Tweet
I've noticed a curious pattern among feminists. It so happens that there are a number of boards I frequent, and if it so happens that you disagree with one of these feminists on anything, they then fall into a pattern very similar to the one I've outlined below:
Statement: Housewives are better than working women.
Feminist Response: This is rank prejudice against women. By creating such cultural pressure, you deny them equal economic opportunity. You MCP!
S: Working women are better than housewives.
FR: This is a devaluation of the contribution of the invisible but extremely vital mass of women to society. And you say that only because the working women has fit into the masculine ideal - has submitted herself and her image of herself to the patriarchy. You MCP!
S: Housewives should be accorded the same respect as working women.
FR: This is a subtle way of trying to keep women from becoming economically independent, and of keeping them subservient to the patriarchy, by denying the importance of economic independence. You MCP!
S: Men and women are equal.
FR: This is an attempt to erase the essential differences between the multiple genders, and to fit them into a duality without acknowledging the specifics of both, and of denying women their due by claiming equality. Equality under a patriarchal system is not equality at all. You MCP!
S: Men and women are not equal, but complementary.
FR: This is a way to bring back old prejudices, by saying that men and women are separate but equal. You MCP!
S: Men and women are not equal, and women are inferior.
FR: (Doesn't say anything, because of incoherent rage. The words male, chauvinist, pig, and "will roast you over a spit" may be heard as in the occasional periods of lucidity.)
S: Men and women are not equal, and women are superior.
FR: This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. By claiming that women are superior, and then claiming they are superior because of certain attributes, you create a cultural pressure or tendency to amplify those attributes, thereby making women subservient to your vision of the world. You MCP!
S: Men and women should be granted equal opportunity.
FR: Equal opportunity to participate in this fascist patriarchy! Pah! Who wants that? By offering this, you enslave women to the patriarchal norms and society. You MCP!
S: Men and women should not be granted equal opportunity - women should be granted less.
FR: (Similar incoherent rage.)
S: Men and women should not be granted equal opportunity - women should be granted more.
FR: This grant of privilege is perverse, as it assumes that women are inferior and weaker, and cannot compete on an equal footing with men. Do not patronise us. You MCP!
The examples can be multiplied manifold, but the ones given above should suffice to prove the point - that no matter what is actually said, it will be taken to be some sort of insidious attack on women in general, and that one woman in particular. And the more common-sense would suggest that it isn't an attack, the more insidious the "attack" will be made to seem, the more convoluted and devious, because surely, only the most devious and cunning person could have hidden it so carefully, no?
Reminds me of an old joke:
If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Statement: Housewives are better than working women.
Feminist Response: This is rank prejudice against women. By creating such cultural pressure, you deny them equal economic opportunity. You MCP!
S: Working women are better than housewives.
FR: This is a devaluation of the contribution of the invisible but extremely vital mass of women to society. And you say that only because the working women has fit into the masculine ideal - has submitted herself and her image of herself to the patriarchy. You MCP!
S: Housewives should be accorded the same respect as working women.
FR: This is a subtle way of trying to keep women from becoming economically independent, and of keeping them subservient to the patriarchy, by denying the importance of economic independence. You MCP!
S: Men and women are equal.
FR: This is an attempt to erase the essential differences between the multiple genders, and to fit them into a duality without acknowledging the specifics of both, and of denying women their due by claiming equality. Equality under a patriarchal system is not equality at all. You MCP!
S: Men and women are not equal, but complementary.
FR: This is a way to bring back old prejudices, by saying that men and women are separate but equal. You MCP!
S: Men and women are not equal, and women are inferior.
FR: (Doesn't say anything, because of incoherent rage. The words male, chauvinist, pig, and "will roast you over a spit" may be heard as in the occasional periods of lucidity.)
S: Men and women are not equal, and women are superior.
FR: This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. By claiming that women are superior, and then claiming they are superior because of certain attributes, you create a cultural pressure or tendency to amplify those attributes, thereby making women subservient to your vision of the world. You MCP!
S: Men and women should be granted equal opportunity.
FR: Equal opportunity to participate in this fascist patriarchy! Pah! Who wants that? By offering this, you enslave women to the patriarchal norms and society. You MCP!
S: Men and women should not be granted equal opportunity - women should be granted less.
FR: (Similar incoherent rage.)
S: Men and women should not be granted equal opportunity - women should be granted more.
FR: This grant of privilege is perverse, as it assumes that women are inferior and weaker, and cannot compete on an equal footing with men. Do not patronise us. You MCP!
The examples can be multiplied manifold, but the ones given above should suffice to prove the point - that no matter what is actually said, it will be taken to be some sort of insidious attack on women in general, and that one woman in particular. And the more common-sense would suggest that it isn't an attack, the more insidious the "attack" will be made to seem, the more convoluted and devious, because surely, only the most devious and cunning person could have hidden it so carefully, no?
Reminds me of an old joke:
If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Comment