborn is no longer being heeded. The U.S. Supreme Court--which has its share of pro-feminist holdovers--may still claim that abortion should be the law of the land, but elected representatives in South Dakota have proven that it doesn't have to be. Recent national public opinion polls also show quite clearly that Americans support legal abortion in only rare circumstances--in fact, most people believe it should be banned in 99 percent of all cases. Feminist icon Molly Yard, who was marching for abortion well into her golden years, must be turning over in her grave.

Young women simply don't relate to Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem, and the other "founding mothers" of the modern feminist movement. They see such women as out-of-touch, angry, and unfulfilled. They admire women who can keep a household together under trying circumstances. They may have iPods and Blackberries, but they still believe in the value of hearth and home.

And they definitely believe that men are necessary.

Copyright © 2006 by Nathan Tabor

[PaulGuelph]

Sounds like he doesn't really understand.

[Sir Percy]

Reminds me a bit of the devastation caused by the tsunami last year. Can you imagine a reporter beaming home pictures of the wrecked homes and dead, floating bodies saying, 'looks like the tsunami is over, we can all go home now'.

[Somebody else]

Feminism lasted a nanosecond - Mareen Dowd, talk about someone who doesn't get it.

The article sounds good, but there's too much going on that's feminist-driven to really believe it yet.

As for abortion - abortion is for IDIOTS and women too emotionally stunted to act responsibly [Disclaimer: exceptions being actual rape victims or situations where the pregnant woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy/birth]. There are ALL KINDS OF BIRTH CONTROL METHODS available. I think the younger adults are reflecting this attitude when they say abortion isn't a major concern. It shouldn't be a major concern.

[Fidelbogen]

Let us say that the ice on the frozen river has experienced the
*snap* of spring....

But the ice is still there, and it will be a while yet before the river flows freely once again. Still, we may go about our daily affairs to the enjoyable accompaniment of the dripping, melting and fissuring everywhere we look.



As for Maureen Dowd: She's a shitwit, and that 'nanosecond' remark
smacks of nothing so much as a rear-guard propaganda statement
-- a self-exonerating cover-your-ass retrospective feminist 'spin' upon
the historical record; an attempt to get first dibs on re-writing history
before the eventual victors claim that ancient privilege.

[Gerard Velthuis]

Good article. I liked it very much and I believe very much in it.
Though I don't think girls don't want to be associated with feminism anymore since they have grown up in broken homes (due to feminism) and they don't want their children to end up this way.
I simply say that (young) women of nowadays don't think or feel like these radical feminists think. They have other ideologies and simply want a good life and enjoy their lifes. They don't want to work 40+ hours a week, try and become a doctor, attorney or CEO, and aim for high-paying college degrees only.
Most women simply want to have a good life and enjoy their lifes. They are comfortable with a part-time job and being responsible for a family. They choose studies that they like, not that pay the highest.

Young women simply don't relate to Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem, and the other "founding mothers" of the modern feminist movement. They see such women as out-of-touch, angry, and unfulfilled.

Very true.

The problem is (radical) feminists are only a very small proportion of all women, and this might always be the case. Although their number could also decrease further, but I think radical feminists will always exist.
They are backed up with less and less support of "common" women but still they preach that they represent the wishes of every woman.
(just think about abortion, if so many women think wrong of it, while feminists are clearly pro-pro-pro abortion, how can they say they are still representing women??)
There will be a large gap between their ideas for women and the support they get from women. Eventually it should collapse, though I think this will take several decades. Also since ("ball-less") male politicians keep turning PC and pro-female, they might replace a proportion of feminists that would vanish in time.
It looks that nowadays it is not important anymore what women want, it is important what a small proportion of feminists want

[SIAM]

This article reflects my own experiences - I honestly don't know any feminists .  The women I know - their 'issues' are non-gender issues - the same issues men have:-

- getting a job they like
- how to enjoy their freetime
- what was on TV last night
- where to go on holiday
- etc

I don't hear them complaining about their gender, or how unfair it is to be a woman.  Feminism is a complete non-issue.

Feminism is of course alive in the media and the courtroom, and the debating rooms of the politicians.  And my own experiences don't, I realise, reflect the experiences of many here - especially the guys in education & large corporates.

[Sir Percy]

Don't cheer too soon. The wave has receded but the wreckage remains. The villages are swept away. The towns are in ruins. The people dispersed and dispossessed. There are graves full of dead. These voices of the orphaned children will not bring their parents back.

Our political and civil landscape is covered in mud. It will take 50 years to repair the damage to our legal system. If it ever does get repaired. The family may come together for the next generation but in a different form. The pain of men is tangible in these boards. The anger at women for deserting, betraying, deliberately dishonouring men. The recognition of so many generations of women feeding off men and taking advantage of men's nature and generosity. How many generations before men trust women again?

The tsunami (the real one) raised many voices of hope and sympathy but the promised money has flowed only sporadically and partially and many corrupt agencies have lived high on the hog while the dispossessed live still in tents. The same will be for men and women 'after' feminism. The politicians will live off it for several generations more, scrambling for the women's vote and lining their pockets with men's money.

The girls may have repudiated feminism, but the boys haven't cast it's dark lessons from their damaged hearts. The marriage 'strike' will continue for them. They will tell the girls to bugger off. The money will still flow to battered women's shelters full of cosy women all complaining that men don't care. Men won't care. They will opt out and leave for better places. The number of children born into single mother shacks will increase. The women will watch in dismay as the civilisation built by men, the Western flower, will shed its petals and die.

[dr e]

Well said Sir Percy.  Very well said.

[Sir Percy]

An analysis I have yet to see. Let Usher et all turn to this.

The effect of the twentieth century's wars on the human psyche.

One is used to reading and hearing of the long term effects of abuse in the early years. The mind, especially its deep, emotional components, the limbic system, the amygdala, the hippocampus, the various generators of hormonal reaction all develop physical responses to abuse that take many years to manifest. The First and Second world wars each had a profound effect, not just on economies and national borders - definers - but on peoples. The 'social brain' has been altered. Trust in institutions was lost. Fear of flying bombs was rapidly replaced by fears of nuclear devastation. Communism developed totally disguised from the intellectuals of western society. The intellectual capacity of the world was neutered. The best minds of a generation closed its eyes to avert seeing truth. Childhood became revered. Adulthood reviled. It was through all this that feminism raised its ugly fear-driven head. Fear is the most common driver worldwide today. And Anger at the 'masculine' institutions that failed to prevent such horrible wars, holocaust, genocide, mass destruction. The human psyche, developing well throught the last 400 years, growing, maturing to adulthood, becoming enlightened and sympathetic to the human condition, was thrust into a cauldron of fear, like a child hiding in a cupboard. The social reaction, given the conditions that have unfolded, is that of a small gibbering idiot, shivering  and cold, who does not trust but grabs the crusts it finds.

We have become a civilisation of fearful childish thieves. That, to my mind, is as honest and clear a definition of feminism we can see.

[dr e]

I like your take on things much better than Ushers.  I worry that by trying to connect feminism to wkkk it simply makes us look bad.  Not enough proof of that connection and without good solid evidence of the majority of feminism's leaders being involved in wkkk it simply looks skimpy and weak leaving the author to appear to be a simple conspiracy theory monger.  That's not the place that we need to be. Feminism is bad enough that we can offer logic and evidence to indict them in a convincing manner.  Trying to connect them with the wkkk seems anemic and disjointed to me and very difficult to prove.

[zarby]

The girls may have repudiated feminism, but the boys haven't cast it's dark lessons from their damaged hearts. The marriage 'strike' will continue for them.

The girls may really mean what they say but their words are no protection to boys. Iy  think most girls are "traditional" at the formation of a marriage. They want traditional ceremonies. They mostly take their husbands' names. They probably speak almost alway of "until death do us part," etc. There is probably little talk about feminist type things. Part of this is completely honest. They usually want a traditional relationship at the beginning. I know a few make feminist statements near the beginning like hyphenated names and what not but I think most don't. However, by the time these women divorce they  are spouting feminist stuff regularly, etc. Regardless of what they say, they invoke the feminist stuff.

The point is that if I was a young man and my girlfriend stated something like "I don't believe in feminism I strive to be a tradtional wife, etc. I don't think I would be very reassured. I don't think it would make me feel safe.

I have had discussions with many women recently concerning my beliefs on thse topics. They almost to the last one say "not all women are like that." However, I observe these women and they end up "being like that."

[Sir Percy]

Right. People change. It is a natural truth. Nothing remains still for long. The words of most women in the first flush are designed to generate closeness and harmony. As indeed most men's words at that time. But things change.

The boys who are eschewing marriage will settle down too, in all likelihood, with a 'lovely, gentle, feminine' girl who makes reassuring noises. Foreign women perhaps. They will be sucked in - and later spat out, recalling the warnings previously ignored. These boys will be as mad as all hell, poor, dispossessed, nothing left to lose and with a lot less self-control exhibited by our generation.

There is a dearth of perserverence in our society. A lack of that moral courage that is needed to overcome the difficult times in relationships. We do not seek the way forward, upward, the difficult path of joint-growth through loving experience. Change through adversity. There is no 'Per ardua ad Astra' in our femosociety. We are encouraged instead to seek advice from charlatans who have been educated, brainwashed, in femospeak 101. Relationships as defined solely by women are frankly doomed to failure. And make no mistake, it is women who do the defining, followed by the change of mind - a woman's perogative - and the whineing.

[Fidelbogen]

I worry that by trying to connect feminism to wkkk it simply makes us look bad.  Not enough proof of that connection and without good solid evidence of the majority of feminism's leaders being involved in wkkk it simply looks skimpy and weak leaving the author to appear to be a simple conspiracy theory monger.  ......  Trying to connect them with the wkkk seems anemic and disjointed to me and very difficult to prove.

Agreed, that when a Grand Poobah of the Movement (like Usher) proclaims such things ex cathedra, it is problematic for the image of the movement at large. It will likely then come to be seen as an official article of doctrine.

Nevertheless, the mere fact that the WKKK connection appears as a marginally verified tissue of speculation does not altogether deprive it of utility. The information, even as speculation, ought to be spread around as a kind of background radiation; a buzz point, a murmuring point.

Anything to plant a seed of doubt, or merely generate a wholesome skepticism, in people's minds. Anything to spark widespread discussion, leading toward further discussion in related areas. Anything to inspire researchers who just might uncover the full extent of the story....

But guys like Usher would be wiser not to stand up in their bully pulpit and talk about it. The smart plan is to spread the word through back channels...

[whome112]

I'm not so sure here.

Feminist man-haters have immense power and will for quite a few years. That said, their back has been broken, they're loosing the battle. It'll take a century or more, but the moderates will win.

Look at the small c conservative women: They're the hope for a reasonable gender solution. More and more these women preach a solution based on care and concern for all people. For the most part they are being fought and supported at the same rate. This will change, the support will grow.

Look at the fathers rights groups. They're still small, but clearly growing in numbers and power. The opposition is at present much more powerful. Yet, the legislators are listening to the fathers groups. That will grow. The fathers groups will start to push the man haters out.

First world female narcissism is still growing. That is going to cause problems in unpredictable ways.

A big concern is the risk of the men-at-the-bottom. They are in bad shape and getting worse fast. The street gangs are in cahoots with the terrorists now as well as with organized crime. The power of the man-at-the-bottom is growing and growing in dangerous ways.

Add in the great gap between the left and the right and we can see that there are multiple problems and multiple pressures. Where it will go is anyone's guess.

whome